TCS Daily

Gore Dodges Repeated Calls to Debate Global Warming

By Bonner R. Cohen - September 28, 2007 12:00 AM

As over 150 heads of state and government gather at UN headquarters in New York to discuss climate change, former Vice President Al Gore, the most prominent proponent of the theory of the human-induced, catastrophic global warming, continues to refuse repeated challenges to debate the issue.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who addressed the General Assembly on climate change September 24, is but the latest global warming skeptic to receive the cold shoulder from Gore. In ads appearing in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times, Klaus has called on Gore to face him in a one-on-one debate on the proposition: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." Earlier in the year, similar challenges to Gore were issued by Dennis Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. All calls on the former vice president to face his critics have fallen on deaf ears.

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free-market think tank, launched the debate campaign in April, using ads, press releases, and other tactics to prod Gore into confronting those who reject his alarmist views on global warming.

For his part, President Klaus has not minced words on what he sees as the real agenda of those promoting climate hysteria. In an op-ed in the Financial Times (June 13, pointedly titled "Freedom, Not Climate, is at Risk," Klaus said: "Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives." Arguing that the issue of global warming "is more about social than about natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature," Klaus rejected the notion of a "scientific consensus" on climate change as an effort by a "loud minority" to impose its will on a "silent majority."

However, Klaus reserved his unkindest cut of all for the movement that has joined forces with Gore is spreading fear about global warming:

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."

Gore's refusal to take on the likes of Klaus, Avery and Lord Monckton is no isolated incident of the former vice president's lacking the courage of his convictions. In June, Professor Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania urged Gore to put his global warming money where his mouth is. Armstrong, one of the world's leading experts on forecasting, has studied the forecasts made by Gore and such organizations as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and found their methodology wanting.

Convinced that Gore and the IPCC are overstating how much temperatures will rise in the years to come, Armstrong has challenged Gore to the following wager: Each man bets $10,000 on how much temperatures will go up in the next ten years. The money will stay in escrow until 2017. The one whose forecast come closer to the actual change in temperature will be declared the winner and be allowed to donate the $20,000 plus accumulated interest to the charity of his choice. But despite being flush with cash from his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," and from lucrative speaking engagements around the world, Gore has not taken Armstrong up on the bet.

Gore's reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the - from the standpoint of climate change alarmists - unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a "crisis." At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.

Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and author of "The Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences, published by the Capital Research Center.



Dodging on Big Fat Lie
Maybe he avoids debate because he will get sliced and diced.

Global Warming is all about taxes and government control.

I especially like the part about losing the deduction on homes over 4000 sq ft. Screw those rich people wjo might have more than one kid.

Hansen gets $720K from Soros but he is unbiased, right? Evil Bush is silencing debate. Off to the camps...

I pose the question; If Global Wrming is such a threat then how come only the hard left is pushing it and why are all the ideas huge tax increases?

If you read Dingalberry you see he wants the money to go to social programs and hiways.

Well who needs new Hiways if cars are the culprit? As to social spending, how does this combat warming? It is all a hoax designed to part us with our money and freedom so the left is empowered forever.

It is a paradox. Liberals take away Freedom and call it Freedom.

How can so many be so dumb?

Faith-based science
Why on earth would Al Gore want to get involved in the kind of endless, and pointless, argumentation the anti-GW zealots have in store for him? Wouldn't accepting such an offer just give credence to their cause?

An essential for productive debate-- or any other pastime-- is that both sides play by the same rules, and with the same object in mind. To have one side engaging in good faith in a scientific debate, while the other merely deploys its deceptive dialectic in laying traps for the unwary, is to fundamentally skew the idea of joining into a mutual search for truth.

The debate compares to that over whether the earth is flat or curved. One side accepts the obvious-- that all available evidence points toward curvature. The other side draws one into ever more elaborate complexities until confusion reigns, and the perplexed outsider has no idea what's right and what's wrong. Then they stand a good chance of converting the heathen to their cause.

Currently not quite seven percent of the American public has converted to this view (AP-Stanford poll, conducted Sept. 21-23), and is adamant that global warming is NOT occurring-- or if it is, that it is NOT caused by man-- or if it is, that it does NOT matter. The goal posts keep moving in this endless rearguard action to confuse the public. Only another seven percent among us feel the issue is even in question.

