Al Gore Refuses To Dignify Debate: "It's Not A Matter Of Theory"

Former Vice President Al Gore must not have been too surprised when it happened, but a well-known climate skeptic confronted him at the Wall Street Journal's ECO:nomics forum in Santa Monica. The skeptic, Bjorn Lomborg, is a favorite of conservatives who would rather not spend on the environment. David Sassoon introduced us to Lomborg's stock question in July. Earlier, Jason Linkins decried Lomborg's invited appearance on CNN. Here's what the Wall Street Journal had on the confrontation this week:

[Gore] was challenged by Mr. Lomborg, the Danish skeptical environmentalist who thinks the world would be better off spending more money on health and education issues than curbing carbon emissions.

"I don't mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?" asked the polo-shirt wearing Dane.

"I want to be polite to you," Mr. Gore responded. But, no. "The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a 'on the one hand, on the other hand' issue," he said. "It's not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake," he added.

WATCH Gore's other comments -- including his response to an audience question from T. Boone Pickens:

Comments

[aBr1t]

03:50 PM on 03/09/2009

I just read the one of the most insane posts on here...

The world is fine, we have 7 billion people on the planet one third drive cars, the population is all good even tho some are in dire poverty and have no water or food, thats ok tho we can sort that out when we burn more fossil fules, but i dont want to be taxted for it because its not fair that we should waste or money and oil on trying to sort out this problem of the ice melting in the artic and in green land i mean who cares if it melts, let newyork london and every other low lying place go under water its natural its not my problem. and its all a big scam to make money and tax me just coz im alive even tho i dont understand the concept of money in the first place and when i do use mone im more or less taxted for being alive anyhoo.. the world will keep on spinning its all good lets save people from famin and desise coz like thats way more important than having a planet. we can just get a bail out if we need it coz gods looking after us.. you know cars are really cool we get from a to b and they dont emmit any polution what so ever infact they pump out flowers and rosses and pollution is just a hoax and the ozone layer is bogus!!

[Independent 1]

01:26 PM on 03/09/2009

Al Gore and the alarmists motto:

Do as I say, not as I do. Or else!

[FabulousAt52]

11:57 AM on 03/09/2009

* So much of the reluctance and criticism (we see here and other places) is nothing more than petty, bi-partisan hatred of Al Gore, personally. How sad and pathetic.*

Sorry, that should read:

So much of the reluctance and criticism (we see here and other places) is nothing more than petty,
_ partisan _ hatred of Al Gore, personally. How sad and pathetic.

[FabulousAt52]

11:52 AM on 03/09/2009

I look at it this way:

Take out the inflammatory and sensationalized terminology like "Crisis" and "Catastrophe"
and stick to the idea that we could turn the whole "global warming thing" into a WIN / WIN situation:

Cleaning up the environment of pollutants - Positive
Recycling as many man-made and natural materials as possible - Positive
Solar power to eventually become common place - Positive
Wind energy to eventually become common place - Positive
Building new homes and retrofitting older ones with energy saving appliances and utilities - Positive
Cutting back on chemicals and hormones in our food - Positive
Growing more organic produce - Positive
Lessing our dependence on not only foreign oil, but ALL oil and oil based products - Positive

These are all GOOD things for the environment, even if one does NOT believe in the Evils of Global Warming! These things can create industries and jobs, while at the same time vastly improving our environment, locally & globally. I do not understand the reluctance (of some people) to see this!

So much of the reluctance and criticism (we see here and other places) is nothing more than petty, bi-partisan hatred of Al Gore, personally. How sad and pathetic.

[SFTor]

02:28 PM on 03/09/2009

We're in agreement, all the way down to the Al Gore part.

Mr. Gore must accept a good deal of criticism for how he has handled himself in this. He has not done environmentalism any favors.

[FabulousAt52]

08:28 PM on 03/09/2009

I'm interested to know why you think that way about Gore, SFTor....

The man is a one-man-band concerning the Global Warming situation.

[feliznavidad]

02:59 PM on 03/23/2009

Because he dares to speak out? Because he dare to make a movie highlighting the problem? How unamerican!

