Global Warming Skeptic Challenges Gore to Debate »
Posted by: populist 1 year, 5 months ago162 Comments Report this Story
A British skeptic of global warming "alarmism" on Tuesday challenged climate change activist and former Vice President Al Gore to a debate on the issue.
Read Full Story at cnsnews.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 162
-
0%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
Now why wouldn't Gore debate? He says he has all the evidence, so he should show the doubters, debate and put an end to it once and for all, now if he won't agree to this debate, that is what will put his theory in a questionable light I would think. I mean really, use the proof and shut this Brit up right? and when it does it maybe I'll even believe that global warming is all man made, right now I believe it is happening, as a part of nature that we have no control over. Of course no one wants to pollute, we need clean air and water, but global warming has nothing to do with that, they are seperate issues. So this is Gore's chance to prove to a lot of people he knows of which he speaks, and that it's not just to make money by getting people to buy these silly carbon credits. So, again, if he's so sure, got all the evidence, why not debate since he would know it's a sure win for him.
Reply-
-
100%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
you mean like Gore accepting an Oscar he didn't win, the producers of the movie did. Or like when Gore "invented the internet", or every chance he gets to act like he's an expert on the environment? that kind of grandstanding? and you knkow, even if that's true, even if the other guy is trying to grandstand, let Gore go show him up as a fake. Where is the problem with that, unless Gore has something to hide himself.
Reply -
0%
doppich1 year, 5 months ago
I agree, torrent29.
"Monckton ...points out that like Gore, he is not a scientist or economist"
If I were interested in more debates between non-scientists on a scientific subject, I'd just read a few more of the comments posted on Netscape. Titles, whether "Viscount" or "VPOTUS" do not bestow knowledge.
Reply
-
-
0%
Veritatis1 year, 5 months ago
I see the situation as quite simple:
Either Global Warming is a Fact or it is Not
If it is TRUE and we are headed for Disaster, and do nothing, when it happens we will all be Hurting, and those ridiculing Gore now will say, "GEE, we were wrong", DUH, but it will be too late.
And, if it is Not True, then everyone can sit back and say, "SEE, I told ya Gore was a Nut!"
But, what if it does happen? Does it make much difference what I say as I sit here dying because of it?
Did anyone catch the "60 Minutes" program last Sunday and see them, with a scientist, showing how the Glaciers were disappearing and how bad the melting of Antartica is now?
That looked pretty bad to me, and it had nothing to do with Al Gore.
Reply-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 4 months ago
"Global warming is a fact or is it not" It's not that simple! Measurements can be made and for any short period of time you can find trends, warming or cooling. The amounts of greenhouse gases have recently increased. These are the only facts. These are a given and/or proven.
Now comes the questions, what types of measurements are you going to accept or reject?
Do the measurements reflect what is happening all over the globe?
To what degree can man control what is happening?
Are we really facing a global disaster?
Are the signs that we are seeing disasters in the making?
You know, I'm not about to call Mr. Gore a nut. He is, I believe, an opportunist and a hypocrite . He's getting rich by touting the global warming scare, all the while, creating his own pollution and pointing out that he buys energy credits (from his own corporation).
Pollution of any kind can't be good and must be reduced but I'm not hitching my wagon and putting it in Mr Gore's parade.
Reply
-
0%
kctrixter1 year, 5 months ago
The heck with Gore, have the debate with the 2000 scientist who gore gets his info from.
I have never read Gores book or seen his movie or heard him speak on the subject,( to me he is a new comer in the global warming debate) so I can't speak to his accuracy, but it seems to me to concentrate on the messenger instead of the message would indicate that you can't argue with the message just the messenger
Reply -
100%
rimbaud1 year, 5 months ago
Yeah, like the President should debate the 911 conspiracy theorists... Why would he?
Reply -
67%
rimbaud1 year, 5 months ago
Like a scientist should debate a creationist... Why would he? It's apples and oranges.
Reply -
20%
Justice4All1 year, 5 months ago
Then who would be next. Does Gore have to debate every self proclaimed environmental scientist that wants some time in the spotlight? He already has the support of the majority of the scientific community, why debate a no-name brit who wants to make a name for himself.
Reply
-
0%
newsquew1 year, 5 months ago
From Gore's testimony before the Senate:
(The former vice president said he sees a parallel between his struggle to end human-caused global warming and the film "300," which depicts the Battle of Thermopylae of 480 B.C. "It's great story of courage, when a few made the decision for the many," he said. A similar challenge now falls to the current generation and the current U.S. Senate, Gore added.)
He sites pop culture, "the movie of the week" as substance for 'the few making decisions for the many.' So typically liberal. "We'll" make the rules for the rest of you to live by. If ever there were a messenger whose actions over ride the message, it's him.