The rest of us accept that the same science that brings us our medicine and our useful technology generally gets things right. And that in melting with such increasing rapidity, the world's glaciers are all trying to tell us something.

I like your phrase 'confusion reigns'. If so, it means this topic is still controversial. No one would say confusion reigns over the speed of light, or that E=MC2. If you make what you claim is a scientific point, the onus is on you to prove it. Noboby made bets against Einstein about his theories, nor do they say that the consensus of opinion is that it is correct. All this crappy talk is more the stuff of politics and the hidden agenda of the 'reds turned greens'.

"ambitious environmentalism"
Global warming is not a hoax. It is natural phenomenon. Earth has been warming for 13,000 years now. This is our good fortune.

Gore will not debate because he is no expert on climate science and would be revealed as a hypocrite and fraud. McPhee said that "Exaggeration is the weapon of the environmentalist." and this is most apparent in this issue. I just heard that the next meeting of alarmists will occur in Bali. I lived in Bali for a short time in 1974-75 and I am firmly opposed to the idea of thousands of poo-bahs and their sycophants and servants descending on that paradise simply to soothe each other with exaggerated concerns and hyperbolic language, while enjoying being pampered in paradise on someone else's dime or pfenning. Why don't they do this in Providenya or Nome?

'confusion reigns" because it is deliberately created by interested parties
who have an iinterest in suppressing the fact that the scientists agree.

anyone gets to debate the science, or lack of it, behind AGW alarmism, a majority of the witnesses always end up seeing such alarmism for what it is: a scam.

That is the reason AGW alarmists have to stifle and/or ignore debate and instead rely on demonization, lies, and manipulated data.

AGW is unraveling folks. Just as I said it would. Science is beginning to trump the hype.

I may be Tezcatlipoca but I used to be Tlaloc. Just want to make sure everyone knows I am not pulling an Eric.

Gore won't debate because he knows he will lose.
Gore won't debate because he knows he will lose.

The so-called "science" that is used to predict catastrophic humanmade global warming is incorrect, and often fraudulent.

The current slight global warming is mostly natural and cyclical, not humanmade, and will soon be followed by a natural cooling cycle, which might be quite severe.

The Kyoto Protocol is a massive waste of scarce global resources that should be devoted to real problems, not imaginary ones.

Regards, Allan

The merry junketeers
"I am firmly opposed to the idea of thousands of poo-bahs and their sycophants and servants descending on that paradise simply to soothe each other with exaggerated concerns and hyperbolic language, while enjoying being pampered in paradise on someone else's dime or pfenning. Why don't they do this in Providenya or Nome?"

Hmm, let's see... Nome or Bali? Which would Ted Stevens choose?

Junkets are normally located where the junketeers can relax in a convivial atmosphere, with party drinks available at poolside. This is a rule whether they are put there at the public's expense (DC, for instance, convened its conference on good government in the Bahamas, not Winnipeg) or through the support of earnest young enviros, handing over their hard-won earth dollars.

There are deadlier barbs you could throw at them. But please, in sharpening those barbs, recognize that (a) the earth is growing rapidly warmer, and the curve has changed greatly in recent years from its 11,000 year trajectory, (b) the degree of change comports quite nicely with the predictions, and that (c) those predictions accomodate both "natural" and man-made climate inputs.

In other words, it does not appear that the entire construct that has been created to explain the issue is somehow totally in error. We are changing the earth's climate, said change has many grave and negative aspects, and no one wants to go through the pain that will be required to put it right again. On those points we should all agree.

interested parties
The only times confusion can reign is for sure when interested parties, usually for political reasons, try to subvert real science. Examples would be how the the nazzies tried to say there was a 'jewish' science; and the russians got side tracked on that crappy Lamarkianism stuff that help them back a few decades in that field. Another present day example is how left wingers are trying to dupe people on the science of GW, for their own special interests too. I hope that real science will also prevail this time again, against the junk science of my examples above. Even the IPCC is a self selected special interest group trying to push their own agenda. My profecy; they also wont' take up the bet.

Chicken Little
The concept of man being the cause of global warming is what is at issue. And thus the excuse to tax all forms of energy usage other than the non-sustainable "green" types of energy.

