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

[Mike1960]

First off, what gives Mr. Gore the gall to think of himself as an 'expert' in the environment? What qualifies him to pass himself off as an authority in this area? Secondly, check and see but you will find that Mr. Gore either owns or has significant interests in many companies that are developing and selling so-called 'green' technology. Naturally, if he can convince people that there is something called 'global warming,' then they will flock to the stores to buy these items--right?? This certainly seems like a very large SCAM whereby Mr. Gore and his partners seem certain to make a very large amount of money in the long-term--hence his zeal in promoting and furthering the nonsense that is global warming. Come on Al--stick to something you know like...
hahaha

[USBrit]

The real question is not Mr. Gore as expert but rather the mass of scientists who are saying this is a serious problem. There is even a small subset of scientists who think the big bang is not real and a smaller subset who still think evolution did not occur, so that there are a few global warming sceptics amongst the crowd is not surprising. But hey, there are even some nitwits who think the stock market is a great retirement investment vehicle and that real estate prices can only go up - along with tulip prices. As regards Mr. Gores investments, let us note that Mr. Gates not only invested in high tech when it was in its serious growth phase, but also was a cheer leader for it. Does that make Mr. Gates's actions wrong, or merely brilliant? Mr. Gore can see where things are going to go, he'd be an idiot not to put his money in the areas that will inevitably benefit. If you wish to benefit you might do well to follow his lead.

[Right-turn]

Yeah, Mars is heating up too, so what! It's called nature, check it out.

[jackpinesavage]

And in the 8 eight years that he sat in the VP desk, what did he do about climate change?

[Mike1960]

Please enlighten me--exactly how many scientists does it take to make up a 'mass?' How about the large number of scientists who disagree with him? Face it--there is evidence aplenty, stats for whatever side of the argument you're on, and more. Global warming is a huge hoax--just as the next ice age was back in the '70s. Yes, some of us are old enough and wise enough to remember all the liberal hysteria going on then too.
Evolution, as far as humans are concerned; hasn't been proven. If, according to Darwin we evolved from monkeys--then where are the bones that would prove it? How well read are you on this subject? Darwin postulated a 'theory;' and so far it is nothing more than that for humans. Just because animals may have evolved to their environment; do not for one minute believe that it is the same with humanity. That is a fallacy and an apples and oranges argument. Follow him all you wish; sooner or later the scales will fall from your eyes and you'll see the truth. Global warming indeed.

[doriath22]

Senator Gore does not consider himself an "expert", as you put it. However, he differs from you in that he is willing to listen to experts, even if he doesn't like what they are telling him. As for your "scam" accusation; where's your proof? Just because rightwingnuts all think like con men doesn't mean the rest of us do. "while not all conservatives are stupid people, all stupid people are conservative"

[Mike1960]

Gore is a pompous windbag, and always has been. The creater of the internet is full of it--and what he's full of pollutes the air too according to him and the selective 'experts' he listens to. I listen too, to those who claim it and those who don't. After reading and listening extensively; it is my opinion that he's wrong and involved only for selfish reasons. Altruism has nothing to do with his blarney. Believe it or not, many of us conservatives are better educated and more intelligent than you'd like to believe or admit. As for proof--do yourself a favor and visit other websites as well as watch different news channels. Take a page from my book; I enjoy both liberal and conservative sites and try to find the truth which is usually somewhere in-between both. Your pithy metaphor indicates a small, narrow mind with a limited vocabulary.

[girlonthestreet]

Mike 1960, ah forget it. I'm doing what I stated we are all doing above. You are wrong

[Mike1960]

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. Global warming is a huge scam--don't believe the hype...

[dsws]

Well done. The reader can get most of the way through before realizing that you're joking, and even at the end there's a trace of doubt.

[Mike1960]

I was not joking. My last line was pure sarcasm, as I don't believe he knows anything. An empty suit with an even emptier head. Why can't he just go back to TN, live in his mansion and burn hundreds of thousands of megawatts that need so-called 'carbon reduction?' The less he flies around in his private jet, polluting the atmosphere with the plane and his mouth, the better off we will all be. Al had his 15 minutes--and they are LONG over by now.

[Right-turn]

In his pic it looks like he just got wacked in the head with a 2x4. That is pure Gore right there! LOL

[Pharos]

All the pictures anyone ever took of you turned out just great? I'm impressed with the wit and intelligence of your contribution. America is in good hands.

[Right-turn]

What a fraud! Al Gore is a bad dream that just won't end.

[Pharos]

Scientifically speaking, they do have drugs that will end bad dreams. Consult a doctor if it's too much for you. Then you can come back here and discuss the science of AGW when you are well rested.