[research]

06:51 PM on 03/09/2009

Wonderful!

[aBr1t]

03:19 AM on 03/09/2009

Tin foil hat moment!!

The launch was a bit of a nail-biter, coming on the heels of last week's failure of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, which plummeted into the ocean when its fairing malfunctioned.

what a bummer that was : (( not like we need any more evidence but it could have helped with numbers ect ect

[SonofLiberty1]

11:05 AM on 03/09/2009

Isn't it a wonder that we can view these events now from our computers?
I'm glad it got off....:)

[aBr1t]

03:58 PM on 03/09/2009

hey there SonofLiberty

oh and btw Congrats :D !!

letf you a message ;)

[valkyrie607]

02:32 AM on 03/09/2009

Oh my dear denier trolls, I would dearly love to see your educated opinions about the following article...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/olivier-kamanda/climate-change-changes-mo_b_171969.html

Curious how you'll come out in force when Al Gore is in the headlines, but when there's an article about actual people experiencing concrete repercussions due to climate change you are tellingly silent!

[DesertDogAlpha]

02:21 AM on 03/09/2009

I have an idea. Let's go to as close to a carbon neutral US government as we can. Easy places to start: have the President ground Air Force One and the helicopters and stay in Washington to do his job, rather than sustaining the perpetual campaign with an incredibly high carbon footprint. Also, Speaker Pelosi could cut back to flying home to San Franciscon on a private government airplane to perhaps once every two months rather than weekly. Responsiblity starts at the top.

[aBr1t]

02:25 AM on 03/09/2009

I would agree with that :) I mean what happend to tele confrencing? ; ))

Orrr maybbee we can just install a load of tv screens in congress and have them all yabba via tv!!

hehe ok ok im joking but i would agree that we have to start someplace and the goverment doing something to show for "it" would be a good start and a show of atleast some conviction in what they have to say! and not just empty retoric.

[valkyrie607]

02:33 AM on 03/09/2009

Couldn't agree more! But when the top is unaccountable to the bottom, that is hardly an excuse for you and I to shirk OUR responsibilities!

[SFTor]

01:24 AM on 03/09/2009

Mr. Lomborg argued for the proposition that "Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money" on Intelligence squared, the NPR radio program.

So much for agreeing with Mr. Al Gore.

[aBr1t]

01:29 AM on 03/09/2009

Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money

yes because he thinks the money will be better spent on humaniterain aid... lets see how that works out when nobody is left to save.. or when famin and other things increase ?

His logic is flawed...

[SFTor]

02:14 AM on 03/09/2009

You may consider that we have had global warming for about a century now, and world population keeps going up, in part because agricultural output has gone up.

Don't put any money on people going extinct any time soon.

[valkyrie607]

02:37 AM on 03/09/2009

Major reductions may or may not be worth the money.

The problem with basing our decision solely on whether it's "worth the money" is that we have not thus far included the value of ecosystems in our accounting of our economy.

How much is it worth to you to not have that mountain slide down on top of your house? Healthy forests ensure that landslides do not occur.

Do you enjoy drinking fresh clean water? For most people, natural filters such as wetlands and forests and underground aquifers provide access to clean water. How much would it cost to build water filters equivalent to the wetlands you depend on? Care to add that into the accounting?

Lomberg's assessment is most likely based on extremely optimistic projections of climate change, which we have seen recently are not realistic. Glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica are melting much faster than climate scientists projected they would. So if the models are wrong, they are too conservative.

[Pharos]

03:03 AM on 03/09/2009

Remember physics-based models make predictions about climate which usually involves something like 30 year averages. Some areas may cool while others may warm up.
AGW is real, and serious, but it's hard to tie any individual event to it.

One other topic you could add to your list though, is changes to the ocean's chemistry.

[SFTor]

03:12 AM on 03/09/2009

I posted the comment solely for the purpose of showing that no, Mr. Lomborg and Mr. Gore do not exactly see eye to eye.