Those who wish to advance the man-as-the-cause grift are also the those who like the concept of big all powerful government that controls every aspect of one's life. So when they get on with their delivery of the talking points they fail to mention (perhaps it is because they are ignorant of it) other things affecting the global climate like the precession of the Earth's axis or energy output of the Sun for example.

The talking points, the very lives of those who are the "gurus" of the man-as-the-cause and the united-states-of-america-is-the-worst reminds me of the theme of an old movie called "Elmer Gantry", with the exception that this group of "Elmers" won't ever actually repent and will continue to be the grifters that they are, hoping to get what they want and spawning more green grifters. Those that buy into the grift are just another dupe to be fleeced. And the fleecing happens because the dupes of this grift have bought into the concept on faith alone.

As opposed to GW zealots?
So because one side does not believe in GW they are being deceptive?

Hansen taking 720K from Soros to banter his views however is not deceptive. Nooo, the left has only the highest standards?

Read about the taxes proposed
Dingel proposed huge taxes to combat this. I guess tanking the economy for power is a worthy goal if your a Gore type?

Tell me Roy, what is the "ideal climate"?
IN 1971 it was another ice age.

The pain? The only solutions I see are huge tax increases and massive government control over our pitiful lives.

It is interesting how the opinions follow ideology on this subject.

If a astroid was striking the earth then ideology is moot. Why here is ideology such a issue? Perhaps because the left is the proponents and all the solutions are socialist in nature?

Given you love of state I am not surprised.

Every last one
Yup, every last scientist on earth agrees and those dissenters, well they are fools owned by big oil right?

Hansen though is a unbiased source right?

Or is it that every scientist you agree with agrees?

That's right,
those button sewers and bottle washers that you follow zombie-like without doing a damned bit of reading (because you are demonstrably illiterate in the sciences) do indeed have a hidden agenda which makes them very interested in suppressing the evidence that the honest scientists agree on--which is that they don't agree with MMGW.

Very good. Here's a lollie for you to suck on.

Wouldn't accepting such an offer just give credence to their cause?
This is a typical dodge when someone want to suppress opposition. If the opposition is so inane or deceptive, then a good debate will bring it out and discredit it. To resort to a phrase such as

"Wouldn't accepting such an offer just give credence to their cause?"

is a sign of weakness. Just as it is the frequent appeal to "consensus science."

I get a kick out of the claim the GW proponents are the ones arguing in good faith and the other side is all shadows and mirrors. Bringing in the flat earth analogies is also typical of a weak argument. I am surprised you didn't bring up comparisons to "as proven as gravity" is or that maybe the sun revolves around the earth crowd is the anti GW crowd in disguise or were you saving them for later. Also the moving "goal posts" is a useful cliché when things get tough. Or that the implication that the anti GW may not accept the science of medicine or technology and that anti-GW's are a bunch ignorant boobs.

Surf the internet to find some more lame analogies and in the mean time let's have the debate. After all Al is running for the Nobel Peace Prize and a slam dunk debunking of the anti-GW's would seal it for him.

Amen, Allan
Kudos to you.

A very accurate portrayal of the Green method
>"Why on earth would Al Gore want to get involved in the kind of endless, and pointless, argumentation the anti-GW zealots have in store for him?"

So anyone who is a AGW skeptic is a "zealot"? My, what a word to use when you state this:

>"To have one side engaging in good faith in a scientific debate, while the other merely deploys its deceptive dialectic in laying traps for the unwary, is to fundamentally skew the idea of joining into a mutual search for truth."

When you immediately brand a AGW skeptic as a zealot does that show "good faith"? Does that have any bearing on scientific fact? Who is the zealot here?

>"The debate compares to that over whether the earth is flat or curved."

Um, no.

The debate compares computer models that predict incredible doomsday scenarios to what is actually occurring in the real world. Could you please tell me how many of these predictions are coming to pass? Take a brief look at the increased hurricane activity... oh wait, that was way off. Maybe we could look at the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on... wait, no it wasn't.

Talk about moving goal posts. I find it amazing that we are told to fundamentally change our lives, by handing them over to our government, and destroy our economy based on computer models that can't mimic conditions in the past much less the 50 years in the future.

