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

[JustAThought56]

Lomborg actually completely agrees with Al Gore on the fact of global warming. He is not debating that it is a genuine, serious and important issue that has to be dealt with.

Keith Johnson from the WSJ was the first one to publish this story. Like several of the posters in this discussion, it was obvious that Mr. Johnson had no idea what Lomborg's position is, but assumed it was in opposition, and then used the incident as an opportunity to attack Al Gore.

Lomborg actually only wanted to debate the strategy for addressing the problem supported by the Stern Review, "the largest and most widely known and discussed report" about global warming. The Stern Review is a meta-analysis of the data and it concluded that the phenomenon of global warming is real.

It recommended that although it would be expensive, the best strategy is to attack it early on. Lomborg argues that it would be better to postpone the investment and tackle AIDS, malaria, and malnutrition instead.

So the debate would be a matter of "when," not "whether" to act. He is trying to suck in Al Gore in order to elevate his views to the international level.

Personally, I will go with the distinguished panel behind the Stern Review, and the massive amounts of responsible data they reviewed that they decided supports the conclusions articulated by Al Gore, over an academic who has made a career out of his perspective.

[aBr1t]

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", while Arctic sea ice is diminishing and the melting of Greenland's ice cover is accelerating.

The frozen and often inaccessible polar regions have long been regarded as some of the most sensitive barometers of environmental change and global warming because of their influence on the world's oceans and atmosphere.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/26/2502076.htm

[SonofLiberty1]

I think I remember seeing this.

No doubt the non science believers will hack that apart too...
Probably the same 26% that still believe in the G.O.P. today..
The same "True Believers" in George W Bush:(

[SFTor]

Bjorn Lomborg may agree that global warming is real, he just doesn't think it is much of a concern.

I remember seeing some youtube movies where he lays out his arguments. If my memory serves my I think he had global warming as number 9 or 11 on his list of priorities.

[orangepetal]

I liked Gore's Earth - Venus carbon comparison. Anyway, air pollution in Asia is a serious problem, people wear masks for goodness sakes, and I think carbon emissions play a huge part. Oil money is sent to people that hate us, the Europeans think America only wants oil and kills for it. They accuse us of killing them, when from here it looks like they seem to kill themselves and each other. ( I'm not saying anything, we have all done it). It is just way too problematic, especially if there are options. Everybody resents our consumption, but they don't complain about the money we pay them. Canadians call Americans ignorant while selling us 70% of our imported oil. They must be laughing all the way to the bank, at least till our cars are efficient. We may the last laugh then. Hey, I love Canada, but I have feelings too, and their mean jibes hurt. I bet Canadians don't need money anyway, who needs any money. Ask Castro, he is a real pro at stuff like that, you know, getting by on a dollar and a dream. Well I'm kind of all inclusive, I'm a huge fan of money, intellect, industry, trade, green, cultural appreciation and cross border cooperation (not obligation). I don't like war, but I am ALL for security.
And Gore, I have no idea if you are totally correct or not, I really am hoping Florida won't ever be sinking, but you are the MAN.

[Okieborn]

The Ice Is Melting Folks, And Mr. Gore Is Right On !!!

[AngieMom57]

Wait...

[TOOO]

Oh, debate him, anyways, Mr. Gore. That way, you can publicly humiliate him, and stop the denial for once and for all. But be prepared - if he's losing the argument, he may resort to lying, yelling, name calling, or even changing the subject.

[fumes]

wonderful post tooo!

[aBr1t]

or he could just do what fume does and say lol and not talk to him, oh wait he did do that....seems al gore and fume have something in common.

; )

[mluo2010]

Look what I found! A list of scientific organizations with national standing who dissent with the scientific "consensus" of human-influenced climate change!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

[Exusian]

Exactly None.

Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

[BrettnCalgary]

How the hell did the d0lt find that link without reading it:

"Statements by dissenting organizations

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[66]"

Even I was expecting something to be there, lol.

[SFTor]

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."

The US Weather Bureau, 1922

[aBr1t]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

you mean this?