Rather than proselytize from a protected pulpit, renew your contract with the public relations alpha-male image creator & go debate this guy for what you want the world to do.
Reply -
0%
Harbeas1 year, 5 months ago
I think this debate would be very enlightening if it ever takes place.
Reply -
-
0%
MajJohn1 year, 4 months ago
I normally sink your posts, but just to show you I do read what I sink, I voted for this post. It is excellent and I hope you continue to come around. Naturally Gore will not get into a debate he feels he'll lose, no one would. He knows he's on weak ground and even if correct, lacks the skills or charisma to win any debate. He's playing up to his strengths as a doom and gloom prophet and I need not tell you from where he draws political strength.
Some call him a fool as they characterize the president, I'll not call him or his supporters fools, they have foolish ideas and are very naive as they blindly follow their agendas.
Reply
-
-
67%
joeblowe1 year, 5 months ago
A bit of enlightenment can come form following the link in the article back to the story in the U.K. newspaper. The arguments are made in a very clear, straightforward, and quite convincing manner. Unless the author is making up not only his facts, but the articles and journals upon which he rests them, there is indeed a great deal to question in the IPCC report. A great deal indeed. And yes, it's April 5 here, and I had to put on a winter coat this morning. There was ICE on freestanding water. Global warming my frozen ass!
Reply -
75%
djrevelky1 year, 5 months ago
I for one am happy we have global warming...It was 31 today on April 5th. If it wasn't for Global Warming it would have only been 30.9987654321 degrees.
Reply -
0%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
and don't forget our eliptical orbit that moves us closer to the sun at times, further away at others. And then there is the fact that Mars, Jupiter, and Pluto are also warming now. I never said there was no global warming, there is, and it will go away one day on it's own. Pollution is bad, but it's an entirely differnt issue, the only reason Gore wants them tied together is he owns a company that financially benefits from the sale of carbon offsets.
Reply -
0%
silvera1 year, 5 months ago
Mention Al Gore in any context regarding climate change and global warming and the usual suspects from the Flat Earth Society weigh in with all their predictable "expertise". Mostly just the same tiresome Fox news/Bush administration anti-science talking points from a bunch of armchair climatologists. Nowhere in the article does it say that Al Gore actually refused to debate the so called British skeptic but I certainly wouldn't blame him if he didn't. With very little research I discovered that the sponsor of the debate, Hearetland Institute, has received $561,500 from ExxonMobile since 1998 and that employees from ExxonMobile, Phillip Morris and General Motors sit on their board of directors. Sterling advocates of the environment all. What The Heartland Institute really is is a paid disinformation center for those that reap their profits from raping the Earth. Why should Al Gore legitimize these shills?
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
he wouldn't legitimizing them by debating, he will be if he refuses, and ok, they got money so you say with no documentation, anyway, if we take your word for it, if Gore debates the guy and shows us how wrong his opponent is he can convince lot of us doubters, you show me a single FACT and I'll agree he's right, he just hasn't done that yet, and if he won't debate someone even you are saying must be wrong because he's paid off, well no amount of money can change a fact, so Gore should have no problem, and be able to shut the doubters up right? So if he will not debate that is where we should really start to doubt him even more.
Reply -
0%
NoWayMan1 year, 5 months ago
yes. the heartland institute is funded heavily by EXXONMOBIL.
and when you scratch the surface of any study that supposedly disproves global warming, you will find Exxonmobil.
the Oregon Petition is a great example. Naysayers love to tout that as some kind of scientific verification that global warming is a hoax. but scratch the surface and you'll find that two of the studies chief authors were from the George C. Marshall Institute, a think tank that gets most of its funding from, thats right, EXXONMOBIL.
Reply -
0%
Demsaredim1 year, 5 months ago
Why is it the stupidest SOB's on the Internet always call those who disagree with them flat earthers? It's as if THET just learned the earth is round and are proud of themselves.
Reply
-
-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
I've got the copier ready to print millions of them...
Here's one on EBay
http://cgi.ebay.com/Carbon-Offset-Carbon-Offset...
Carbon Offset Calculator..
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/offset_ca...
Reply -
0%
Demsaredim1 year, 5 months ago
I like the idea of carbon offsets. I wonder if that would work in other areas. How about a beat the hell out of someone offset? You would agree not to beat the hell out of anyone and sell your offset to some who needs to beat the hell out of someone like a 7-11 employee, a government worker or maybe a liberal.
Reply -
-
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Actually in this case, there is no way Gore knows more than the novelist does.....
Reply
-
-
-
-
100%
Twistoflex1 year, 5 months ago
The wingnuts have smelled a steaming pile and descended on it, accordingly.
