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

[Vindithor]

The title of the article should be quite telling in its own regard. "It's not a matter of theory" is not generally something you hear about any field of science.

He's right; It isn't even a proper hypothesis. Even the most basic assertion about global warming--that carbon dioxide produced by man is not only a major greenhouse gas, but that the tiny fraction produced by humans is the cause--should be regarded as flawed. The fact is that the presence of c02 in the atmosphere always follows temperature. That is, when there is a global increase in temperature, c02 levels rise commensurately about 800 years later, and when there is a global decrease in temperature, c02 levels decline predictably.

To understand how this defies the carbon craze requires only enough intelligence to recognize very simple cause and effect relationships, and the knowledge that carbon dioxide cannot quantum leap centuries into the past.

The fact that this is bad science on its face is no longer the issue. This movement should be downgraded from eco-activism to "cult".

[andhakari]

How's that job at Exxon coming along? I hear they're not very trusting of the employees they hire to spread propaganda.

[AbrakadaBarak]

Bjorn Lomborg the Rude Scientist. Shame on you!

[coliwabl]

If anyone needs proof, just check out the current information about half of the western ice shelf in the Ant-Arctic. It is beginning to fracture and breakup. When the breakup is complete, maybe all the cynics will finally become believers. The result will be a 5-7ft rise in the Pacific and Atlantic. To put it in perspective, part of NYC will be under water, permanently, as well as South Carolina, Florida, Louisiana, etc. Add to this the rising frequency of huge severe storms throughout the globe and you have a full blown, undeniable global warming event.

[osamamania]

Is this tinfo from the sam report that said hundreds of thousands of square miles of ice had been melted, only to find out later that the sensors were not working, thus; ice found again?

[Emerald1943]

Weak! Link please!

[William Sarni]

When Al Gore and T. Boone Pickens are in agreement it signals a dramatic shift in thinking. They both understand that man made climate change is real and that we need to quickly move off of hydrocarbon fuels for national security, climate and economic reasons.

[mesmerised]

Gore's claim that climate change, especially AGW, has been proven to an absolute degree is ridiculous. He is a true believer, and challenging him on the subject is like trying to tell a religious fundamentalist that God doesn't exist.

There are thousands of qualified scientists world wide who have pointed out discrepancies in environmentalist's models. Many of the environmentalist's predictions have not come true. Sometimes the exact opposite has happened.

There is room for vigorous public debate on this subject, and only someone with a political agenda that seeks total control would try avoiding it. Al Gore is all of that, and more.

[Pharos]

List the names of these scientists. Public debate does not decide scientific outcomes, much as you might like to to.

[Exusian]

But are those 'thousands' of 'scientists' who have pointed out discrepancies in climate scientists' (not environmentalist's) climate models actually scientists at all, and are they actually qualified to comment on the science of climate and climate change?

Here's a tool to help you find out:
Most-Cited Authors on Climate Science
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

[Exusian]

The only relevant debate on science takes place among, well, scientists.

And that debate takes place in peer-reviewed scientific journals and at scientific conferences.

Public debate on science, informed or not, vigorous or otherwise, is Irrelevant.

[dsws]

Not quite.

Debate is a useful format for presenting scientific information to the public. Legitimate popularizers (who often but not always are also scientists) disagree on their assessment of how solid the consensus is about particular points, and about how to assess the weight of evidence and scientific opinion where there is no consensus.

Then there's the next step, applying the facts and conclusions to questions of public policy. That also provides plenty of fodder for legitimate debate outside the context of peer-reviewed journals.

[HateHater123]

...And just what is this "political agenda" of "total control" that Al Gore is after? For a dose of paranoia try thinking about the way Corporate Industry rapes the planet and controls Governments to do it. And if you live in a coastal area, you better buy a boat.

[kendraro]

look, there is nothing to deny or debate about the climate changing. the seasons have shifted, the grow zones have changed, animals are extending their habitats. you cannot argue with nature. the thing that nobody wants to spell out is that sea level is going to rise and wipe out certain areas of the earth -and in the case of the poor people who live there - well i think the "deniers" just don't care about those people. i live in north carolina, and i am sad that my grandchildren won't have the outer banks to love as we have, but i also fear for the rest of my state. we have waited until the last possible minute to change our ways, but that moment has come.