The weekly station data are used to create a smoothed north-south latitude profile in sine latitude space from which a global average is calculated. The global averages of the major long-lived greenhouse gases are shown in Figure 2. The growth rate of CO2 has averaged about 1.65 ppm per year over the past 29 year period 1979-2007. The CO2 growth rate has on average increased over this period, averaging about 1.43 ppm per year prior to 1995 and 1.94 ppm per year thereafter. The growth rate of methane has declined substantially since about 1992. The cause of this is likely related to several factors, including changes in emissions related to changes in the former Soviet Union and the short lifetime of methane (8-9 years) resulting in a pseudo-equilibrium between sources and sinks on this time scale [Dlugokencky et al., 1998, 2003]. Nitrous oxide continues to increase with a relatively uniform growth rate while the CFCs have ceased the increase observed before about 1992 and have either leveled off or are in decline [Montzka et al., 1999]. The latter is a response to decreased emissions related to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer.

and feel free to scroll to the bottom of the page :) nice little table

1979 - 1.026
2007 - 1.709

Up uP and awaayyyy

[rikkirighteous]

Of course Gore can't debate. He doesn't have the knowledge of the very theory he proposes.

Which is why his Nobel prize was for Peace (?) rather than Science. Guess they give those things away these days.

[SonofLiberty1]

And you do?

Ok,

Explain this...

Explain why a thicker atmosphere will NOT sustain higher surface temperatures....

If you can do this you will probably get a Nobel Prize.

Before you do, try learning a little ASTRONOMY before you try.

[SFTor]

Could you please stop it with your "thicker atmosphere?"

It is kind of cute, but it is total nonsense.

[rikkirighteous]

Oh yeah?

Well, you're a pee-pee head. And stuff!

Liberal (i.e. gullible) Debating Technique 101.

[Pharos]

He's not proposing a theory. HE is explaining the science.

[JustAThought56]

The scientist who challenged Al Gore agrees completely with him that global warming is a genuine and serious problem that has to be addressed.

He wants to debate the strategy for addressing it. He thinks the money should be spent on AIDS, malaria and malnutrition now, and we should address global warming later.

His name is Bjorn Lomborg. And he is trying to elevate himself and his books to the international level, which he can do easily by picking on Al Gore at an international conference with AP reporters in attendance.

[tiznow]

Gore is correct. AGW is not a theory, it is more of a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has been verified multiple times by a detached group of observers. Scientific illiterates like Gore think that things that are "only a theory," are unproven, whereas, in reality, a theory, such as the theory of relativity and of evolution, have been verified multiple times. It is premature to elevate the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming to this status.

[Brillig]

No one believed Galileo either.

[rikkirighteous]

You're wrong about that.

The Catholic Church has an open mind about Galileo, but required him to prove the Copernican theory in order to replace the then widely held SCIENTIFIC view made by Aristotle.

[aBr1t]

was that befor or after they was going to burn him?

Or was that befor or after they burtn copernicus? Hmm?

HERETICK! ohhh very charming!

[SonofLiberty1]

Actually, what the Church did to Galileo was an aberration.

Ever hear of The Society of Jesus...

The Jesuits..the teaching arm of the church.

[SFTor]

I am always flabbergasted by this attitude that "the science is settled, the debate is over."

What is it exactly that makes this so obvious? To wit: we have seen a little warming in the 20th Century: 0.7 °C—on the heels of a very cold period in climate history (1875 was perhaps the coldest year since the last Ice Age.) After the last years of cooling, the increase may be less than that.

This warming has had NO EFFECT AT ALL. NONE. Not on the weather, or agriculture, wildlife, low-lying islands, or anything else. NONE. The increase in CO2 has had NO EFFECT AT ALL. Maybe plants grow a little better.

We are told that the all the bad stuff lies in the future, when hurricanes will rage, ice caps melt and oceans rise, people revolt and blood flow in the streets. This is predicated on forecasts by computer models, which do not even work correctly when backtested. The models are unable to model the action of water (water vapor and clouds, and oceans) the by far largest factors on climate. Bar none. CO2 doesn't even register compared to water. The computer models do not even correctly model climate based on CO2 increases. In other words, the theory has been falsified.

