Why Won’t Al Gore Debate Skeptics on Climate Change?
Posted by Enrique on 10.14.2009
Inconvenience yourself...
Last week, former Vice President and 2000 popular vote champion Al Gore gave a speech to open the Society of Environmental Journalists annual conference in Madison, Wisconsin. Not surprisingly, at the time of Gore's remarks the autumn temperatures in the Midwest could charitably be described as unseasonably cool. Gore said he expects the Senate to pass a bill mandating carbon reductions by the end of the year. Following his speech, Gore donned a caribou-fur parka and departed via dogsled.
One imagines public events featuring Mr. Gore to be fairly tedious, but reports indicate this one had a moment of genuine drama. Gore took a few questions from some of the assembled journalists, which he rarely does. As if to demonstrate why Gore doesn't do Q&A's, one person asked him a less-than-obsequious question about inaccuracies in Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth. When faced with an inconvenient question, Gore drew upon his experience as a career politician and activist and provided a measured, well-considered response. (Read: Gore dodged the question and made some insufferably smug remark about polar bears.)
The story so far...
For a man with such sterling credentials on the subject of climate change, Gore has repeatedly refused to have an open debate on the issue with prominent global warming skeptics. (He did earlier this year as well.) He also routinely declines to take questions from journalists at his public appearances. I would suggest it does his cause no good when he seems unwilling to offer a full-throated defense of his views in the face of skeptical inquiry. Even Michael Moore has appeared on Fox News.
In any case, during Gore's Q&A he was posed a really terrific question by a documentarian named Phelim McAleer (who is apparently very Irish). McAleer asked what Gore's view was of a British court ruling that found An Inconvenient Truth to contain nine factual errors. Gore responded by saying the court ultimately allowed his film to be shown in schools, so any alleged errors were immaterial. McAleer wasn't satisfied with Gore's answer, and the exchange bizarrely transformed into a disagreement over the endangered status of polar bears. Finally, McAleer's microphone was cut.
That's the executive version. Here's the movie version, if you're interested.
As the video indicates, McAleer isn't exactly fair and balanced. His IMDB page lists two films, the most recent of which is called Not Evil, Just Wrong, which bears the tagline, "The true cost of global warming hysteria." Here's the promo art:
I suppose I can see why Gore would be less than thrilled about dignifying the questions of someone who has exploited his image in this way. And Gore does have a point – the British court permitted schools to show An Inconvenient Truth to students as part of some politically correct climate change curriculum. But McAleer's claim that the court found the documentary to be misleading is also true:
Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.
In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.
These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.
On one hand, it's unfair to portray McAleer as a martyr for having his mic cut. As the video shows, there were other people who had questions, and McAleer had his chance to ask a tough question. Just because he was unsatisfied by Gore's answer doesn't entitle him to dominate the proceedings. That said, Gore had the opportunity to address the question of factual errors in his Academy Award-winning documentary, and he dodged. Certainly, it's the type of dodge we've come to expect from career politicians, but the fact remains Gore appears unwilling (or perhaps unable) to refute reasonable criticisms of his movie, and of the climate change policies he advocates.
To be sure, Gore is under no obligation to debate his critics. Popular opinion seems to be on his side that human-influenced climate change is a legitimate issue of concern. From his perspective, there's no upside in Gore providing global warming skeptics with a forum to attack him. Still, if climate change is such a vital issue, he shouldn't routinely decline to take questions from journalists at his public appearances.
I mentioned Michael Moore on Fox earlier, but a better example would be Christopher Hitchens during the U.S. book tour for his atheist bestseller, "God Is Not Great." Hitchens intentionally routed his tour through Red State America, frequently engaging in public debates with believers. He was even the star attraction at a Christian book expo in Dallas earlier this year. Since atheism is considerably less popular in America than environmentalism, Hitchens' proactive attitude about engaging his critics demonstrates a great deal more spine than Gore's pious demurrals.
