Ads Challenge Al Gore to Debate Global Warming
|
| Posted
:
Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:56:00 GMT |
| Author
:
The Heartland Institute |
| Category
:
Press Release |
| News
Alerts by Email click
here ) |
|
|
|
News |
Home
|
|
|
CHICAGO, April 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today (Tuesday) a national nonprofit organization began an ad campaign calling on former vice president Al Gore to publicly debate critics of his "alarmist" perspective on global warming.
The first ad ran in today's edition of the Washington Post. Other ads will run in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. The ads feature a challenge from Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who first challenged the former vice president to debate on March 14. That challenge to debate remains unanswered.
"[Gore] is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity from the press and from environmental groups that echo his warning, but he refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis," said Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. "The public deserves that debate."
Lord Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, has written several high-profile articles disputing the notion that global warming is a crisis, including one that Gore saw fit to respond to. Like Gore, Monckton is not a scientist or professional economist.
"Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts," said Bast. "If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?"
The Heartland Institute
|
Copyright © 2008
PR Newswire. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Bridget BAD EXAMPLE
By:
Jim ,
Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:14:09 GMT |
|
Bridget do not compare the global warming scare to the holocaust. There is no consensus in scientific fact. Remember Galileo or maybe even Christopher Columbus. They were both mad fun of, ridiculed and some even lost thier lives for not going with the consensus. Let's back up here and take the emotion out of your response. A comparison to the holocaust is a sign that you are clearly feeling your way through this issue and not reasoning. I have a large list of scientific studies for you. Oh and by the way the IPCC has reduced its projections yet again. Food for thought!
Gore is not a scientist. Its funny that alarmists then claim anyone that isn't in their camp to be in the pocket of bil oil. Gore has received checks (big checks from big oil) Oh and he's received money from tobaco too!
|
|
Why should he? Janet?
By:
DW ,
Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:49:07 GMT |
|
What solid facts? Can you not read? The argument is that the AGW alarmists have NO facts. When was there ever a peer review of this alleged science they keep referring to? Scientific FACT is not determined by consensus. What part of that do you not get?
|
|
Global Warming
By:
Greg ,
Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:58:09 GMT |
|
" ..Childish stupidity that questions solid facts..." The anger and insults reveal an emotional attachment to the idea of GW rather than an intellectual analysis. The extent to which the planet is warming, if the earth is warming, and there are many references suggesting it may not be warming for several years now with no warming in the southern hemisphere, whether any warming is out of line with geological time scale climate, the extent to which human CO2 emissions are a cause, the human cost of attempting to reduce CO2 emissions ( preventing third world peoples from access to inexpensive energy) and especially whether reducing human CO2 emissions will have ANY measurable impact should be the questions answered scientifically not by what we feel or see. If it is my feelings that matter then I feel duped by Gore who says do as I say not as I do, and please ignore the fact that I stand to make millions from my carbon trading company from which I purchase my carbon credits to justify using more energy each year than many thousands of people in ( name you favorite impoverished country).
|
|
Show me the money!
By:
Jay ,
Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:48:24 GMT |
|
I see little evidence that global warming is anthroprogenic, no one has yet given me a convincing argument and Im a biologist! Dave pretty much nailed the reasons on the head. Consensus, no. By the way consensus is not the same as fact.
And Janet, this eco warrior Al Gore is to busy saving the planet to debate? Is that why his speaking fees are in the hundred thousands, but wont answer questions? Probably because his energy bill is through the roof, and private jets are expensive to opperate. That non withstanding, he is wealthy and can afford such things. He should be out there speaking for free or a least at cost if he was so concerned. And just maybe people would listen to him more if he had a televised debate and closed the case on this whole "sceptics" argument. I mean the facts support his claims so there is nothing to worry about. Oh wait...
|
|
Nice try...
By:
Dave ,
Thu, 05 Apr 2007 14:18:44 GMT |
|
...but its a false analogy. The Holocaust was an event in the past that we can point to and say, "this happened." Global warming is a projection for the future, and as thus is subject to debate. The science is not settled, much less the policy debate. Irreversible climate change is based on very low quality data being fed into climate models that make assumptions for processes we don't understand (i.e. cloud formation) and are then tuned to give the results desired. We have no idea what the global climate does in response to most perturbations (its impulse response for the geeks out there). I'm inclined to believe that climate change may have something to do with changes in the colossal nuclear fireball in the sky rather than changes in concentration of a trace gas in our atmosphere.
And, by the way, Al Gore is an idiot (scientifically speaking). The man couldn't hypothesize his way out of a paper bag. Listening to climate change prophecy from Al Gore is like listening to fashion advice from Albert Einstein.
|
|
What is So Hard to Understand?
By:
Jonathan ,
Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:13:13 GMT |
|
The modern day Church of the Green is as bad or worse than any other religion in the history of man. The mere thought or suggestion that "we don’t have time for debate", or "the debate is over", or "we already have consensus" is so absurd, that when some actually wage these arguments its clear this issue has gone far beyond that of science, and is now faith. Algore the savior, all praise Algore!
|
|
why should he
By:
janet ,
Wed, 04 Apr 2007 18:06:01 GMT |
|
He does not have time to debate. He is educating the people of the world on scientific facts. What would words do? Cannot your eyes see and your skin feel. If people are uncomfortable with the global warming issue and they do not face it now and start to adapt their way of thinking and acting, I cannot imagine what they will do when it really happens. You can pull your heads out of the sand now or you can just stand there. The time will come when these debaters will see the truth. Al Gore is the messenger not the scientist. He has never claimed to be the scientist so the debate is not his to give.
|
|
Just think about it.
By:
Aaron ,
Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:07:40 GMT |
|
Why do advocates of global warming always respond to science with anger and personal attacks? It is because they can not back up their arguments. It is because their information comes from reporters and politicians, not scientists. Gore won't debate because he knows that his arguments will be picked apart with ease.
|
|
Who are you kidding?
By:
Bridget ,
Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:32:48 GMT |
|
I realize that it is good to see both sides of an argument, but when was the last time that there were public debates on whether or not the Nazi Holocaust was real. Global warming is real, it is an fact, I thought that we have gotten past the childish stupidity that questions solid facts. Obviously Gore sees that it is fruitless to try and convert those people who refuse to listen to science anyways and debating thus would be idiotic.
|
|
|
|
|