As for the rest of your comments: I am an environmentalist. I believe we need to take much better care of nature than we currently do. Freshwater is a particular concern, and so is pollution and overfishing of the oceans. That is one place were we see the human footprint in abundance, and the situation is in fact critical on several issues. To wit: the Ogalala Aquifer, which is a disaster waiting to happen, and the depletion of ocean fish stocks around the world---a disaster that has already happened. Perhaps it's not too late for mitigation, perhaps it is. Those are issues I fully get behind, as they have serious and immediate implications.

Lomborg has a book out titled "Cool It" on the global warming issue. I think I might pick it up to see what he has to say.

As far as model-based predictions we have no clue what's realistic, and that's the truth.

[SFTor]

12:20 AM on 03/09/2009

I think is fair to make the following comments:

After taking a strong public leadership role in the climate change debate, Albert Gore now has business interests (GIM, KCPB) that stand to directly benefit from legislation to institute carbon emissions trading.

There is a simple name for this: conflict of interest.

Nobody likes to see the proverbial fox guard the henhouse. This is not an indictment of Mr. Gore's motives or sincerity, but he can no longer claim that his involvement is neutral or objective. He has a financial interest in the outcome. Nobody needs to tell us where that usually leads.

We already know that Mr. Gore is no stranger to the good life. His appetite for money is well established---for instance, he charges $175,000 per speech---good work if you can get it.

Mr. Gore has done the environmental movement no favor with his commingling of public and private interests. He certainly knows better, so it leaves me to conclude that the profit motive has won out.

[aBr1t]

01:04 AM on 03/09/2009

you dispute that we infact have an OZONE layer

yes or no please

[SFTor]

01:19 AM on 03/09/2009

?????

Yes, there is an ozone layer, in the lower stratosphere if I remember correctly.

You must have me confused with someone else.

[DesertDogAlpha]

02:23 AM on 03/09/2009

Has Mr. Gore been declaring the value of carbon offset credits that other people/companies have been giving to him so that he can claim to be carbon neutral despite his travel schedule and gargantuan Tennessee house for income tax purposes? Or is he doing a Geithner/Daschle?

[aBr1t]

02:28 AM on 03/09/2009

why should he not get rich? oil companies get rich rape'ing the f#ck out of our planet every single day?

Do you complain then? or is it just al gore..

Some people are obbsessed with this fellow..

[Right-turn]

11:52 PM on 03/08/2009

Global warming hysteria is using fear to promote an entirely human agenda.

We can't control the economy, let alone long term climate issues.

These people place way too much importance on their existence.

[aBr1t]

01:04 AM on 03/09/2009

you dispute that we infact have an OZONE layer

yes or no please

[Right-turn]

03:17 AM on 03/09/2009

You are all fear mongers.

[Pharos]

02:36 AM on 03/09/2009

Oh I think we have certainly controlled the economy. What you mean is we have not made decisions that have driven the economy in a desirable direction. Kind of like Global Warming wouldn't you agree?

[loudspeaker]

11:20 PM on 03/08/2009

He should definitely debate that Danish dude. If he doesn't, it looks kind of bad.

[aBr1t]

01:05 AM on 03/09/2009

The guy agrees about GW... read more posts it helps

[SeaKitten]

10:31 PM on 03/08/2009

Hmm, so Al is being yellow in the green debate?

[doriath22]

10:37 PM on 03/08/2009

No, he just isn't going to get down on your level. Good for him!

[SeaKitten]

10:39 PM on 03/08/2009

Methinks he simply likes the green he's making off the green scare.

[PC Contrarian]

11:16 PM on 03/08/2009

Maybe you and Gore would like to attend the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.
It's happening now in NYC and includes astronauts, scientists and heads of state.
Opening the conference is Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union. When it comes to man made global warming, Klaus calls that a myth. He is also an outspoken critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and says the panel is one-sided and has a political agenda.

"What we are trying to accomplish with this conference is to present to the politicians and to the public that the debate is not over about global warming or climate change; that there is plenty of room for disagreement; and that sound science shows that the earth is not warming,"

Besides the 70+ scientists at this conference, more than 650 scientists worldwide have expressed skepticism over man made climate change.
We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. Just because something is politically correct, doesn't make it true. As a matter of fact, usually it's not.