>"The other side draws one into ever more elaborate complexities until confusion reigns, and the perplexed outsider has no idea what's right and what's wrong. Then they stand a good chance of converting the heathen to their cause."

Ah, the Joe Sixpack argument. Yes, truly only the most uneducated person would be a AGW skeptic. When people do not buy into a unproven theory based on flawed models and the concept of concensus it is safe to say that are just stupid.

>"The rest of us accept that the same science that brings us our medicine and our useful technology generally gets things right."

Medicine and useful technology do not work based on concensus and models. It can be proven to work based on actual scientific principles that can be repeated and measured. AGW alarmism has proven nothing in such a concrete fashion. To believe it has is to be woefully ignorant of how science really works.

>"And that in melting with such increasing rapidity, the world's glaciers are all trying to tell us something."

It is always interesting the amount of anthropomorphism practiced by supposed environmentalists.

So if these glaciers are talking, what they really saying? That the use of local water sources has changed? That we are still in the stages of coming out of the last Ice Age? Perhaps you are listening only to the ones that tell you what you want to hear.

I wonder what the glaciers that are actually growing would tell you.

So much effort and money are being wasted on this issue when nothing has been proven except the tendency of people to make incredible amounts of cash by scaring people.

Why debate Gore?
First, Gore is not a climate scientist. He's a politician and public speaker. People who want to debate Gore are hoping to score talking points. They don't give a damn about the science. Gore is quite correct in refusing to debate.

If you want to challenge the science, do it as a scientist. Scientists debate in a fashion, but they do it with research and data.

Haven't you heard?
This issue has been decided. There's no more debate to be had. All there is left now to do is decide how much to raise your taxes to fix it!

By the way, there's also no more debating allowed on the subjects of illegal immigration (breaking the law is okay, as long as you're just trying to make a better life for yourself), socialized medicine (health care should be free, no matter how much it costs or many people have to die), and the battle in Iraq (it's lost, our troops are raping, pillaging scum and those ignorant Arabs don't want democracy anyway).

But why...
let the figurehead, the one who claims to be the herald of the coming apocalypse, continue to spew his propaganda? People believe that he is telling the truth when he is merely spreading disinformation.

Scientists ARE challenging the science. It is Gore and his ilk who make them out to be akin to holocaust deniers and flat-earthers.

AGW alarmists have rallied behind Gore. The fact that their poster boy is afraid of honest debate is telling.

there is no science behind the catastrophic global warming scares
only a handfull of computer models.
Models that can't predict current climate when give historic and current data.
But somehow they are able to over come this handicap in order to predict future climates.

I agree completely, AGW is faith based, it certainly isn't based on any science.
If roy had aimed his invective at his side, he would have been 100% correct.

I agree completely
The scientists are hugely in agreement that CO2 is not a major factor in climate change.

The people who push the AGW scare stories have an interest in growing the power and reach of govt. and ensuring that their salaries keep getting paid.

not quite
the definition of scientist, is one who agrees with eric. The others are just shills.

mobile goal posts
How about constantly trumpeting that arctic ice is at it's lowest levels since the start of satellite observation (only 30 years, less than 1/2th PDO cycle), but completely ignoring the fact that Antarctic ice levels are setting records.

I suppose when this switches (when the PDO and AO switch), their rhetoric will also switch. Antarctic is important, ignore the Arctic.

The world's glaciers aren't telling us anything.

Some are advancing.
Some are retreating.
Some aren't doing much of anything.

Of those that are retreating, some are retreating because it's gotten warmer, some are retreating because precipitation has decreased.

Regarding retreating glaciers.
Retreating glaciers in the alps have recently uncovered roman era mines. Which shows that it was as warm, if not warmer during the roman era.

more inaccuracies
where do you get this stuff roy?

The rate at which the earth has been warming has not accelerated. It's been warming at about half a degree C per century since the end of the little ice age.

Hansen and ice ages
I recently read a paper by Hansen, dated from the late 70's, in which he predicted that our chances of avoiding the next ice age had already run out.

IPCC panelist explains how the IPCC spins it's data

Yet eric still claims that each and every one of the scientists who's work was included in the IPCC report, agrees completely with the report.

