Al Gore: Scared to debate climate change

TheDanold

Unimatrix
If the science on human involvement is so certain, why is Gore so afraid to debate it even with his choice of people to debate?
Even the New York Times spanked Gore on the exxagerations and inaccuracies in his movie.


"Seven hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend to try to get someone to talk to you and not get an answer.

That's how much the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based libertarian think tank, has forked over in six months for advertisements in national newspapers trying to persuade Al Gore to debate one of its experts on global warming issues. "We have tried, repeatedly, to contact Gore directly, with registered letters and calls to his office, and have never received a reply," says Joseph Bast, Heartland president.

A spokeswoman for Gore told me by e-mail that Heartland is an oil-company-funded group that denies that global warming is real and caused by human activities.

"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time."

The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S. and world economies.

One of the Heartland experts is Dennis Avery, an economist, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and co-author, with Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. As you might guess from that title, Avery sees global warming as a natural phenomenon in which "there may be a human factor but if so it's small." He describes the warming as "moderate" and says there's been no warming since 1998. "Where's the crisis?"

When you talk with Avery, he cites numbers on carbon dioxide and temperature change and dates of previous warming periods, such as during Roman and medieval times. A layman like me soon finds himself in deep water, and you know someone on the other side of the issue will cite other sources, such as a U.N. panel on climate change that says most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely due to greenhouse gases.

But the point is that Gore and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth" aren't the last word. In March, the New York Times reported that while they praise Gore for raising awareness about warming, a number of scientists see exaggerations and errors in some of his assertions. "They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism," the Times wrote. For example, Gore forecasts sea levels rising up to 20 feet, flooding parts of New York and Florida. But the U.N. panel's actual estimate is that seas will rise 7 to 23 inches in this century.

As for the Gore camp's statement about Exxon funding, Bast says those contributions are too little to control Heartland policy and amount to "far less than what Heartland spends speaking out on climate change."

The Heartland case is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum. Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark's largest newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn Lomborg, respected author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Gore's sermon is not one that will stand scrutiny," says Christopher C. Horner, another one of Heartland's debate candidates, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

Bast says the ad campaign will continue until March, costing a total of $1.2 million. But he won't get a debate from Gore. Still, Heartland's effort serves the worthy purpose to spotlighting the need for an informed discussion on the severity of global warming and how best to deal with it, by trying to halt it or adapt to it. Gore offers a worst-case scenario of unmitigated disaster. If he's wrong about rising sea levels, what else is he wrong about?"
http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/589551,CST-EDT-HUNT05.article
 
This is how Gore looks at it; the science is in. Debating whether or not it happens, would be debating whether or not the holocaust happened. Why give a holocaust denier any legitimacy whatsoever by debating him? You wouldn't.

The debate now, among responsible people, centers on what to do about it. The "global warming skeptics" belong with the flat earth society. Nobody cares. Sorry.
 
This is how Gore looks at it; the science is in. Debating whether or not it happens, would be debating whether or not the holocaust happened. Why give a holocaust denier any legitimacy whatsoever by debating him? You wouldn't.

The debate now, among responsible people, centers on what to do about it. The "global warming skeptics" belong with the flat earth society. Nobody cares. Sorry.

Exactly.

Even our dumbasfuck president has been forced to acknowledge it

Global warming deniers belong in the same toliet bowl as Saddam has WMD and Saddam was involved in 9/11 believers .. a group that I'm fairly certain the author of this thread belongs to.
 
Exactly.

Even our dumbasfuck president has been forced to acknowledge it

Global warming deniers belong in the same toliet bowl as Saddam has WMD and Saddam was involved in 9/11 believers .. a group that I'm fairly certain the author of this thread belongs to.

Yep, and it's so obvious that I don't understand what is hard to get.
 
Dano likes to trot this one out every once in awhile. It makes less & less sense each time he tries it.

Why would Gore waste valuable time on this? And how stupid are these guys to spend hundreds of thousands on it?
 
This is how Gore looks at it; the science is in. Debating whether or not it happens, would be debating whether or not the holocaust happened. Why give a holocaust denier any legitimacy whatsoever by debating him? You wouldn't.
That's sick, and you leftists wonder why more scientists don't speak up and express their scepticism or disagreement.
The thing is did Gore ever debate the science when it wasn't "in"? (and by "in", let's face it, the same voices have only gotten louder and more shrill, no new evidence has come in backing their assertions, rather most new evidence points to being sceptical).

The debate now, among responsible people, centers on what to do about it. The "global warming skeptics" belong with the flat earth society. Nobody cares. Sorry.
Actually they do, even the furthest leaning left-wing rag in the NYT for example. Also more and more ordinary people will read those advertisements and start asking: "Why doesn't Gore debate if he is so certain?"

You better start debating NOW because the emperor's clothes are coming "undone".
 
LOL

Actually the exact reverse is happening.

Live where ever you are happiest Dano, but I live in the reality based community and obviously Vice President Gore does as well.
 
