Gore Challenged

[Stinger]

"In a formal press release from the Center for Science and Public Policy, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."
Monckton said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head-to-head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November."



Hmmmmm no consensuing going on here either. Gore has a history of avoiding direct debate of his assertions. We'll see if he accepts this one.



" In his most recent challenge to Gore, Monckton calls on the former vice president to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor.
"If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge.""



Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate

 

[Sauwan]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who acknowledges GW who disputes this type of attack. I've said it before and I'll say it again:

I think Gore understands that he had to make the film in a propagandized fashion due to the apathetic nature of the general population. To get any action from people, you have to make them feel immediately threatened. Had Gore not exaggerated the facts and make the situation seem more desperate than it really is, no one would be talking about it or even remotely worried about it.

Gore's not as stupid as you'd like him to be; this is just as you probably realize Bush isn't as stupid as the general Liberal thinks he is. Both are politicians and understand how to get the populace to want to take action.

 

[jfuh]

"In a formal press release from the Center for Science and Public Policy, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet to challenge Gore to what he terms "the Second Great Debate," an internationally televised, head-to-head, nation-unto-nation confrontation on the question, "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."
Monckton said, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."
Monckton and Gore have once before clashed head-to-head on the science, politics, and religion of global warming in pages of the London Sunday Telegraph last November."



Hmmmmm no consensuing going on here either. Gore has a history of avoiding direct debate of his assertions. We'll see if he accepts this one.



" In his most recent challenge to Gore, Monckton calls on the former vice president to "step up to the plate and defend his advocacy of policies that could do grave harm to the welfare of the world's poor.
"If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge.""



Al Gore Challenged to Climate Debate

What does consensus have to do with a challenge to gore? You're obsessed with gore, perhaps you should ask him out on a date?

 

[Stinger]

What does consensus have to do with a challenge to gore? You're obsessed with gore, perhaps you should ask him out on a date?

Perhaps you should stick with the issue, personal slanders do not buoy your case.

 

[Sauwan]

Perhaps you should stick with the issue, personal slanders do not buoy your case.

Then you should stick to the issue as well. Please explain how a few scientists disagreeing gets rid of the consensus.

1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2.general agreement or concord; harmony.

Also, please find me one credible organization that disagrees with the overall IPCC findings; all you seem to find are rouge scientists.

 

[jfuh]

Perhaps you should stick with the issue, personal slanders do not buoy your case.

STick with your own claim then, where's the "anti consensus".

 

[Stinger]

Then you should stick to the issue as well. Please explain how a few scientists disagreeing gets rid of the consensus.

How does a few agreeing create one?

Also, please find me one credible organization that disagrees with the overall IPCC findings; all you seem to find are rouge scientists.

I have posted so many I have been accused of being obsessed.

 

[Stinger]

STick with your own claim then, where's the "anti consensus".

Haven't you been reading my posts, I've been accused of being obsessed. This is just another example of a reputable scientist who does not agree along with the thousands of others who don't and prove there is no consensus.

 

[Sauwan]

How does a few agreeing create one?

I think you drastically underestimate how many people agree on it.

I have posted so many I have been accused of being obsessed.

I haven't seen you post one. The key word in there was organization.

 

[jfuh]

Haven't you been reading my posts, I've been accused of being obsessed. This is just another example of a reputable scientist who does not agree along with the thousands of others who don't and prove there is no consensus.

First, show us how one person negates a consensus?

 

[Stinger]

I think you drastically underestimate how many people agree on it.

I think you drastically underestimate how many don't.

I haven't seen you post one. The key word in there was organization.

What does being in an organization have to do with anything?

 

[Sauwan]

I think you drastically underestimate how many don't.

Oh no, I see it all the time.

What does being in an organization have to do with anything?

Because if an organization publicly denounced the IPCC results, then that would mean that there isn't a consensus within that organization. (Or more properly, a consensus against the IPCC) However, if you cannot produce a single organization that does so, it seems that this list of organizations that do have a consensus drastically outnumber your rogue scientists that you seem so happy to show everyone.

List in this link.

There are probably people within each of those orgs that disagree with the IPCC. However, it becomes clear that the majority within all those orgs agree with the IPCC. This CLEARLY indicates a consensus; that is unless you can find me some orgs which have a majority which dispute it.

 

[Stinger]

Oh no, I see it all the time.

Then you are aware there is no such thing as a consensus on global warming.

Because if an organization publicly denounced the IPCC results,

Just because all the thosands of authoritative scientist who do not subscribe to the man-made GW demise theory don't band into an organization proves nothing.

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/there-is-no-consensus.htmlFacts prove things, not organizations.

 

[Sauwan]

Then you are aware there is no such thing as a consensus on global warming.

Is that a question? From all practical purposes, there IS a consensus. However if you want to define consensus as unanimity, then I can see your point.

Just because all the thosands of authoritative scientist who do not subscribe to the man-made GW demise theory don't band into an organization proves nothing.

I would LOVE a list of this thousand authoritative scientists. Please do provide a source for this claim.

Facts prove things, not organizations.

By that logic, neither does individual scientists who disagree with Gore. By your own admission, please refrain from using this tactic in the future.

 

[Stinger]

Is that a question? From all practical purposes, there IS a consensus.

For all practical purpose the left and GW desciples simpy use that assertion to shut down any debate. Anytime they begin to lose the argument on facts they try to pull out the old "well everyone thinks like I do and there is a consensus and there is no more debate". It's just a typical tactic to shutdown any debate.

However if you want to define consensus as unanimity, then I can see your point.

It's a solidarity of agreement based on indisputable facts. GW does not qualify by a long shot.