The time for debate is never over, especially on a matter of such importance as climate change. While Gore and his fellow travelers argue in favor of government-mandated reductions are carbon emissions, they frequently underplay the costs. It's a fact that carbon emissions are a byproduct of economic growth, and forced reductions will have significant consequences to a population's financial health. Gore should be able to make a convincing case that economic stagnation is a worthy price to pay for the possibility of lowering global temperatures by a few degrees several decades from now. A one-sided, hyperbolic documentary is inadequate, no matter how many awards it wins.
Last week, the reliably progressive BBC featured an article entitled "What happened to global warming?", which noted global temperatures have not increased for over a decade. Speaking as a resident of Wisconsin, I can assure you some global warming would be greatly appreciated right about now. For Al Gore, there should be no better time than the present to debate his critics. If there's a compelling reason to prolong the current economic recession in the name of protecting polar bears, I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. Persuade us.
The issue needs to be debated, but the Global Warming crowd treats their beliefs like a Faith, something that cannot and should not be questioned. Even if you believe that global warming is happening, there is a whole chain of questions that need to be asked:
Is it happening?
If so, is that bad?
If so, is human activity a significant cause to it? I can pee in the ocean, but that doesn't mean dolphins will smell like urine.
If so, can we stop it? You can put a truck in neutral and push it down a hill, but that doesn't mean you can grab it in stop it.
And finally, if it can be stopped HOW do we do it?
The Green crowd has gotten some evidence to answer the first question and have jumped straight to the last.
And certain solutions are completely off the table. Nuclear power is viewed as Satan, but provides tons of clean energy at a low cost. Clean coal power is also poo poo'd.
Before we start taxing certain activities and implementing laws that alter our lives, we need to have some honest and OPEN discussion.
Posted By: Bemini (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 09:52 PM
I don't know. I've lived in South Florida all of my life. When I was a kid, the temperature on average hit no higher than 88 degrees. Now, during the summer, temperatures of 96 and above are not uncommon. So yes, I believe there is global warming. The temperature change in my mind is irrefutable. Now, are humans the sole cause of it? That I don't necessarily believe. Geological surveys show that the earth undergoes natural cycles of heating and cooling. Human beings do contribute, but to put the blame solely on our shoulders is intellectually dishonest.
Posted By: MydniteSon (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 09:53 PM
it's 45 damn degree's outside. I'mma hop on the New Ice Age train early. There's plenty of evidence it's man made to cause everyone is cutting back on bad emissions.
Posted By: Ice Age Believer (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 10:41 PM
Because he is a damn liar.....
Posted By: Mikel (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:19 PM
Seriously, we need to get past the question of "Is this man-made?" It's irrelevant. What's relevant is the question, "Can we stop or slow it, and if so, how?"
I mean, I know I'm in Orlando, it's hotter than a lot of places by default -- but I've been here six years and this is the first time I remember *needing* the A/C this far into October. So trust me, it's happening in one way or another. And any scientist who says otherwise had better come up with a REAL convincing argument to the contrary for me to listen to it. But like I said, IF it's 'really' happening isn't relevant., nor WHY it's happening, unless it answers HOW can we slow or stop it?
Posted By: MadmanJack (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Gore vs. Hitchens
Gore delivers lectures. Hitchens antagonizes hostile audiences under the guise of debate. They're both out to inflate their own egos, but Hitchens' method is more in line with today's sensationalistic media which is probably why you probably think it makes more sense. Arguing senselessly with someone isn't debate; it's just wasted energy.
Posted By: Guest#4009 (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:35 PM
Sidebar: People also need to understand that the temp. doesn't always go up in every place on earth! Some place may/will/are getting colder. The long and the short of it is that weather patterns are changing...fast.
Posted By: guym (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:36 PM
To MydnoteSon re higher temperatures now we can only assume you must be very young or have a bad memory. The highest temperate in Miami was in 1940's. The average temperature hasn't changed much in sixty years. In January it was very cold if you can remember.