[Emerald1943]

I also live in NC but in the mountains. If there was anyone who questions climate change, I would invite them to come for a visit. I moved here in 1976 and since then, our climiate has changed dramatically. We only receive a fraction of the snow we did then. Our summers are much warmer and we are seeing an increase in insects that we didn't have up here before. Mosquitos and ticks are moving up in altitude as the weather warms.

Mount Mitchell is another part of this story. Years ago, I remember going up and seeing the incredible views and the giant evergreen trees. Now, all the trees are dead, the result of acid rain and pollution coming down from the Ohio valley. It is a pitiful sight! We are now losing trees on the higher elevations such as Grandfather Mtn, Beech and Sugar Mountains. While I agree with you about losing the Outer Banks, I can only hope that it's not too late for the mountains!

[loyalreader]

To Emerald 1943. Don't forget Emerald that NC is rife full of Frazier Fir Christmas trees. The products that are used to grow these things are totally harmful and full of political tricks not to have certain toxic chemicals removed from the marketplace. You're heard of agent orange, dioxin,,,then you know main ingredients for growing these lovely tall pillars that stay green and fresh until Valentines Day. The mountains are in great danger. I live deep in them and there are no longer any birds!@!!!!!

[joebaggadonuts]

When Thomas Freedman agrees with Al Gore, you gotta wonder how long the charade can continue and what these folks are thinking about how they will justify their behavior to their children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html?em

[Saoirsi]

Not trying to tick you off, but Thomas Friedman agreeing with Al Gore doesn't exactly bolster the credibility of Gore:

http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html

Friedman’s take on Bush’s Iraq policy: “It’s OK to throw out your steering wheel, as long as you remember you’re driving without one.”

Friedman’s analysis of America’s foreign policy outlook May 2008:
"The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels."

[moonflowerjewelry]

i wish to ask people who don't believe in climate change, can they conceive of "what if it's true?" - can they live with the mess we are leaving for generations to come? look at your children, or your grandchildren - if we are right about global warming, is this the planet you want your descendants to inherit? are you really willing to risk that?

[Saoirsi]

With respect to you: it's not simply a question of not believing in Climate Change - it's quite possible to accept it as existing, and accept a human component in it, but to question the proposed political solutions.

All choices involve costs; simply ignoring the possibility of Climate Change could certainly impose one set of costs on us all; but preventing Third World countries from industrialising on their own timetables could impose another set of costs on them. Possibly those costs would be far higher for them relatively speaking, in terms of lost revenue and resources for education, infrastructure, health care etc.

That's the extreme example, but it is valid to debate whether we wish to impose similar costs on ourselves, for a proposed solution that we don't know will work effectively for the costs it will impose.

[KYZipster]

I think we should ignore the climate change debate to a point and focus on energy independence for national security issues and to offset the trade deficit. Billions of dollars leaving the country every year to the Middle East, Canada, Venezuela. The solution to this problem which is slowly eroding our wealth could be one in the same for addressing climate change. Of course we should focus on clean energy as opposed to more mountain top removal for coal generated electricity. Nuclear has a lot more support than it used to. Of course wind, solar, geothermal, etc would be more ideal it can only give us a fraction of what's needed at this point in time.

As renewable energy technology develops and becomes a more sensible and affordable option it will slowly become the norm as Third World countries become more industrialized. It will also energize our own economy if the government invests enough to get us moving in that direction.

[Saoirsi]

This is not necessarily a Win/Lose situation either: it may be preferable to prioritise those activities that we know will have beneficial effects in the short term (better, cleaner public transport e.g.) and that may also be beneficial to alleviating Climate Change in the future.