This character challenging Gore to a debate is not a scientist. He's a rightwing Tory ideologue. At least Gore actually scientific background - especially in environmental studies.
I don't see why Gore should waste his time going to England to debate an ideologue. Let this half-wit come to America and debate Gore. At least we don't drive on the wrong side of the street.
Reply-
-
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 5 months ago
Says who? You? Well, neocon kool-aid guzzler, he has advanced environmental science study - which was also discussed in his documentary.
Unless one lives in the cave of Repugnant neocon delusion there is evidence all around us of massive climate change UNPRECEDENTED in human history. Melting artic ice floes for the first time in over 40,000 years; the snows of Kilamanjaro - melting - for the first time in over 100,000 years; the Great Barrier Reef is dying for the first time - ever. The evidence is incontrovertible ... except, of course to Repugnant ideologues with horseblinders.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
jdhatl1 year, 5 months ago
Al gore is smarter than you. Sorry. I hope he does debate these petro-nazis. They have no substance, no evidence, just a bunch of mumbo jumbo about solar flares and Mars getting hotter. The main players in the Denial movement were the same people who, in the 60's, said that cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer. Same tactics, different issue, same criminality involved. Why does people not burning fossil fuels as much bother you so much? Your oil stock will still go up; the pentagon and even Exxon/Mobil are planning for global warming because they know its happening. Just because it feels cold to you when you step outside your climate controlled McMansion doesn't disprove Al's point; It isn't simply the climate getting hotter, it's weird weather in general. It won't hurt you to walk to the grocery store, or to take a train to work or to drive a hybrid. Who is really overreacting? There are better uses for your time people, better issues to obsess over.
Reply-
100%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
Al Gore is barely smarter than a rock....and there is some doubt about even that....
Reply -
0%
Demsaredim1 year, 5 months ago
"a bunch of mumbo jumbo about solar flares and Mars getting hotter."
ROFL.... mumbo jumbo ? and you don't think that Mars getting hotter is significant? HA HA HA What a marron!!!
Reply
-
-
0%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
all I see is a lot of excuses for Gore to avoid being found out for the fake he is. That said, who told you I never walk to the store, never ride a bike instead of drive. but as usual, someone from the left makes assumptions so they can feel superior, doesn't matter how wrong they are. why are Gore's supporters afraid for him to debate someone, especially when you keep saying the guy doesn't know what he's talking about, then he could only make Gore look good right? so why the fear for him to debate. Now it's hard to figure out who the cowards are, Gore himself, his supporters, or both.
Reply -
-
0%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
If the 'facts' speak for themselves, Al Gore loses big time....and every time....
Reply -
0%
DeltaX1 year, 5 months ago
Good thing it's not a personality contest. That just wouldn't be fair.
Reply
-
-
0%
Veritatis1 year, 5 months ago
Can I ask a Simple Question?
Is this Debate about Al Gore?, or about Global Warming?
I have never been an Al Gore fan, but that doesn't make him right or wrong.
The issue is Global Warming, True or Not?
Is anyone here able to stay "On Focus"?
I am seeing plenty of evidence coming down on the side of Global Warming being True - what I am not seeing is evidence that it is Not true!
Reply-
67%
KingOfTruth1 year, 5 months ago
The debate that should take place is between the scam artist Al Gore and the guy who challenged him to a debate. The issue is Gorbal Warming. The scam is that while it may apper we are in a Global Warming period, we are not. We are at the end of a long interglacial period and in all likelyhood heading either into a mini ice age or worse, into a full blown ice age....btw...all global warming and cooling is caused by the sun's varying cycles and the earth's weird rotation and flight path.........
Reply -
0%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
It's about both, I have no doubt global warming is real. But the pollution issue needs to be seperated from it, so we can work on cutting pollution and not have people confused, scared, and buying carbon offsets just to make Gore richer, that is what this is all about. I'm sure you've heard "the truth will set you free" It's time to free a lot of peoples minds from needless worry, let them end the stress Gore's bs is causing them, and then they can concentrate more on the issue they can do something about without being in a panic. Stress and worry actually sevre to immobilize people, so Gore is hurting the cause of lessening pollution with his rhetoric. And he's only doing it because he makes money every time someone buys a carbon offset, and he seems to be using that money to do things in his homes that produce much more co2. That's what it's about, global warming, and getting to the truth that Gore is trying to hide from those that are following him blindly.
Reply -
0%
rimbaud1 year, 5 months ago
We can probably do little to control Global Warming... It's arrogant to think we can fine-tune the ecosystem. However, I don't think you can debate the fact that we are not conservative in our use of the world's natural resources, that we take much more fish, water and oil than we need.