Your other assumptions are correct.
Posted By: Keith F (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:51 PM
It doesn't matter!
Even though I believe Global climate change is real, Its the Environment that is suffering on this entire planet. I wont go into that because most people know some of "whys" of this also, but the important thing is that the same remedies for global warming are the same remedies that will fix our planet in many other ways. It doesnt really matter
if one doesnt believe in global warming, just look at all the other disasters we have been inflicting on this planet, so get off your duff and do something positive!
Posted By: Steve Souza (Guest) on October 14, 2009 at 11:55 PM
You don't have to believe in global warming to believe in science. Science has provided us with a little thing called the greenhouse effect. For those who don't understand (of which there are many, apparently), the condensed version: the more carbon in the air, the less heat can escape. Cool? Cool.
You don't have to buy into Al Gore's hype to know that we produce an assload of carbon. So for people to say that it's impossible for humans to affect the environment, I would like to invite you to go read a book and please, PLEASE, educate yourself. More carbon = more heat. Humans produce more carbon than your mind can wrap itself around. You don't have to believe in global warming to believe in scientific fact.
Posted By: Talon (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:01 AM
First off I want to say right up front that I didnt read this article. I know literally nothing about what was said above. I am not posting this in an attempt to defend or refute what the author said. I seriously do not know.
I saw the article referred to in the teaser bar of this site (I generally stick to other areas of the site) and just wanted to pop over to say one thing. Forgive me, I know it isnt the proper etiquette on the internet but I did so anyway.
Today was October 14. I live in Orlando, Florida and the temperature was 90 degrees!!! Anyone over the age of 15 knows something is amiss at the Circle K. Al Gore may or may not have it right. There is a possibility no-one on the planet has it right. The simple fact remains, something is most definately NOT RIGHT.
It's time to leave left vs. right, blue vs. red, young vs. old, brother vs. brother, spy vs. spy, Cena vs. IWC, and everything else out of this.
Something is going wrong on planet Earth. Lets figure it out and fix it.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:10 AM
so you mean it's not getting hotter! how can this be happening China and India are throwing smoke up in the air faster the Gore fills his bank account off this scam.
Posted By: Guest#2948 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Considering the "hockey stick" got proven to be a fraud and the world temp. has actually gone down since 1998, I doubt he's willing to debate anyone. He won't even acknowledge the fact that the guy who introduced him to this crap admitted he was wrong before he died.
The other day some German moron said that the US needed to cut it's CO2 emmissions by 100% by like 2020. That tells you how idiotic this whole thing is.
Weather is cyclical and there isn't a damn thing any of us can do about it.
Also don't forget we're talking about something that makes up .03% of the atmosphere.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:54 AM
The greenhouse effect is mostly caused by water vapor, which holds a lot more heat than carbon dioxide. Oh, and without it we'd all freeze to death.
Posted By: Chris Connolly (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:59 AM
Whether Global Warming is man made or not, to me, is irrelevant. There are parts of the world where you can't see twenty feet in front of you because of smog, and there are countless rivers, streams, oceans and lakes that are full of man made pollution. Will cutting down on this stop or reverse the climate changes that have happened to planet Earth? Probably not. Will cutting down on these actions make the Earth a healthier place to live? Absolutley.
Posted By: Al Gore's cousin (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:00 AM
Al Gore's film can be viewed in Great Britain by school children but the British court ordered that it be labeled 'Propaganda'. Because that's all it is. A political 'the sky is falling' lie to support Cap and Trade. Climate is controlled by cyclical solar cycles. Thus the 'Ice Age', and other climate changes that have happened historically without any human contribution.
Posted By: Whoosy (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:54 AM
Sigh. If you want to have a meaningful discussion on global warming, it helps to at the very least understand the difference between weather and climate.