What exactly is it that is scientific about this, not to mention settled?

[fumes]

bravo SFTor!!

[aBr1t]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iTiK9q_JNH0CVdHRLUva36wj1QQg

Yes bravo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Arctic ice cap keeps melting under the effects of global warming and in August saw its second largest summer shrinkage since satellite observations began 30 years ago, US scientists said.

Measurements on August 26 showed an ice cap of 5.26 million square kilometers (2.03 million square miles), just below the 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) observed on 21 September 2005, making it the second biggest summer Arctic ice-cap melt in history, said the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).


didnt want to post the entire thing... i mean i could post thousands :) or shall i point to other things like the shrinking of the great barriar reef in austrailer?

[Thundrdrum]

Thanks, aBrit, for the statistics. Some of us DO read that stuff. Seems to be several Flat-Earth-ers about today.

[SonofLiberty1]

Increase the density of an atmosphere and you increase the ability of that atmosphere to retain heat.

It's that simple.

Want to debate that?

Fine...be my guest...

But you had better learn some ASTRONOMY before you debate it.

[fumes]

sonofliberty1,

just how dense can .038% of the atmosphere (CO2) really be?

you make it sound like a polar fleece blanket lol..

[aBr1t]

They dont grasp that SonofLiberty1...

The dont understand you can NOT take something from the earth "a solid" and turn it into a "gas" without adding to the atmosphear...

It is beyond them to understand MATTER can not be DESTROYED only transformed into ENERGY and the bit left over goes INTO the AIR

aka pollution / particulas (nts)

basic comman fact, the only debate is how much is man made and how much comes from the earth due to natural process.. ie volcanos tress, forrest fires ect ect ect

[Thundrdrum]

Over the last two decades the incidence of childhood and adult onset asthma has sky-rocketed. "Tornado Alley" has about quadrupled in size, and the hole in the ozone layer over Australia calls for the natives there to limit their activities of daily living outside. Don't tell me there's nothing wrong going on here. We're long overdue for industries that produce less air pollution but the car companies were too busy catering to ignoramuses driving giant, smoke-belching mega-cars. Stop lying in these forums, and for heaven's sake, stop lying to your children.

[SFTor]

Thundrdrum:

I think everything you are mentioning is legitimate and needs solutions, just don't blame it on global warming, because it has no connection to it.

[SFTor]

As for your last line: "stop lying in these forums"---I would advise you to mind your manners, if that means anything to you.

[SFTor]

According to the latest HadCrut data it appears we are at a rate of warming of about 0.44 degrees Celsius per century. Right now we appear to be in a period that is about 0.37 degrees Celsius warmer than average.

Just so we know what we are talking about.

[JEP57]

Why is man made global warming theory the ONLY area of science where further debate and dissent is frowned on or is politically incorrect. The reason has to do with the underlying socialist agenda of desired government control over industry and businesses, and control over our money in the form of taxes. What else can explain the adamently closed minds.

[pkafin]

Your question is predicated upon a falsehood.

It is not the "ONLY area of science where further debate and dissent is frowned on or is politically incorrect."

You will not get an astronomer to spend much time debating whether the earth revolves around the sun. Cartographers will not waste their time proving the Earth is not flat.

Using the shape and size of one's skull to determine the intelligence or personality of the person under it is no longer an acceptable branch of scientific study.

The political and monetary pressures to deny global warming are what drives the debate. Not, the other way around. It will be inconvenient and expensive to deal with global climate change. Industry has many reasons to resist it.

Anyone who thinks that there is more money in (and behind) dealing with global warming than there is protecting the status quo is clueless.

Republicans have long opposed environmentalist based upon the notion that they are out to destroy capitalism. There is a long paper trail of Republicans and other conservatives deriding each and every concern raised by environmentalists on the grounds that they are communists out to destroy our way of life.

[I once had a Crysknife]

Correct we are not also not allowed to debate when life happens.