[Saoirsi]

With respect:

1. Truth or falsehood of a hypothesis isn't the property of American Democrats or the Republicans; disagreement doesn't mean someone is a political enemy in your own local politics;

2. There's a difference between a) recognising a phenomenon, b) agreeing on causes, and c) deciding social priorities are when dealing with it- similar to First Aid, a person screaming is noticeable, but the unconscious person is more important to deal with immediately;

3. Lomberg is NOT arguing there's no climate change (a), nor any human component (b), only that the tremendous shift in resource use argued for might be better used for less visible or less "sexy" phenomena, more serious to human beings in the short term (especially in the Third World). He's not an American Republican, but a good Scandinavian Social Democrat arguing for intervention targeted to potentially more pressing matters that we _know_ we can effect now, as opposed to devoting huge allocations of resources to an uncertain, politicised solution to another problem.

4. Broad consensus on a field so subject to so many uncertainties and variables, doesn't constitute some sort of infallible secular Magisterium of truth; this attitude that Science "isn't just theory" and should not be open to debate, is not just unscientific, it is anti-scientific - science is provisional. If you believe Climate Change needs the kind of resource allocation argued by Gore, please don't leave your argument hostage to his opponents by adopting such an outrageous attitude.

[Pharos]

I have no idea what you mean by science is provisional. Yes science is not open to debate as you use the term.

[doug159]

well let's just destroy ourselves the planet and everything who cares... maybe we'll be better off

[Sandmanj]

I see the dittohead trolls are out again. Nothing like an article about Al Gore to get them frothing at the mouth, scampering all over these pages like the dung beetles they are.

[mesmerised]

It would be nice if you could stick to the subject, defend Al Gore's point of view, and stop the ad hominem attacks. Who is really the troll?

[friedfish2718]

The AGW alarmists are myopic and have goo-goo eyes only for co2.
And the AGW alarmists are also lazy since they need to connect the dots
between computer modeling and reality. GIGO = garbage in, garbage out.

From a NASA news conference,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=av6QSiI5BuOI&refer=us

"Between 1751 and 2003, human activities released 626 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, NASA said. Yet only about 192 billion tons of the gas remained in the atmosphere, according to the agency."

ONLY???? Damn you, photosynthesis!!!

So computer models that assume that all human-produced co2 remain indefinitely in the atmosphere
are going to give you credible results? The village idiot says: "that's not right".

[dsws]

It's not photosynthesis. Plants grow and die and rot, returning the carbon to the atmosphere over the course of the life cycle (except for a tiny fraction that goes the next step toward becoming fossil fuel). The biomass of standing timber has been decreased by cutting down the forests over the time period in question, so the photosynthesis/decay cycle is actually part of human-caused carbon emissions.

The bulk of the CO2 that left the atmosphere dissolved in the ocean. A little was removed by the major long-term mechanism, weathering of silicate rock to produce carbonate rock.

As for models that assume that all human-produced co2 remain indefinitely in the atmosphere, the village idiot apparently didn't question whether they actually exist to any appreciable extent.

Climate models are usually based on scenarios for the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the projections for changes in CO2 concentration include sinks. The satellite in question would have allowed more precise modeling of sinks, but the projections include what we know about them so far.

[girlonthestreet]

this is symbolic of exactly what is going on in our country right now - we are humoring the so-called republicans (they lost the plot a long time ago, i dont think abraham lincoln or even reagan would approve, not that im a fan of reagan but i can see his value) and meeting them on their turf of inanity, humoring them with debate when these are just crooked mouthpieces for absurd anachronisms we are placating

[ocalasatpro]

You're absolutely right. For a while I had fun playing with them, making fun, etc. It then dawned on me that this is what they crave. Those we're arguing with only repeat what they're told; they are doing the dirty work for the leaders who authored the Repub policies--keeping us on their agenda all the while.

It's hard to take this stuff, though. It's hard.

[wagthedog1001]

Notice how "opponents" of the idea that man is causing global warming and climate change nearly always do one of two things. They personally attack Al Gore or they bring up some inane study about cow gas or Mars. Rarely do they ever engage scientifically to the facts:

1. we are polluting our air at an unsustainable rate with carbon based fuels.

2. the carbon based fuels will run out in the not too distant future.