Also, if you're calling for Al Gore to debate the "skeptics on climate change", you might as well call for George W. Bush to debate the "skeptics on The World Trade Center collapsing due to fire". Both groups of "skeptics" would no doubt bring plenty of pseudo-science to such a debate.
Posted By: subtlefuge (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 03:09 AM
Chris,
Well you are TECHNICALLY correct. But all the same your comments are misleading.
According to the Australian Academy of Science, "Only about 1 per cent [of Earth's atmosphere] is made up of natural greenhouse gases, but this comparatively small amount of gas makes a big difference. Before the Industrial Revolution (which started in England about 200 years ago) the mix of gases that made up the atmosphere was relatively constant. The Industrial Revolution brought new industrial processes, more extensive agriculture, and a rapid increase in the world's population. This rapid increase in human activity meant that more of the gases which cause the greenhouse effect were released into the atmosphere. We know this because of measurements made over the last 35 years and the analysis of air bubbles trapped in ancient ice. There is now clear evidence that levels of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons are increasing."
In addition, yes, if we were to remove every last molecule of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere then we would be plunged into an ice age, but no one is looking to remove ALL the greenhouse gases.
Posted By: Jlevysan (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 03:36 AM
Al Gore MIGHT, might beleive some of what he preaches, here is the simple truth. Gore was a failure as a politician. Not getting elected was a huge financial downfall as ex presidents, like Clinton and Carter can make money off os speeches for years to come. Gore however picked an agenda Global warming and has gone from a many worh less then 5 million to probably more then 100. He even a Nobel prize too boot and the adoration of Hollywood so much he's a mega star. Don't follow any of his science. Even if it was true, there' NOTHING we can do to change it. We can go back to the 1800's and that won't stop countries like China, India, Russia and plenty of other places who just don't care. Don't folLow Gore, follow the money. That's were the agenda comes from.
Posted By: SStrout (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:23 AM
Ah yes, the "flat earth theory". I see a lot of people saying "it doesn't exist", or "it has cooled since 1998" and so forth.
Why should he debate anyone? It only gives legitimacy to the side that says nothing exists, we should ignore everything theory that the oil company has funded for years. Just a few tidbits:
"The Bush administration describes Exxon as the biggest opponent of mandatory reductions of global warming pollution. Yet, it also thanks Exxon for its 'active involvement' in the crafting of U.S. climate policy."
"ExxonMobil executives are adamantly against U.S. energy independence, despite its potentially positive impact on U.S. national security. They argue instead for continued dependence on oil producing nations, such as Saudi Arabia where the company has sunk heavy investments. Saudi Arabia holds 22.3 percent of the world's remaining oil reserves."
Gee, isn't it funny that the oil companies are doing whatever it takes to make sure that we don't debate global warming and just keep drinking their oil?
Back to the "Gore should debate skeptics" argument.
Should everything be "debated" in this manner? For example, should there be a "debate" with those that don't believe the holocaust happened? Of course not, it only gives legitimacy to that position.
Oh, by the way, ocean temperatures are the warmest they have ever been, as of August according to NOAA:
"The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.
NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998. For the June-August 2009 season, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was third warmest on record. "
I guess that is one of those "facts" that a lot of flat-earthers want to ignore, it gets in the way of the argument.
I have yet to hear a downside of conserving energy, reducing the amount of gases sent into the atmosphere, reducing our dependence on the Middle East for their oil. Isn't the Middle East where all these evil countries are that the GOP keeps trying to scare us about? They want us to be afraid, but don't want to reduce our dependence on them. Well played GOP.
Posted By: gahook (Registered) on October 15, 2009 at 06:07 AM
I can answer the question posed in your acticle header using 1,011 less words:
"Because they're morons."