[SFTor]

pkafin:

It is true that scientists no longer spend much time debating whether gravity is a fact. As a matter of fact, cavemen understood the principle very well, and chased mammoths over the edge of a cliff for easy dinner.

To even pretend that the CO2-driven AGW theory is "settled" in any way that resembles this is simply wrong---either a misstatement or a lie, take your pick. The CO2-driven AGW theory has been tested, and falsified. It already needs revision. That is not exactly what "settled science" looks like.

[ZalaK]

Oh wah wah wah. Decades of industry/business deregulation, and obscene tax breaks - still wasn't enough for you? It's turned into kind of a mess wouldn't you say? So let's blame those pesky scientists and politically correct alarmists because they are the ones threatening society. Throw in the "socialist" agenda monster myth too.... the unfairness of it all. Is it the tin foil hat or are you grieving over the failure of an epically bad idea?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

[TheHandyman]

Yes, yes I adamantly agree, curse those scurrilous socialist dogs that pretended to be capitalists! We can't let government stop these altruistic wealthy elite from taking care of us while they pollute the atmosphere. We must continue to allow them to do anything they want, even if it means our death and the destruction of all life on the planet. The Socialists who actually believe the utter nonsense that everyone is equal and that the quality of life should be the best possible for everyone, not just the wealthy few, need to be hunted down and exterminated! Look what the insidious socialst movement did in the late 1800's and early 1900's like the 8 hour day, over time pay, safe working conditions, 5 day work week! My GOTT, ve are doomed if dey are taking over de vorld! Ve all might haff a better life. Afterall, what else can explain the mindless minions who say such stupid things?

[Myke T]

Boy, there`s some radical ideology going on here... If you believe in man-made global warming that`s your choice, I and others, and more and more everyday don`t, and that`s our choice... We are not going to be conned into tax, and cap and trade schemes, to fill the bank accounts of elitists.



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

[aBr1t]

You mean like the way you was conned into thinking the FED is a goverment body when infact its a group of private banks?

Look dude i couldnt give a r4ts a$$ about tax conned whatever im talking about the crap that pollutes our air and makes our waters undrinkerble due to Inept humans to face up to the fact this planet is only going to keep us on it if we treat it with repsect.. and yes i do think the word is heating up due to the activites of mankind

or we can blame the sun, or the natural cycle of the earth right? WHAT EVER im tired of talking to people who wish to carry on with this stupid idea that OIL is NOT finite, and that the world we keep going on just fine and dandy

or shall i point you to the current crisses we are in with banks? and guess who thought up that one,, yep you betcha! HUMANS ,., god help us all "or whoever you want to pray to" we are going to need it by the bucketloads..

[SonofLiberty1]

Good show, good show!

[UbiVeritas]

Mass suicide is the only solution -- you first.

[pkafin]

The extent of your confusion is impressive.

[SonofLiberty1]

Yes a very radical ideology...

Yours, I'm very much afraid:(

[JustAThought56]

That is the committee's MINORITY report! The MAJORITY Report ignores it, because it is a total con.

The MINORITY report is based on - get this - a panel discussion at the International Geological Conference. The panel was attended by first 400 (2007) and then 650 (2008) scientists, a handful of which dispute the conclusions of the Stern Review, which analyzed the meta-data and supports Al Gore's position.

Talk about political propaganda!

That MINORITY report makes the panel discussion (one of at least 50 and the only one about climate change) look like it was some big conference about climate change, and that all of the scientists there are climatologists (NOT!) who disagree about global warming.

The MINORITY report is a total con, fabricated to support the neo-con perspective.

[TheHandyman]

No, you will just be conned into an early and horrible death. And your ignorance abounds, actually, more and more people are acknowledging the problem, not less. But it is and always has been the position of the willfully ignorant to deny that which eventually does them in!

[UbiVeritas]

an early and horrible death? And just how will this acopolypse occur?

[lizziesocks]

I love former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Al Gore.