Reply -
0%
Demsaredim1 year, 5 months ago
I don't think the debate is about whether there is global warming or not it's about whether global warming is man made or not.
Reply
-
-
0%
nostalgia1 year, 5 months ago
Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown
"Former House Speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.
"Newt's a guy who has spent a lot of time wrestling with climate change and the environment. He reads about it, he teaches about it, he writes about it," Kerry said Thursday. "We don't see eye to eye about everything, obviously, but that's what makes for a good debate.
Looks like Kerry is going to upstage Gore on the issue. At least Kerry is not afraid of a debate on the issue
Reply-
100%
inthemiddleof1 year, 5 months ago
Kerry my be ready for a debate, but I think this Brit is really looking to do what Zaph has been pointing out. Showing how much of a fake Gore is.
Climate Change is definitely here, and here to change forever. The debate the Brit wants is one to shut up the sensationalism that has become the term "Global Warming." I don't think there's anyone that really thinks, other than Oil Cos obviously, we should continue polluting the world. That's not the issue. It's the sensationalism of it all. The doomsayers, i.e. media, will always show this stuff.
Although I don't always agree with Stossel and RCP, I did enjoy his article yesturday on the sensationalism of the media. That's all this is, and the sooner we can shut Gore up, the better we'll all be.
Again, Climate Change is all around us, but there a WAYYYYY to many viraibles to flat out say that humans are the cause.
Reply-
0%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
Thanks, nice to see someone else that gets it, that takes a minute to honestly look at the situation, and how damaging Gore is actually being to the cause he says he's trying to promote, and it's said often that Republicans are greedy and rich, and don't care about the evironment. If that were true Gore better would have to chance parties.
Reply
-
-
0%
OldRusty1 year, 5 months ago
The sheep people that follow Gore and the democrats, just can not see that he is full of crap,he wants a nobel piece prize,. following on the coat tails of that indian woman.Hell hes already got more money than God.
Reply -
-
catstevensComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
0%
jaeger1 year, 5 months ago
I thought one of the purposes of debate was to let both sides argue their case and present their evidence for it, regardless of spectators' biases one way or the other. Not responding to the invitation or declining it smacks of condescension or fear in my book. He probably would not wish to risk any bad press from such debate, given his stealthy presidential aspirations. he wouldn't be able to control the questions, or comments given by legitimate experts, whether they are right or wrong, and any spontaneous comments he made might haunt him. Recall he makes money from that polluting Zinc mine in Tenn given to the Gore family by environmental giant Armand Hammer, late owner of all things Occidental (like petroleum). Also bear in mind that Mr. Gore now runs a financial services company that advises investors where to place their money to profit from the fallout of global warming, enriching his own pockets along the way, whether the sky actually falls or not. Gore wins either way.
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 year, 5 months ago
I think it would be MUCH more valuable to get a couple of SCIENTISTS who really know the field to debate. Having a politician debate another politician isn't going to prove too much. I can't help but think that ANYONE who has had a look at the methods that have been used to collect (and interpolate AND extrapolate) much of the data being used to make these dire pronouncements would realize that, quite frankly, it ain't all that solid. Sorry, but it's just not. Figuring out what the temperature was in one spot on earth a couple hundred years ago by examining tree rings is OK for taking a W.A.G I suppose, but I have to say, it's really not good enough to be stirring up a multi-trillion dollar panic. When the Atlantic starts creeping into the hotel lobbies on Miami Beach - THEN let's panic. And we STILL probably won't be able to do that much about it. Let's get a NEW topic to get panicky about, OK?
Reply-
0%
rimbaud1 year, 5 months ago
Scientists debate by publishing their findings AND conclusions and then let other scientists take their time to respond. It's not a reality show or theater.
Reply -
0%
zaph221 year, 5 months ago
That's not very likely to happen, even if Gore hasn't told his follows the frost line is moving SOUTH in Florida, so not much danger of flooding hotels there.
Reply
-
-
-
67%
ecotour1 year, 5 months ago
damn right! we need to stop trading with these disastorous countries. why not employ our neighbors like MEXICO? maybe illegals would stay home instead of invading the USA! If they had jobs at home, more opportunity, win-win. ever see the shipping/polluting that comes out of China? how about their air quality from factories that we set up there? it's horrible..but who is to blame here???
Reply
-
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - That Dam Senator: A River Ran Through Him
- 1.0 - And Then We Will Die
- 1.0 - Triangulating an Asian conflict
- 1.0 - "Renegotiate NAFTA": What?s lurking behind the TRADE Act?
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
TimALoftis
Jeremy
capn_caveman- pawfoots
Debbie- Helixbuilder
ciera-marie- moortiez
- mossback
Dobes_Rule
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