Posted By: poffo316 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 06:32 AM
Hey MadmanJack in Orlando. I live in Jacksonville, FL and it's completely NORMAL to have the A/C on in October. Good grief. I've been here for 17 years and have always needed the A/C in October, November and parts of December. It's only January that we never use the A/C. BUT, it's supposed to get down to 49 Saturday night in JAX and THAT isn't normal for October 17th.
Posted By: Troy (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:28 AM
cue 20 people saying "its unseasonably cold this morning so global warming isnt real" and 20 others saying "its unseasonably warm this morning global warming must be real"
My uncle actually does the whole global warming slide-show circuit, although he gives his lectures to industry. He explains global warming and advocates for lower emmisions etc. When asked by my mother if he believes in climate change he just responded "no"
Posted By: anecdote (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:28 AM
There is an effect here. The problem is that it isn't as severe as he claims. The bad part is that it will be but we won't step up until it's too late to fix it. That's why he is passionate about it. His methods may be open to questions, and many scientists can show the same climate spikes every 100 years or so. The problem is when Global Warming is enough that it simulates a weather spike AND THEN the weather spike itself kicks in and creates a wholly different result. It's alarming that it will happen, just not as alarming as he makes it out to be.
Posted By: Tomnationwide (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:59 AM
"Today was October 14. I live in Orlando, Florida and the temperature was 90 degrees!!! Anyone over the age of 15 knows something is amiss at the Circle K. Al Gore may or may not have it right. There is a possibility no-one on the planet has it right. The simple fact remains, something is most definately NOT RIGHT. "
So because it is warmer than average in your city this week, that means the entire planet is experiencing drastic climate change? Come on! Here in Alberta we have been a solid 10 - 15 degrees Celsius below average for the last week... does that mean we're having a new ice age?
The cold hard scientific fact is that GLOBAL temperatures as a whole, (not just in your city over the last little while), have DROPPED over the last decade.
Posted By: idiot (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 09:29 AM
Why debate, if someone has checked out what Gore has to say on the subject, looked at his sources and decided that they disagree with them then what is the point of a debate? It' just going to be two guys tilting at windmills and nothing is going to be settled. Arguing for the sake of an argument is pointless. I certainly don't agree with all of Gore's findings in AIT, but he totally does so what is debate going to do? Do you think your going to get him to change his mind? Do you think he's going to change mine? Debate can be a good thing but that is not what we tend to get, what we tend to get is Jerry Springer-ish arguments complete with shouting, name calling and other idiocy to amuse the TV viewing public. Good on Gore for realizing this and not allowing himself to be bated into this type of thing.
Posted By: Thingsnthings (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Watch the news, people. Pay attention to the weather report. Then, when they talk about today's temp, read the part where they show the record highs and record lows. You will see that they sometimes hit those numbers ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. And that's only once they were able to track that kind of thing!
It's cyclical. And if you want cleaner air, go to China and tell them, as they're a much bigger offender than any North American or European country.
Posted By: Jimbo (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Author and Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel has never debated a Holocaust denier. What a sniveling coward!
Posted By: Pluto Animus (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM
so cousin since those places you describe are more often than not somewhere on the planet that is a 'non-friend' to the US how do you suggest we proceed? Do we declare eco-war on China or any number of sovereign nations in order to impose our green will upon them? Sounds kinda like more empirialism to me. Don't misunderstand me...growing up I was an eco-kid and would walk accross a street to pull a can out of the garbage to recycle it and I believe there is still much we can do ourselves to help, but unless everybody is in on this it won't make much difference. Besides I think sometimes we are far to arrogant about our impact on the earth...she has survived far worse than us and will most likely outlive us as well. We are just discovering 'facts' and leaping from the rooftops...the earth is how old now...and just how much has it changed? One volcano does as much 'polluting' all in one violent moment as years of us. Not like we shouldn't try to be better but, I believe we think far too highly of ourselves and our ultimate influence.
Posted By: no option (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:31 AM
It's pretty funny reading these comments. I'm glad that most of you aren't policy makers because we would clearly be doomed.