"Also more and more ordinary people will read those advertisements and start asking: "Why doesn't Gore debate if he is so certain?""

Man, I almost spit out my coffee reading this.

No one cares about the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute & their vain attempt to try to "expose" Gore. Gore's full-time job right now is spreading awareness, which is already at a high level, and working toward solutions.

Only idiots (see: author of thread) think: "Wow - Gore is afraid to debate. Maybe the earth's climate isn't changing, after all!"
 
Exactly.

Even our dumbasfuck president has been forced to acknowledge it

Global warming deniers belong in the same toliet bowl as Saddam has WMD and Saddam was involved in 9/11 believers .. a group that I'm fairly certain the author of this thread belongs to.
So I should believe what Bush does? LOL
Look, Bush is a politician and just like the Dems did on WMD, he is giving in to presumed popular opinion of the day on the issue.
 
"Also more and more ordinary people will read those advertisements and start asking: "Why doesn't Gore debate if he is so certain?""

Man, I almost spit out my coffee reading this.

No one cares about the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute & their vain attempt to try to "expose" Gore. Gore's full-time job right now is spreading awareness, which is already at a high level, and working toward solutions.

Only idiots (see: author of thread) think: "Wow - Gore is afraid to debate. Maybe the earth's climate isn't changing, after all!"

I need to go get some coffee. I hope the cashier doesn't want to debate me on global warming. It's happening more and more now. I'm scared.
 
"Also more and more ordinary people will read those advertisements and start asking: "Why doesn't Gore debate if he is so certain?""

Man, I almost spit out my coffee reading this.

No one cares about the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute & their vain attempt to try to "expose" Gore. Gore's full-time job right now is spreading awareness, which is already at a high level, and working toward solutions.
Try reading this part:
"As for the Gore camp's statement about Exxon funding, Bast says those contributions are too little to control Heartland policy and amount to "far less than what Heartland spends speaking out on climate change.""

Do you not think that pro-human induced global warming orgs not get funding from green corps that stand to benefit from green subsidies.
Both should give some pause for belief but never be treated with outright dismissal.

Only idiots (see: author of thread) think: "Wow - Gore is afraid to debate. Maybe the earth's climate isn't changing, after all!"
Yes you would be an idiot for thinking that, considering I have spoken and the sceptics fully acknowledge that the climate is changing but dispute the human element.
As usual you proved you have a closed mind and read nothing that was posted.
 
Dano likes to trot this one out every once in awhile. It makes less & less sense each time he tries it.
LOL at trot this one out. It's called posting current news stupid.

More evidence you think everything posted is the same and read nothing.
 
LOL at trot this one out. It's called posting current news stupid.

More evidence you think everything posted is the same and read nothing.


You deny that you have posted that Gore is afraid to "debate" climate change previously?

I see you posted good ol' Dennis Avery up there again, too...man, do you love that nutjob.
 
You deny that you have posted that Gore is afraid to "debate" climate change previously?
I may have, probably I did, but these are NEW debates that he is afraid to take up. So IF I did that only strengthens my argument that Gore has been afraid to debate more and more people for more and more time.
Thanks.

I see you posted good ol' Dennis Avery up there again, too...man, do you love that nutjob.
If he's such a nutbag, should be a slam dunk for Gore to debate him. Also Gore had his choice of 3 people he could debate and chose none.
Plus he backed out of an interview with a sceptic in Denmark.

Face it, the man avoids debate at all costs for the same reason baloney rejects the grinder.
 
"I may have, probably I did, but these are NEW debates that he is afraid to take up. So IF I did that only strengthens my argument that Gore has been afraid to debate more and more people for more and more time."

Well, let me clarify for you: you HAVE, and it's an old, worn-out tactic for you. Climate change is in doubt because Gore is "afraid" to debate with every nutjob on the right (like this guy, who thinks that pesticide-laden food is better for you than organic) who challenges him, as though he has nothing better to do with his time.

Hey - I want to debate Avery! Do you think if I take out an ad he'll have a go at it?
 
So I should believe what Bush does? LOL
Look, Bush is a politician and just like the Dems did on WMD, he is giving in to presumed popular opinion of the day on the issue.

Too bad you didn't think about this when you fell for the WMD bullshit .. NOW he's just a politician.
 
Avery wrote a piece called "Saving the Planet with Pesticides & Plastic."

I'm just amazed that Gore won't debate someone like this...
 
Avery wrote a piece called "Saving the Planet with Pesticides & Plastic."

I'm just amazed that Gore won't debate someone like this...

That's unbelievable. Like that Stossel report. It's sad because there are dummies out there who might believe it, and some of them have children.
 
Avery wrote a piece called "Saving the Planet with Pesticides & Plastic."

I'm just amazed that Gore won't debate someone like this...
It's actually a book, it goes for $20 on Amazon.com...

It speaks of the ability to feed more people because of such things...

It looked fascinating, even if you don't agree with his conclusion.
 
Back
Top