Yet another study that finds that CO2 is not a major player in climate change

Scientist finds that there is no unusual warmth in the 20th century
Burger revisited the famous Osborn, Biffra study, and finds that they used invalid statistical techniques to arrive at their conclusions.

Using proper techniques, the warmth of the 20th century appears to be in line with previous centuries.

The nonexistant consensus continues to crumble

Don't ask (don't tell)
Please don’t ask the consummate hypocrite to jeopardize his income which he generates with his global control of the people answers because he needs that income to offset his excessive use of electricity and fuel. Gore has a serious problem on his hands IF he tries to go into a no hands barred debate because there are real scientists who will put their grants (and therefore their career and institution) on the line and show just how little mankind can do about global warming. In the scientific community knowledge of the “global warming” being experienced by other planets in our solar system testifies to the fact that (in spite of efforts to suppress the information) the CME’s and EMP’s from the sun have exceeded all recorded records. The common man can get an indication of the sun’s “hyper” activity by looking at the solar index (sunburn index) of UV emissions.

Sure. It's all a big conspiracy. All the scientific organizations are covering up
And the earth is flat, but they're covering that up too.

You're wrong
you don't know the first damn thing about the science involved, but you're sure that all the major scienfitic organizaitons in the world are wrong and you're right. Let me send you some Nigerian email that can be a big moneymaker for you.

Not every last one, but the swamping majority
As evidenced by the statements of all the major scientific organizations, led by the NAS and AGU. But why listen to the experts?

You should tell the NAS, troll. what do they know?
Where could they possibly have gotten an idea different from yours?

With 1/3rd surveyed, 87% of US weather stations fail NOAA's guidelines

You heard that right, only 13% of the stations surveyed to date live up to the standards set by NOAA. Of the 5 levels, only 4% make it to the highest standard.

The scary thing is, the experts all acknowledge that the US has the best network in the world.

So much for the claim that the temperature data was based on a high quality network.

I don't know why political hacks would have opinions that differ from mine?
why does it matter?

Of course eric is lying about what NAS has stated, but that's par for the course.

I've read the studies, and studied the science
you've read a couple of newspaper articles that you don't even understand fully.

Don't confuse people with facts
Their minds are made up!

Ain't that the truth
No matter how much you show him the difference between his opinion and the NAS statements, he either insisted he his right or that you never proved his position was not the same as his beloved NAS.

He is truely a basement dwelling fungus.

You can only use satalite temp anyway.

Are you ok dude? Is your alunimium hat on straight?

How could it be...
when it represents only .03% of the earth's atmosphere?

Going through that whole discussion on that siteis both laborious and tiresome BUT
When one finally gets down to the ocean temperature graphs, There is a very interesting trend. At one time we were allowed to follow the ocean thermography, but we have now been shut out of the site. Using the thermodynamical trends we were able to rather accurately predict seismic activity because regions with rapidly changing (amongst other characteristics) temperature patterns indicated plate and volcanic activity. The effect of CME's on the ocean were easily seen. The site no longer carries these maps. The maps which replaced them are of little or no value for our studies. We were told that it was for "Nationals Security".
National Security or other political purposes?

Debating Global Climate Change
We sure do need a good open public debate on this subject. But I don't think that the dbate should be AlGore vs. anybody-on-the-other-side. What we need is a discussion/debate among some scientists whose expertise is in the weather and climate related disciplines and supporting subjects. I have seen too much credible presentations of other han man-made likely causes and effects of rapid Global Climate change to consider thisa dead issue. The most distressing aspect is "What if the Global Warming Alarmists" are wrong about the long term trend? What if all this heating up is a prelude to a sudden cooling down in to another Glacial period? What if we need to keep pumping the non-toxic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to lessen if not arrest a rapid colling spiril down into another long glacial period?
The current "debate" doesn't work for me - there's little to no consensus on what the facts are ... such things as "How much co2 ppm in the atmosphere is needed to impact temperature increses for how long?"
AlGore should attend such debate as audience, but should defintely not be a spokesman for his side of the question.

No kidding - LOL
I'm an NWS/NOAA observer and I have a newer station. The equipment I have is solid, but we are talking 1 degree F and all their observations are record only to the nearest degree. I could go into all the inconsistancies, but what is the point.

TCS Daily Archives