Read a book people... there's so much idiocy in these comments I'm embarassed for most of you.
Probably the same people talking about 6000 year old earth and death pannels.
Posted By: Jay Hutchison (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 11:48 AM
The earth is flat. A chariot drags the sun across the sky. The moon is made of cheese. The earth is only 6000 years old.
I look forward to these debates on 411mania, giving a platform to people who think science is to be ignored if it doesn't agree with your beliefs.
No wonder you can only get conservatives like Enrique and "Shockmaster" to post commentaries regularly on your site. What a joke. Stick to pro wrestling and cheesecake pics of celebrities.
Posted By: correction (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM
First off, it's been proven to be a natural cycle. We haven't even reached the "Medieval Maximum" yet, which is when tropical plants were growing in the North.
Second, Al Gore's own scientists came forward and said they made up most of the "facts".
Third, who will make the most money off this "climate change tax"? Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, and the like.
Fourth, just because I don't believe in man-made global warming on the scale that Al Gore is pushing on us, doesn't mean I think we should just pollute to our heart's content. I also don't think that we need to be taxed to death either.
Posted By: Spyke (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 02:23 PM
Gore is an airhead, the way he responds to questions with humor is total Bush style. And we all know how smart he is. McAleer seems way more intelligent than him. And intelligent scares the hell out of dumb people.
Posted By: Dude (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 03:10 PM
“Back to the "Gore should debate skeptics" argument.
Should everything be "debated" in this manner? For example, should there be a "debate" with those that don't believe the holocaust happened? Of course not, it only gives legitimacy to that position.”
Holocaust deniers do not want people to lose their jobs (except for Jews, but that’s a different story) whereas climate change proponents have been saying “Global cooling will put us in a new ice age, global warming will kill us all, climate change is doing something, overpopulation will kill us all in the late seventies and early eighties.” Forgive us skeptics who don’t feel like believing you after always being wrong.
“have yet to hear a downside of conserving energy, reducing the amount of gases sent into the atmosphere, reducing our dependence on the Middle East for their oil. Isn't the Middle East where all these evil countries are that the GOP keeps trying to scare us about? They want us to be afraid, but don't want to reduce our dependence on them. Well played GOP.”
First of all, conservatives have been trying to get us to do more off shore drilling for years but liberals don’t want to because they hate America. Second, other conservatives have been arguing for nuclear power for years and, once again, liberals don’t want it because they consider it unsafe even though that last time someone died in a nuclear power plant it was in the U.S.S.R. because Russians were not too careful designing it and thus an electric fire occurred. France uses Nuclear power for about 80 ish percent of their energy while we in America have over 100 Nuclear Power Plants, yet no accidents.
Also, calling people who disagree with you people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and flat Earthers is the equivalent of calling them Nazi’s to not have to debate them.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 03:13 PM
No wonder you can only get conservatives like Enrique and "Shockmaster" to post commentaries regularly on your site. What a joke. Stick to pro wrestling and cheesecake pics of celebrities.
Posted By: correction
I'm a conservative?!
Posted By: Jason Douglas (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 04:34 PM
To call global warming deniers "flat earthers" is an incorect analogy. If the global warming theorists are to be believed, the majority of people and scientists agree that there is global warming. Therefore, to call skeptics "flat earthers" implies that the flat earthers are the majority. If you recall, most of the world's scientists thought the world was flat before Colombus, and then he sailed the world and proved them wrong. So pick another derrogatory sound bite to characterize your opponents, global warming alarmists otherwise you are admitting that most of the world does not agree with you, which sort of defuses your "scientific consensus" argument, which of course, is patently false anyway since there are thousands of prominent scientists who dispute the theory of man-made global warming.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 05:18 PM
"First of all, conservatives have been trying to get us to do more off shore drilling for years but liberals don’t want to because they hate America."
...