[nightslider]

that's weird I thought you were the by product of a wet dream gone bad, imagine if you will how we see your ignorance, that you so readily supply here on a daily basis, get a comb and stroke that tail that's used to pin a donkey at right wing parties.
your reality is left in a septic tank of ignorance, its nice to know your around, your the bug on my windshield.

[USBrit]

And you are the height of wit and reason.

[scampiusa]

I must say I am shocked that Al Gore won't debate. He would lay to rest any skeptics with all his facts. Wouldn't he? Well maybe Al is not so confident of his facts. Even if Al did get his arse wiped in a debate maybe someone could hit Lomborg in the face with a pie.

[Pharos]

Why would you think that. Deniers of AGW are not interested in the science. They don't understand science and don't want to. How would one even win or lose a debate on a scientific result when one side denies the existence of science.

[nightslider]

And just for conversation sake who in their right mind would sit there and have a debate with a dinosaur? it s kinda futile don't ya think?
Gore was gracious, he should have slapped some sense into the ignorant fools head, but then again when your debating a person with a fossilized brain it would seem rather pointless at some point.

[SFTor]

You have no right to say that AGW skeptics are not interested in the science.

[Exusian]

Correct, Pharos has a duty to state that AGW skeptics are not interested in the science.

[USBrit]

Or perhaps he knows from his experience in politics that there is nothing to be gained, even if he did win the AGW clods would not stop. I'm reminded of something one of my professors said: The average person is not worth the effort. Most of the AGW people I've met seem exceedingly average.

[Right-turn]

I see you are exceedingly snobbish.

[queenofcore]

Its not about global warming and its cause anymore the science is in our climate is infact changing, no matter what we will have to adjust, now and in the future, natual or not. and conserving energy is just good business, energy is the future for our economy oil is as well, and recycling is also good business, there is nothing wrong with doing those things, weather or not they save things the way we have been living for the last several thousand years remains to be seen, not by us but by our youth.

[tralfas]

Dr. Gore. Nobody disputes the average temp has risen, at least until the last few years when they have actually remained flat or declined. But there is absolutely no proof, none that CO2 is the cause of global warming. It is the opinion, the opinion, of many scientist, but not the proof.

[Exusian]

Then explain exactly why Earth's average surface temperature is +15C/59F instead of -18C/0F.

Or, failing that explain exactly why CO2 stops functioning as a greenhouse gas well before it reaches a level of 387ppm.

We'll be waiting.

[Tunghoy]

The temperature fluctuation in the last couple of years is a small bump in an otherwise steady trend. This is common in most long-term trends of any statistic you can think of (stock price, batting average, you name it). Long changes are rarely steady, smooth curves. They are points of data with a best-fit curve, and random events can put a small notch in the curve.

[Pharos]

The Average Global Temperature has continued to rise. You are incorrect in your statement. I have no idea what you mean by by no proof. Science compares measurements to descriptions of nature. If someone asserts that heavier objects fall faster than light objects, we measure the time of fall. If they fall at the same speed, the description, or model or theory of nature that heavier objects fall faster does not match the measurement. If they do fall at the same rate, within the error bars, then the measurement is consistent with the model. We don't say the theory is proven. We don't say it is our opinion that theory and measurement agree. Climate models are considerably more complicated than the simple example I just gave, but the same analysis applies. We don't offer proof and opinion in science in the sense you use the words.

[SFTor]

It is true that the temperature trend is pointing upwards. It is equally true that we have seen a reversal in the warming trend in the last ten years. One is justified to say that the we are still in a warming trend, statistically speaking, but this warming trend has not manifested itself in the last ten years.

Fair enough?

[doriath22]

Ten years,if what you claim is in fact true (doubtful) is still just background noise, statistically speaking.

[Pharos]

No.

[USBrit]

And what would constitute proof? At least to someone such as yourself. I will note that during the days of Michael Faraday (look it up if the name is unfamiliar to you) it was already known that various gases would act in a manner consistent with what is now called global warming. And the initial idea that this could cause the planet to be impacted by human activities was postulated at that time. As further mention of proof, do you 'believe' that species arise by evolution, or that a god spoke everything into existence? It is interesting to me that science that provides the average clods of the world, and especially the clods of the US, is embraced when it brings new electronic goodies to watch more endlessly fascinating sports drivel, but if it should indicate that we are by many means wrecking the planet upon which we depend then it is bad. Note: the economy is dependent ultimately upon the environment, not the other way around. Wrecking our climate, our oceans, our lakes rivers and air in the pursuit of endless vistas of McMansions and roads clogged with ever more SUVs is both senseless and unsustainable, never mind the impact, not proven to your satisfaction, of global warming. And as regards Mr. Gore, please do let me know when you receive a Nobel Prize so I might more warmly regard your deep thoughts.