[aBr1t]

09:03 PM on 03/08/2009

This is the question being asked.

Is Man having any affect on our planets warming or cooling via the use / output of CO2

and i pose this to you.. what effect do you think 7 billion people have or dont have on a planet?

here are just afew, for me to point out to help you understand this better.. Less food as the population keeps growing, less fresh water as we keep polluting it, less energy due the population growth and demand of the people of the planet, the very thing we base our entire civilsation on is not going to last unless we find another way to produce it.

oil spills
deforisting
Damb building
Strip Mining
Destruction of locoal habitats for wild life
Atomic waste
over fishing / consumpstion

shall i keep going about what effect man is having on our planet?

This is about the AIR that we breath in and out and the makeup of our atmosphear that is the very life blood of our ecosystem and protects us from harmfull rays that come from the sun..

Or would you dispute that we infact have an OZONE layer?

and do you understand why we had an ice age? and how it infact cooled and warmed? without mankind on the planet?

Very simple stuff to understand here

[Right-turn]

03:21 AM on 03/09/2009

I see that you are self-loathing. You could check out if you would like and save some oxygen.

[aBr1t]

03:28 AM on 03/09/2009

self-loathing because i state facts?

And just above you call us all fear mongers?

took your meds yet? or are you going to keep posting one liners in the hope that someone will pat you on the back insteat of calling you a dittohead or a jacka$$?

Try turning off your pc you may save the world some energy? as your contritbtion so far is that of a 100 wt lightbulb on DIM setting you a$$clown.

[Kubrat]

08:28 PM on 03/08/2009

A simple look at numbers of needed solar energy capacity shows solar is a very viable alternative to coal and oil. Very much in the reach and financial abilities of the US.

http://SolarByTheWatt.com/2009/03/05/can-solar-replace-fossil-fuels/

http://SolarByTheWatt.com/2009/03/04/science-lesson-for-journalists-watts-kilowatts-megawatts-kilowatt-hours/

http://SolarByTheWatt.com

[DesertDogAlpha]

02:26 AM on 03/09/2009

No sweat then. We'll be backing hydrocarbons out of the system in short order given the incredible and newfound competitiveness of solar energy. No need for government subsidies paid for by you and me I assume?

[Kubrat]

02:40 AM on 03/09/2009

I think government subsidies will help. Government has catalyzed positive initiatives in the economy and technology before too. The thing that the one analysis points out is that it will take so little money to completely take out oil burning for electricity generation as less than what is being spend on the stimulus program. Spending money on renewables is not only going to keep our children non-poisoned but also create jobs for us. Money is being spend on the try to jump-start the economy anyway. Why not spend it on something that will bring in changes compared to the effect of the NASA program. The NASA program did not even have an immediate economic expected effect except for creating jobs. Well not as immediate as renewables will have.

[Swordfishtrombone]

07:14 PM on 03/08/2009

Well done Mr. Gore. To think you can have a meaningful debate in the public domain on such a complicated matter is just silly. If Mr. Lomborg wishes has new insights he wishes to share he should do so in the scientific domain and for example publish a peer-reviewed article in one of the scientific magazines.

[Senseimilla]

07:36 PM on 03/08/2009

The reason Mr. Lomborg is trying to do this in a Public Forum is because the average joe DOESN"T READ peer-reviewed articles. What side of the debate has gotten the most PUBLICITY? I dare you to say climate change skepticism. I double dare you.

[Exusian]

08:05 PM on 03/08/2009

Too bad the 'average joe' doesn't read peer-reviewed science journals, because I know for sure which 'side' has overwhelmingly published the most actual peer-reviewed science papers on their research.

Why don't you do a study and get back to us on just which side has gotten the most publicity in the general public media.

[aBr1t]

08:13 PM on 03/08/2009

maybe because the world is not flat

and maybe because no matter how you spin it we pollute our planet....does not take a smart person to work out what happens after that.

Tell me do you think we have 0 impact on our enviroment?