"Also, calling people who disagree with you people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and flat Earthers is the equivalent of calling them Nazi’s to not have to debate them."
Pot. Kettle. Retard.
On one hand, you make a generalization about a group of people hating America and then on the other get offended when someone else does the same thing to you. Please. Just go away and stop voting. The world will be a better place for it.
Posted By: Guest#5635 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 05:49 PM
Global warming is a FACT! The cause and man's influence are what are up for debate. The earth has undergone several warming cycles throughout time, look it up...and not just on the damn internet.
Posted By: Rob (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 05:53 PM
"(except for Jews, but that’s a different story)"
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 03:13 PM
I stopped reading right there. Your world view is illegitimate.
Posted By: poffo316 (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:31 PM
What's the temperature supposed to be?
Posted By: nhanson (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 07:59 PM
Gore shouldn't debate the Anti-Climate Change crowd because 99% of them are either partisan hacks, conspiracy nuts or other crackpots, and people who clearly don't understand how science works.
For him to debate them would be like arguing with the drunken homeless man about the effectiveness of his tinfoil hat.
That having been said, if the data he used has been shown to be incorrect, or has been updated with new data, then Gore should show this in his speeches. Not doing so ruins the credibility of science in the eyes of people not smart enough to filter the signal from the noise...
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:40 PM
If you recall, most of the world's scientists thought the world was flat before Colombus, and then he sailed the world and proved them wrong.
See, why should there be a debate with people who believe total falsehoods like this?
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:41 PM
We used to have 70-80 degree Octobers in my area. We're getting snow this weekend. That's a near 40 degree change. Each year it gets colder here and hotter in other areas. Climate change is real.
WHat's the point in debating it. We might be able to debate some of the cuases or some of the ways to prevent it, but pretending it doesn't exist is pretty heavy from a crowd that believes a dude can walk on water.
Posted By: Jake G (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Most often in American politics, both sides are right about each other. This climate change business may be based on legitimate science, but the hysteria surrounding it is seriously unreasonable. Climate change proponents should respond to well-reasoned critiques, just as science does do to "young-earth" groups and the like. Proven natural phenomenon do not require TRUE BELIEVERS, they are continuously reinforced by experiment.
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 12:44 AM
This guy flies in his own private jet... one to five people in one huge jet(So much for polluting air). right there is where everyone (even these green freaks) should realize he's just full of B.S
Posted By: 2 frsh 37 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 01:08 AM
Yep, the Arctic thaws every hundred years or so. Didn't you know that? The glaciers too. It's all cyclical. Don't worry. They'll come back. Good couple of hard winters and it'll bounce right back. Wait and see. Nature always balances herself out. We'll be juuuust fine.
Posted By: Guest#7120 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 09:02 AM
"Whether Global Warming is man made or not, to me, is irrelevant"
so when your gas bill for heating your home doubles, will it still be irrelevant.
So when the greenhouse police force you to take the bus, will it still be irrelevant?
So when 20% of your taxes go to nigeria to pay them to stay in the stone age, will it still be irrelevant
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 09:51 AM
'If you recall, most of the world's scientists thought the world was flat before Colombus, and then he sailed the world and proved them wrong.
See, why should there be a debate with people who believe total falsehoods like this?
Posted By: Q:? (Guest) on October 15, 2009 at 08:41 PM'
First of all, it was a fallacy that they thought the earth was flat and Columbus left to prove it one way or another. They knew it was round, and Columbus was a scam artist.
Secondly, 10000yrs ago there was a mile high sheet of ice covering most of north america and a few million years ago Canada was a tropical rain forest.
Global warming and cooling has been happening all along. To all of a sudden pretend it is our fault is a self-defeating prophecy from a bunch of tree-huggers who care more about trees than people.