Why would any sensible person dignify these cheap looney-tunes with a debate on their nonsense? Certainly no one of Vice President Gore's stature is going to give these extremist fringe-element players a platform for their anti-scientific blathering.

Still, he was polite, as is always the case with the great man who was our legitimately elected President in exile for the eight long and disastrous years of the usurper Bush.

[aBr1t]

lizzie its ok there is still hope of finding WMD in iraq :)

[SonofLiberty1]

Lizzie.

What do you mean Usurper?:)

I say "Dicatato-in chief"

[mulegino]

The invoking of the sacrosanct " scientific consensus" has very little meaning in the hyper-politicized debate about climate change. (By the way, the term "scientific consensus" in the past included such disproven discoveries and theories such as Nebraska man, Piltdown man, lumiferous ether, bathybios, spontaneus generation, embryological recapitulation, and a host of other "incontrevertible facts not open to debate".)
If the global climate is really rising, and if this is indeed anthropogenic in origen, it is still not proven that this in itself will have the kind of catastrophic consequences that the Al Gore crowd of doomsayers point to as inevitable consequences.
If there is an anthropogenic cause then there is an anthropogenic solution, as humanity has, throughout its history, demonstrated its ability to solve problems created by natural phenomena, and this is not accomplished by fearful paralysis of the uniquely human faculty of innovation and problem solving. If that were not the case, the Netherlands and the polar regions would be virtually uninhabitable, as would most deserts and swamplands-for any number of reasons.

[mulegino]

This is the same Al Gore that extolled NAFTA as a boon for the U.S., Canada, and Mexico in his debate with the hapless Ross Perot.
When you hear words like "catastrophe" or "crisis", you can be sure that there is a whole army of privateers, scam artists, and outright criminals salivating at the thought of profiting at the expense of the subject peoples of the world. Cap and trade is one example-a ludicrous, greed ridden financial derivative that solves nothing, as is T. Boonedoggle's land grab-to litter the Texas and Midwestern plains with thousands of white elephant windmills which will, if the plan goes through, no doubt be rusting, dilapidated monuments to oligarchical greed within a few decades.

[mluo2010]

So those windmills won't do anything at all to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels? Or cut down on pollution? Only for profit eh? What do you think the oil companies are doing?

Why is it that every other developed nation has agreed to curb emissions but we don't? Is it such a tragedy if businesses that pollute get their profits cut and businesses that don't gain? The whole point of cap-and-trade is, to put it bluntly, greed. The money is supposed to be an incentive to lower pollution.

[SonofLiberty1]

mulegino..

I don't blame Al Gore or Bill Clinton.

I do blame Republicans who extolled the virtures of Outsourcing and NEVER realized what they were doing or apologized for it.

I do blame The CEO of PANASONIC for being a total jerk.

I also blame the CEO of ICT Group Inc for selling our entire office to Manila!

[fumes]

CO2 = .038% of our atmosphere

and man's contribution is 35% of that .038%

or 0.00108571% of the atmosphere.

so we caused the earth to warm with our contribution of .00108571% CO2.

that's some pretty powerful stuff that we exhale and plants inhale!!! we should be more careful huh?

[aBr1t]

we as in humans or we as in humans + cars + industry + whatever other bullsh1tpost you care to make with you dumn a$$ numbers or dont you bother to read that the C02 we exhale and inhale is NOT THE SAME as what comes out the back of a car and out of a cooling tower you assclown

Do you know what "POLLUTION IS" or are you realy that dens?

[UbiVeritas]

Hey Brit, I thought you limeys were supposed to be cultured and sophisticated and well-mannered. What's the problem?

[pkafin]

Ummmm. the CO2 that we breath out is exactly the same as the Co2 that comes out of cars. CO2consist of one Carbon atom and (C) and two Oxygen atoms (O2).

Gore is correct, however, that debating global warming is like debating that the earth goes around the sun. Any one who thinks it's up for debate is too clueless to participate in such a debate.

