I don’t think I’m the first person to ask this question, but it occurred to me as I was reading about global warming alarmists.
Has the former Vice President ever publicly debated someone who diasgrees with his views on global warming?
If so, I’d like to see the transcript. If not, I wonder why he’s willingn neither to hold up his views to scrutiny from an intellectual adversary nor to challenge said adversary’s arguments.
oooh, I can answer this!
He hides behind ‘settled science’ and argues that people who don’t believe/accept globul warming are deniers.
Though I don’t think he’s lumped us in with Holocaust deniers like Joe Kennedy.
When you say debate, do you mean situation where debate = get the approval of big business before telling the truth about science?
No, dimmest-bulb-in-the-hallway, we speak of a debate between Al Gore and anyone of the thousands of scientists who are skeptical of the Catastrophic AGW hoax Al Gore foists on gullible leftists like you; who are too dim to realize that a guy who flies about on luxurious private jets lecturing how carbon emissions from things like… um, private jets… are dooming the planet, might not really believe the bull he’s preaching.
Still waiting on Levi the Science Guy, or maybe Kevin, to ‘splain to me how mercury filled lightbulbs made in China are gonna save the world. That, and why Algore has to edit his “truth” slideshow.
According to John Fund, Dan, Algore hasn’t debated anybody since the 2000 campaign:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123673142035289763.html
And here’s the video of the exchange between Lomborg and the Goracle:
http://tinyurl.com/deak2v
Essentially, Algore believes that it’s too late to talk about global warmism and what, exactly should be done. What he HAVE to do is piss away trillions of Other People’s Money. That will git ‘er done.
Gore’s refusal reminds me of Carter saying he wrote his anti-Israel book to stir up debate, then refusing to debate Allen Dershowitz.
In any case, an important point about how Gore dismisses Lomborg there — he wishes to pretend that Lomborg wishes to debate the science, which is largely untrue.
Lomborg is a strong believe in human-caused global warming, though he believes Gore exaggerates the impact.
What Lomborg really wants to debate is what is worth actually doing about any coming impacts of global warming, as compared to the many more productive ways we could spend our resources. While Gore has been running around trying to scare people into irrational action with fire and brimstone tales of what happens to global sinners, Lomborg has been putting together the Copenhagen Consensus, a collection of scientists and policy people from around the world, to figure out the best most practical ways to improve the plight of humans on the planet.
Lomborg’s work may well have lasting impact for generations to come. Gore’s work will be, well, quaint in the manner of Paul Ehrlich a couple of decades hence.
Doesn’t matter. The answer lies in forcing the people of the world to embrace liberal’s spending other people’s money.
As Boob, Kevin, Levi etc. will tell you, results don’t matter a damn. It’s the “good intentions” that matters. That’s how they can justify punishing low-income workers with higher energy rates. “It’s for the common good”.
No, Kevin, I mean appear in a forum with someone who disagrees with his conclusions on global warming and rebuts his (or her) arguments with counter-arguments.
And, if he were debating someone from big business, then well, couldn’t he also rebut that person just as easily? I mean, if that person’s arguments were cooked up by a corporation?
Gore did arrange to debate Global Warming. But Global Warming didn’t show up 🙂
Seriously, CO2 is rising. But it will be much cheaper than people think to remove it then all the restrictions people like to talk about. We don’t quite have the technology yet, but its coming.
My fear is that by denying this risk rather than pushing a market based solution, we just let the central planners win. What we need is a tax on CO2 then use that to offer a bounty for the solution to the problem.
I rather tax something that is a threat instead of taxing hard work and innovation. Many people seem to be more ok with taxing the things that make capitalism possible than something that threatens capitalism.
Where is bob on man made global warming fascism? If it is fascism, it is right wing and so, …. oh, wait, …. Oh, yeah, its not fascism, it is the foresighted leading the myopic. But how do know the “foresighted” are not myopic and the “myopic” aren’t ….. oh, wait, …. this is about human survival, there is no time for the scientific method and democracy … I mean, …… where is bob when we need him most?