Posted By: Mikel (too lazy to log in) (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 09:57 AM
Like a few of you stated before, we all have to understand that, historically, the earth's climate is a cycle, not a constant affected by random variables. 1000 years ago, when Greenland and Iceland were discovered, Greenland was primarily green, and Iceland primarily snow covered. They weren't named that way as a play on words. I believe that we generally affect global climate. However, I also believe it to be a minuscule affect. The earth itself creates more carbon gases than we do. For example, volcanoes emit an astonishing amount of carbon gases into the atmosphere each time they erupt.
Posted By: Bell (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Q,
Are you telling me my public school education was wrong? Really? But isn't government the greatest thing on the face of the earth. They taught me wrong? I can't believe it. Well, darn, now I'm in a quandry because Al Gore is one of the greatest supporters of the public school teacher's unions so if they were wrong, what does it say about Mr. Gore's theory????
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM
on a given day looking at the weather outside the screendoor of your trailer does not make you an expert at climbate change. The polar ice caps which have been there for THOUSANDS OF YEARS ARE MELTING, NOW, IN A MATTER OF YEARS. SEA LEVELS ARE RISING, FACT FACT FACT. END OF STORY. You are being conned by the christians and the republicans if you don't believe this. There is not rational debate; why doesn't Al debate this? because why would anyone debate a child screaming irrational questions. the science is in for of rational people; there are no real scientists debating global warming. Where do you get your news? fox??? hello!!!
Posted By: paul (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 12:34 PM
how can you not believe the guy who invented the internet?
Posted By: Guest#9596 (Guest) on October 16, 2009 at 07:39 PM
This is just another ploy from Hollywood to try and force their lifestyle on the rest of us! Thank god we have a party that understands global warming doesnt matter, because its just a sign of the end times. "Real Americans" we be alright
Posted By: Richard M. Bergis (Guest) on October 18, 2009 at 09:25 PM
Ahh, good to see the fucking sheep from the Church of Gobal War... I mean Climate Change are out in force.
These are the same kind of idiots who 20 years ago would preach that all the nukes in the world could blow up the earth. Nevermind the fact that the planet has been hit by forces thousands of times more powerful than all our nukes combined over the billions of years that the planet has been here.
Posted By: DC (Guest) on October 19, 2009 at 09:01 AM
I have to agree with alot of people on here, who cares if its our fault? Pollution IS our fault and you cant argue that is not Fkn up the planet! So lets fix that. If the side effect of that is a cleaner healthier lifestyle that helps the climate. yay us!
Posted By: Huh? (Guest) on October 19, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Here's the data from Nature magazine detailing global temperature change:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann1998/frames.htm
Here's another chart of land and ocean temperatures:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/index.php?report=global&year=2007&am p;month=ann
Look, it's open to debate as to whether this is caused by humans or not, but it is not open to debate whether it is happening or not. A few degrees difference in ocean temperature means the end of plankton and krill. That means the end of life in the ocean. A few degrees in temperature difference means crops don't grow where they used to. It means slightly more water is used on a daily basis. It means that it's warmer where it's warm and colder where it's cold. It means wind patterns change.
If I'm sitting in a tree and it feels like it might fall, that might be because my weight is tipping it over, or it might be rotten, or maybe the wind, but the bottom line is I'd get out of the tree.
We need to figure out what we are going to do as a species if our farm belts dry up and if ocean life starts to die at an alarming rate. We need to at least have a plan.
As for the causes, I've seen good arguments both pro and con, but I'm for pollution control because it really improves our lives anyway. It will make our lives cleaner and quieter.
However, we need to approach all viable options. We have nuclear. It's cleaner than coal and oil, even when you factor in the waste. We should use it. We have working solar. We should use it in the southwest. We have wind. We should use it in the north.
There could be a deal worked out with the oil companies that could open up new oil drilling sites, but forcing them to give some of the profits to the IMPLEMENTATION of alternative fuels around the US.
Posted By: xjuggernaughtx (Guest) on October 20, 2009 at 04:15 PM
STAY CURRENT