As for you, aBrit. Misstating scientific fact is not helpful to your cause. I think what you mean is that cars produce a number of pollutants beyond the copious amounts of CO2. Some of these pollutants are also contributors to global warming. However, CO2 is a global warming gas that is common to many many human industrial activities. It is, therefore, central to any organized approach we may choose to embark upon as a species to try to curb the warming that is both indisputable and potentially catastrophic.

[SFTor]

Are you sure about those numbers?

A 35% human contribution to the carbon cycle sounds way high.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd love to see the whole spreadsheet, so to speak.

[fumes]

SFTor,

from the CO2 page @ wiki:

Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, and the increased release of CO2 from the oceans due to the increase in the Earth's temperature, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[2]

[dumbunny]

Dude. The recent rise in CO2 levels is one of the key observations behind the global warming hypothesis. Not having seen these data means you haven't done even five minutes of global warming fact checking, and yet you're the most vocal skeptic on this thread.

This is exactly why Al Gore should not debate Lomborg -- the noise-to-signal ratio among the global warming skeptics precludes intelligent discourse.

[mluo2010]

None of you seem to understand that just because .00108571% is a tiny number, it doesn't mean that the CO2 will have no effect. Judging the effects of CO2 emission by "how the numbers look" is completely nonscientific.

[Exusian]

Fumes tries to confuse you with really small numbers.
(And wrong* numbers at that, check your math, fumes: .038% x .35 = .0133%)
It's a slight-of-hand known as the dilution argument.
It's also a common argument by half-truth.

A missing part of the truth is that water vapour is also a very small part of the atmosphere since it makes up only around .4% of it. This means that H2O and CO2 combined make up less than .5% of the entire atmosphere.

Yet that .5% that is H2O and CO2 account for the vast majority of the natural greenhouse effect, which makes Earth's average surface temperature 33C/59F warmer than it should be. So, yes indeed, that IS some pretty powerful stuff!

continued...

[realpolitic]

Great explanation!! Even I am starting to understand!

[Exusian]

...continued

And what about the other 99.5% of the atmosphere, the nitrogen, oxygen, argon and trace gases?
Since they are completely transparent to infrared energy that 95% is not even part of the greenhouse effect, at least not until that IR energy gets converted into into kinetic energy through molecular collision. That's another missing part of the truth.

Saying that CO2 makes up only .038% of the atmosphere is true, but it is a slight-of-hand since that's a truth that simply doesn't matter.
What DOES matter is the percentage of the greenhouse effect that CO2 accounts for, which is roughly 20%, verses roughly 80% for H2O.

Now we can see more of the truth: human activity has increased the gas that is responsible for 20% of the natural greenhouse effect by more than one third, which puts those really small numbers in a whole new light.

[realpolitic]

I am beginning to think our friend Fumes is not learning anything from your posts!!

[kevenseven]

Gore is not a climate scientist. Obviously he would not engage in a scientific debate.

When this clod Lomborg wants a debate, let him take it up with a trained scientist who is prepared to give a competent arguement.

Gore's role is as a spokesman. Just as he pushed the right lever at the right time to help advance the internet (and he DID) he is pushing the right lever now to raise conscientiousness of climate change.

That is what a political leader does. He is a national treasure.

[pkafin]

Gore is not a scientist, it's true. However, he is much more than a spokesman. Gore wrote a book in 1988 "Earth in the Balance" (yes, 20 years ago) that showed a mastery of many of these issues. It has been a long quest of his to understand and then teach about the ability that humans have to effect the balance within the Earths biosystems.

For those who think that global warming is some new concept foisted upon the world, I will point out that is it referenced in Gores book from 1988 and it is a topic that I studied and was asked to write papers on in my college courses in the late 80's (even before Gore's book came out").

[Thundrdrum]

Agree the national treasure part. Glad he's doing what he's doing. Wish people would stop acting like ecological education is lame--.

[JustAThought56]

The scientist who challenged Al Gore to a debate agrees with him about global warming. He wants to debate the policy strategy for addressing it.

His name is Bjorn Lomborg, and he is the one who is out of his league in a policy, not scientific debate. Al Gore knows policy, Lomborg just wants to sell more books.