[HateHater123]

Well said; particularly that last part...LOL!

[friedfish2718]

The events the AGW alarmists focus on relate to water: droughts,
floods, changes of icemass on land and sea. Some alarmists point to behavioral
changes of migratory animals; co2 is not the proximate cause; water is, for
where water goes, life goes.

To increase ice mass on landmass you need 4 things:
1- temperature; 2- water (vapor,water,ice);
3- air currents to bring the water to a given area;
4- other elements (dust, cosmic rays, soot, etc..) to trigger water precipitation
(rain, snow, sleet, etc..)

So far the AGW cannot show increase in carbon dioxide as causative for issues 2-4.
On issue 1, water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than co2.

The above arguments are not new. The temperature sensor satellites do not measure
temperature per se; they pick up emission of oxygen molecules and infer a temperature.
Said satellites do not measure humidity. So NASA launched the AIRS satellite to measure
humidity.

http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/science/major_findings/climate/

"AIRS moisture fields differ from 6 major climate models such that the models
are too dry below 800 mb in the tropics compared with AIRS, and too moist
between 300 mb and 600 mb especially in the extra-tropics."

So the computer models are off by 30%-50% on the water cycle and thus cannot show
co2 as causative of climate change. water dictates climate, not co2.

[Pharos]

I already responded to this the last time you posted it. Posting multiple times does not improve the correctness, For that you have to change the content to reflect the actual science.

[rosal]

I just lost 1 minute of my life reading your non-sense, and still you didn't convince me. Oil Companies spokeperson?

[Exusian]

Any gas that changes phase at normal ambient atmospheric temperature can not act as a climate forcing, it can only act as a feedback to some other forcing that first changes temperature.

Water exists in all three phases at normal ambient atmospheric temperatures on Earth, so that rules out water vapour as a climate change forcing.

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, exists only as a gas at normal ambient atmospheric temperatures on Earth. That means that CO2 can act as either a direct forcing, or as a feedback to some other forcing, depending on the circumstances.

In fact, CO2 is one of the main determinants of how much water vapour is in the atmosphere: add CO2 to the atmosphere and water vapour will also increase; remove CO2 from the atmosphere and water vapour will also decrease.

But hey, never let reality get in the way of your own personal fantasy.

[queenofcore]

me too.

[Pharos]

There are plenty of times when I would have been thrilled to have error bars of 30 to 50% in my data. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you say, simply pointing out you don't know anything about science and have probably made many assumptions about the nature of experiment and comparison to theory in science that are incorrect and wouldn't be true even if you looked at the details of the science you probably trust.

The issue you have is not with the science (since you don't understand it) it's with the results.

Having gotten that out of the way, I will now comment on the scientific content. Mostly wrong. There might be some correct statements in there but it's not worth my time to try to really decide. The overall science is nonsense. There are plenty of resources where you could look up what is wrong. The fact that you haven't, tells me you are not interested and so, I'm not interested in correcting you point by point either.

[BEHM777]

I hate to be so picky, but water IS NOT A GAS. Start over!

[OllieM]

What a fraud! Burping worms, cow farts causing global warming? Give me a break. This whole global warming lie is cultish. It's nothing more than a huge fraud to line the pockets of Al gore and the Democratic Party who by the way is heavily invested in Green companies. The earth has gone thru both warming and cooling cycles since it's beginning. Get over it.

[Zanti]

"The earth has gone thru both warming and cooling cycles since it's beginning."

"Its." Not "it's."

[Tunghoy]

No, the fraud is the Limbaugh-esque chanting of childish non-sequiturs and the deliberate misrepresentation of very clear data. The debate of continental drift is over. The debate of whether germs exist is over. The debate of whether the universe is expanding is over. The debate of whether aether exists is over. And the debate of global warming is over, too.

Former President Gore is correct, and the fossil fuel industry and fossil Republican party are not. It's not my opinion. It's fact.

[SFTor]

Rush Limbaugh is not a meaningful factor in this debate.

[Pharos]

How do you know the earth has gone through cooling and warming cycles? Do you have any evidence? If you have any evidence is any of it based on science?

[Right-turn]

You are right! It stayed exactly the same temp for 2 billion years until now. Humans Su*k!

[SFTor]

The Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age are well documented. The evidence is based on science. It is easy to find.

Vikings were growing grain in Greenland from the year 1000 and about two hundred years onward. Frost Fairs were held on the Thames River from 1600 to 1814. Climate has varied in historical times, no question about it.

[willfarnaby]

Exactly correct, Al Gore.

There's zero need to debate peer-reviewed, rigorous product of the scientific method.