[lwaxanatroi]

We in the industrialized world focus on the carbon based fuels as the problem. And they are changing the atmosphere. But the other side of the equation is that the "lungs" of the world, the huge swaths of trees and other foliage that regularly cleans that air, are being clear-cut at an alarming rate. That, too, is human activity, and the man who wants to debate Gore may well be saying that aid to Brazil and Indonesia, to name two rainforest countries, could save rainforests and therefore alleviate some of the industrial pollution. The two solutions are not either-or, but we have tended to focus on the things we can do within the US, when this is a world problem. I agree with Gore about not debating the climate change deniers, but debates on how to approach the problem once you agree there is a problem are not without merit.

[Right-turn]

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report November 2005

Data coincide with increasing solar output

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming, new data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) show, lending support to many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due primarily to a recent upsurge in solar energy.

Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.

The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

"The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago," reported Yahoo News on September 20.

[doriath22]

Wishful thinking

[Bingram]

Lets see...Earth warming caused by humans or Earth warming because of Sun's Solar increased energy output ?
As a perpetual 'Wishful thinker',I'll take the humans causing it as the best scenerio.

[ocalasatpro]

You guys have been spouting this Mars nonsense for several days now. I haven't heard anything but parrot-points. Seriously, Mars and Earth are two separate issues. Does Mars have an atmosphere? I know the answer--and bet you don't. When those of us were busy learning this stuff in school and beyond--what were all of you doing, huh? By the quality of comments here, not much, not much at all. Probably video games and ESPN, followed by Texas hold 'em, American Idol and 24.

So, while we're talking about fixing a very serious problem on Earth you choose to take up lots of space with these silly, distracting BS comments about Mars (and Al Gore).

I know--it's from NASA, right? Please. NASA is not NASA of old. They squandered forty years, plain and simple.

So please, do everyone a favor, Polly, and take your silly dumbed-down crackers with you as you leave our smart scene. You can't really compete in this arena.

[Exusian]

Oh look, someone citing a Yahoo News report from 2005.

Never mind that if that someone were to consult more recent actual scientific literature they would learn that
1) there was no increasing solar output for the warming on Mars to coincide with
2) that the warming was caused by increasing sand storm activity

But hey, why look up the current scientific understanding when a four-year-old news report better serves your purpose.

[SonofLiberty1]

Right Turn,

Sorry friend but you hit the wrong person....

Mars is a globe the size of all of the land mass of the Earth combined.

It has a tilt of about 24 degrees, almost the same as ours so it has an Equator with a Northern and Southern Hemisphere and as such has four seasons. Because the atmosphere of Mars is very thin and mainly composed of Carbon Dioxide, much of the atmosphere freezes out at the poles during the Autumn into Winter and sublimates in the Spring and Summer.

Mars also is a very dusty, dusty place.

So much so that the darker surface can get covered over by the lighter dust.

Current thinking is that the warming seen is because the dust is blown away, uncovering the darker surface ...exposing it to the sunlight and causing it to warm more than a lighter surface would.

This is NORMAL for any surface, on any planet.

So, your assertation is WRONG.

Don't mess with ASTRONOMERS, we know more than you think:)

[Right-turn]

So you are saying solar output has not increased? Please show me the facts on solar output.

[Right-turn]

That is a recent development. Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.

Significant component

Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term. But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20th Century, "it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

[SFTor]

I will restate the reason for my skepticism:

The planet has warmed 0.37 degrees Celsius since we began to measure. The trend is now measured at 0.44 degrees Celsius per century. We started measuring at perhaps the coldest point in history since the last Ice Age, around 1875. At that point CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at 280 ppm. This is at or close to a historic low.

Plants start to die off CO2 levels at around 200 ppm. Absolutely nobody, animals included, are going to feel any ill effects of increased levels of CO2 within the parameters we are talking about, even if it quadruples or quintuples. (Humans start being bothered by CO2 at 10,000 ppm; it turns noxious at 50,000 ppm, and toxic at 80,000 ppm.)

It appears that increases in CO2 either are a function of increased ocean temperatures, with a concomitant increase of outgassing of CO2, with an added human component.

I agree that the Adelié penguins in some parts of Antarctica don't like it, and I love Adelié penguins. Polar bears I am not worried about. Their populations are reasonably healthy, and higher than at any time since about 1960.

Computer models fail to include the effects of water, and do not even backtest. It's not a settled picture by any means.

