I don’t understand what Steven Landsburg is supposed to be saying here. By his own admission, the position Gore advances is in line with the Stern Review. But Stern showed his work, with a few hundred pages on discount rates and risk assessments, and Gore just made a movie that got seen by tens of millions of people, so Gore is some kind of buffoon and Stern should have gotten the Nobel? That doesn’t make any sense. Why should the technical language of economics be the only legitimate way to grapple with climate change? Why not approach it in the language of culture or biology or meteorology or ecology or ethics or myth?
