Why won't Al Gore debate???
He's sure of his science, but he won't debate...
On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.
posted by GayandRight @ 9:10 PM
5 Comments:
Brilliant find, Fred.
Makes summer bloggin worthwhile
If only there were some old book, published long ago, that mentioned droughts and floods - then people might realize that 'weather' is not a new phenomena.
Where could we find such a book?
Oh wait! The Gideons left one in my hotel room! Apparently it's the most published book ever?
It may not be to everyone's liking, and there's plenty to disagree with even after all the contradictions are zero-summed, but it does mention the weather.
We can all do our part by buying carbon credits from ourselves,like the Goremeister does.Or are we the common folk not allowed to buy credits from ourselves.
First, please take note of who the Heartland Institute is. You can find lots of great information about them at SourceWatch. Essentially a Republican thinktank.
Second, the Heartland Institute's group of journalists would really like Gore to debate for one reason. Because the debate has already been had amongst scientists and they didn't get the answer they wanted. Let this "debate" happen amongst climatologists, not Democratic politicians and a guy who calls himself Lord who is basically famous for making puzzles. While I understand they are mouthpieces people can use to get their point acrossed, what they say should have little importance to anyody who actually cares about this planet.
Gore is at least correct in the fact that he is championing the cause that the large consensus of IPCC sceintist believe in.
The IPCC consensus is that global warming is increasing due to the actions of human beings and that steps need to be taken to mitigate that problem immediately. The bottom line is that people like the Heartland Institute (and apparently this blog) want this debate to continue in the media. Not because they think it champions their "science", but because they have already lost the scientific debate and are just hoping now to win the debate in the media.
Jake
Gore is at least correct in the fact that he is championing the cause that the large consensus of IPCC sceintist believe in.
A consensus requires that all parties agree. You can't have a large consensus or a small consensus. It either is or is not a consensus. If one IPCC scientist disagrees, there is no consensus.
Consensus is not the same as majority vote where you can have a small majority or a large one.
As for the Heartland Institute, so what if its a right wing think tank? Are you implying that all right wing thinking is bad and onlt left wing thinktanks can offer up truth? Wait, that is waht you're implying.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home