Especially with every wingnut with five or ten screws loose (or just those paid to act out that way).

[aBr1t]

The team found that in just one day 42 million litres fresh water drained down this one Moulin. Dr Box thinks there are hundreds, possibly thousands more Moulins across the Greenland ice cap.

Greenland is losing enough water each year to cover Germany a metre deep.

Now if that is not something to worry about i dont know what is....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4734859/Scientists-capture-dramatic-footage-of--Arctic-glaciers-melting-in-hours.html

has vid aswell

[SFTor]

doesn't sound like the debate is over as far as the British Antarctic Survey is concerned.

[Pharos]

What do you mean by THE DEBATE?
From the British Antarctic Survey website
QUOTE
It is widely accepted that climate change as a result of human activity, is real, happening now and will have an impact of everyone and everything on the Earth. Antarctica, and the Southern Ocean that surrounds it, affects our whole planet through its influence on the Earth’s climate system. Understanding Antarctica’s role in climate change is not only a huge scientific challenge but also an urgent priority for society
ENDQUOTE

[aBr1t]

just incase you missed it

Check the dates of your post vs mine

Polar ice melting faster than expected: report
Posted Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:38pm AEDT

Icecaps around the North and South poles are melting faster and in a more widespread manner than expected, raising sea levels and fuelling climate change, a major scientific survey has showed.

The International Polar Year survey found that warming in the Antarctic is "much more widespread than was thought",

[BigPictureReg]

DEBATE? Where have I heard this before?

The 'shrinking party' zealots, ever devoted to their party at whatever cost, are grasping for straws. Having difficulty holding on to, or even gaining political clout in places where it's needed, they hope to 'jump' the system by grabbing a microphone and some camera time to reach people who otherwise wouldn't even bother giving them the time of day. It's their last grasp, cure to fail as many of their previous efforts over the past 30 years.

They've made their bed.

With a steady stream of myopic, divisive, talentless, obstructionists masquerading as elected officials, let time doom them all to dissolve slowly into the dusty oblivion of obscurity, to which they have earned their place.

[SFTor]

I'm not so sure I Bjorn Lomborg would agree with being called a Republican.

I don't think Denmark has any serious political parties as far to the right as the Republican Party.

I'm not even sure Denmark has any major party that is as far to the right as the Democrats, come to think of it.

[BigPictureReg]

Do you believe that his idea of a debate, at this time, is simply coincidental with the same request made in the same week by a certain 'media figure'?

Is it beyond the scope of possibility for a debate on climate change to somehow diverge or evolve, based simply on the perceptions between left and right on the validity of climate change in general?

Do you believe that such a debate, in spite of any Danish left/right or U. S. left/right comparisons, could ignore the respective political biases in major carbon emission geographies?

[JustAThought56]

I am fairly certain that Mr. Lomborg, if he lived in the US, would identify as a Democrat. He is gay, a vegetarian, and wants to spend the money currently targeted to global warming on malaria, malnutrition and HIV.

[SFTor]

"...some of the observed change may have an anthropogenic origin, but the lack of a clear and consistent response to changed forcing between models also suggests that much of the observed change in temperatures may be due to natural variability. The IPCC model experiments fail to reproduce some of the observed features, notably the rapid warming of the lower atmosphere.

These differences between modelled and observed changes could be used to argue against attributing change to anthropogenic forcing but some caution is called for as the models used may not adequately represent all of the complex processes that determine temperatures in the polar regions."

From the British Antarctic Survey, December 2007

more here:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_views/climate_change.php

[SFTor]

Note what the report says in the last paragraph, Translation: "We basically don't see a human fingerprint in the warming, but we are going to be cautious about saying that. The climate models aren't good enough, so we don't know."

[UbiVeritas]

Great post -- thanks for your careful research.

[Pharos]

I am having a hard time following what you are saying. It sounds like you mean climate models don't predict everything with sufficient accuracy to agree with all measurements in all cases so they are useless. If that's what you mean you are plain wrong.

Also from the webite you reference
"It is widely accepted that climate change as a result of human activity, is real, happening now and will have an impact of everyone and everything on the Earth. Antarctica, and the Southern Ocean that surrounds it, affects our whole planet through its influence on the Earth’s climate system. Understanding Antarctica’s role in climate change is not only a huge scientific challenge but also an urgent priority for society"
And
At present it is not known if the large temperature increase seen on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula is a result of human activity or natural variations in climate. Volcanic dust in the atmosphere, variations is energy from the Sun, variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, and changes in ocean circulation all affect the climate.
We don't know everything, can you deal with it? But we do know a lot, such as AGW is real.

[ZalaK]

lol...brilliant!!