[ocalasatpro]

Ask the polar bears what THEY think.

[tanker2]

I don't think the bears are interested in how much carbon credit offsets currently cost. You must ask yourself a question, would Mr. be more believable if he were not selling carbon credits? I don't think there would be much carbon credit trading business without the global warming scare.

[wagthedog1001]

Hmmmm.... CO2 levels were lowest right before the internal combustion engine started to proliferate.

Guess I'm not waiting until the levels get to be noxious for plants and animals. The facts that CO2 levels are rising, they are dangerous, and we are causing it are enough for me to agree with the experts.

[SFTor]

CO2 becomes noxious to humans at about 80,000 ppm. We are currently at 380 ppm.

[Exusian]

There are some obvious glaring and fundamental errors in the basis for your skepticism.

1) "The planet has warmed 0.37 degrees Celsius since we began to measure....We started measuring at perhaps the coldest point in history since the last Ice Age, around 1875"

Incorrect: The measured increase since 1905 (100 years) has been aprox .74C +/- .18C.
The temperature record used for Hadely CRUT3 starts in 1850:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
It shows a global mean land-sea surface temp for 1875 similar to that of 1950.
1860 and 1905-10 were similar and both were considerably cooler than 1875.

Estimates of global mean temperature prior to 1850 come from proxi sources.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Reconstructions from proxi sources vary widely, but most of them show 1600 to 1700 to be the coldest point since the end of the last ice age.

2) "Plants start to die off CO2 levels at around 200 ppm..."

Irrelevant.

[SFTor]

1. HadCrut data bear out the numbers I used. You can of course use another data set to arrive at another number for centennial warming. The anomaly at this point in time is about .37 degrees Celsius above the average, and the fitted line shows a centennial increase of about 0.44 degrees Celsius per century.

We can of course then discuss whether the average is a meaningful number at all.

2. 1875 was found to be the coldest year on record in the GISP2 survey. I stated that we started measuring around 1875, to emphasize the circumstance that we started measuring at a particularly cold time. If you'd like more precision in the statement, we can always say that 1875 was the coldest year in Greenland, and that we did not begin to measure at exactly that time, but a few years later.

The point remains that we have seen a little warming (well within the parameters of recent warmings and coolings, say the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods, and the Little Ice Age) and a rise in atmospheric CO2 from very low levels. I mentioned the 200 ppm number as a lower bound for successful plant growth. This puts our starting level of CO2, 280 ppm at the low end of the scale, which is also known by consulting historic levels of CO2, which also have shown considerable variability in recent geological history.

[Exusian]

3) "It appears that increases in CO2 either are a function of increased ocean temperatures, with a concomitant increase of outgassing of CO2, with an added human component."

Incorrect: The ocean remains a net absorber of CO2. Human activity alone accounts for 100% of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.
This can easily be shown by calculating the annual world-wide emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, which is roughly equal to around twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2. This means that natural carbon sinks in the biosphere and ocean presently absorb ALL natural CO2 emissions, PLUS roughly half of fossil fuel CO2 emissions, which means there is zero natural net positive CO2 emission from natural sources.

4) "Adelié penguins...."

Irrelevant.

5) "Computer models fail to include the effects of water, and do not even backtest. "

Incorrect.: Water, both in the form of clouds and increased atmospheric water vapour due to increased temperature, are in fact included in numerical General Circulation Models. And those models are indeed "backtested" starting with historic data and compared to known outcomes.

Having eliminated the three relevant bases for your skepticism you are now free to abandon that skepticism.

[SFTor]

It is correct that the oceans absorb more CO2 than the outgassing produces, which doesn't change the fact that outgassing is an ongoing process, and measured at about 90 GtC. Human emissions are at about 7.2 GtC.

I am afraid that there are too many variables in the carbon cycle to simply state that only human emissions constitute the measured increase in the atmosphere. That is not something you can propose to know.

It is also a bit of a surprise to me that human land use is a carbon sink according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

[SonofLiberty1]

A function of increased ocean temps?

Then what the heck is causing the increased ocean temps?

Don't tell me, let me think...oh yeah!

It must be THE SUN right?