I would LOVE a list of this thousand authoritative scientists. Please do provide a source for this claim.

You should get yourself better news sources else you would have long ago.

From the Boston Globe.

"It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."

"
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as "dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive." The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.




"The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record," the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. "In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results." The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org."



Scientists don't agree on global warming

By that logic, neither does individual scientists who disagree with Gore.

First of all Gore is not a scientist, he is a self-promoting former politican trying to enrich himself on bogus science which he uses to fool people.

By your own admission, please refrain from using this tactic in the future.

What tactic? The individuals I cite are cited for their factual declarations, not because the claim there is a consensus so there is no more debate.

 

[Stinger]

Is that a question? From all practical purposes, there IS a consensus.

For all practical purpose the left and GW desciples simpy use that assertion to shut down any debate. Anytime they begin to lose the argument on facts they try to pull out the old "well everyone thinks like I do and there is a consensus and there is no more debate". It's just a typical tactic to shutdown any debate.

However if you want to define consensus as unanimity, then I can see your point.

It's a solidarity of agreement based on indisputable facts. GW does not qualify by a long shot.

I would LOVE a list of this thousand authoritative scientists. Please do provide a source for this claim.

You should get yourself better news sources else you would have long ago.

From the Boston Globe.

"It is a petition signed by nearly 17,000 US scientists, half of whom are trained in the fields of physics, geophysics, climate science, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry, biology, or biochemistry. The statement was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine along with an eight-page abstract of the latest research on climate change. The abstract - written for scientists but comprehensible by laymen - concludes that there is no basis for believing (1) that atmospheric CO2 is causing a dangerous climb in global temperatures, (2) that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful, or (3) that human activity leads to global warming in the first place."

"
More than 100 climate scientists have endorsed the Leipzig Declaration, which describes the Kyoto treaty as "dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive." The endorsers include prominent scholars, among them David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.




"The dire predictions of a future warming have not been validated by the historic climate record," the Leipzig Declaration says bluntly. "In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct contradiction to computer model results." The declaration, plus a wealth of information on every aspect of the global warming controversy, is posted at the Web site of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org."



Scientists don't agree on global warming

By that logic, neither does individual scientists who disagree with Gore.

First of all Gore is not a scientist, he is a self-promoting former politican trying to enrich himself on bogus science which he uses to fool people.

By your own admission, please refrain from using this tactic in the future.

What tactic? The individuals I cite are cited for their factual declarations, not because they claim there is a consensus so there is no more debate.

 

[Sauwan]

For all practical purpose the left and GW desciples simpy use that assertion to shut down any debate. Anytime they begin to lose the argument on facts they try to pull out the old "well everyone thinks like I do and there is a consensus and there is no more debate". It's just a typical tactic to shutdown any debate.

No, I provided a link with plenty of credible organizations which support the IPCC.

It's a solidarity of agreement based on indisputable facts. GW does not qualify by a long shot.

It's always easy to win arguments when you define words in your favor.

You should get yourself better news sources else you would have long ago.

You mean from...1998 when all this is from? I'M the one who needs a better news source??? Clearly this has nothing to do with the IPCC. Again, I ask you to provide a list of the thousands of authoritative scientists that disagree with the IPCC. FYI, by the qualifications they listed I'm qualified to be one of those 17,000.

First of all Gore is not a scientist, he is a self-promoting former politican trying to enrich himself on bogus science which he uses to fool people.

And second of all?

Do you have any proof of this wild and ludicrous allegation or are you just trying to prove to everyone you're incapable of arguing without an Al Gore ad hominem every other line?

What tactic? The individuals I cite are cited for their factual declarations, not because they claim there is a consensus so there is no more debate.

Then why do you continually speak of the "lack of consensus"? You're continually betrayed by your own words.

 

[Stinger]

No, I provided a link with plenty of credible organizations which support the IPCC.

And I can provide plenty for the other side.

It's always easy to win arguments when you define words in your favor.

I didn't define it, got it from the dictionary.

You mean from...1998 when all this is from? I'M the one who needs a better news source??? Clearly this has nothing to do with the IPCC. Again, I ask you to provide a list of the thousands of authoritative scientists that disagree with the IPCC. FYI, by the qualifications they listed I'm qualified to be one of those 17,000.

Their conclusions do, and nothing has been shown to be different and no you are not qualified at least half are in direct disciplines as listed. You wanted a list of thousands, you got it plus more.

But here is some more debunking

"There is no consensus on global warming. Over 60 respected scientists signed a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister this past April contending that "Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'" Between 1999 and 2001, thousands of scientists and researchers signed the Oregon Petition, stating, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.""

Global Warming Consensus is a Myth

And second of all?

After the first there was no more need for a second.

Do you have any proof of this wild and ludicrous allegation or are you just trying to prove to everyone you're incapable of arguing without an Al Gore ad hominem every other line?

Are you claiming he is a scientist? Has he debated any scientist? He's enriching himself by scaring those who fall for his assertions.

My quote: What tactic? The individuals I cite are cited for their factual declarations, not because they claim there is a consensus so there is no more debate.

Then why do you continually speak of the "lack of consensus"? You're continually betrayed by your own words.

How so?

But let's get back to Gore not debating in public with an authoritative scientist. Here from the WSJ

"The interview [with Gore] had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he’s been very critical of Mr. Gore’s message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore’s evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. "

WSJ.com - Login

What is he afraid of?

 

[Sauwan]

And I can provide plenty for the other side.

Again, I have yet to see one.

I didn't define it, got it from the dictionary.

Quite convenient you're not informing us of which one.

Their conclusions do, and nothing has been shown to be different and no you are not qualified at least half are in direct disciplines as listed. You wanted a list of thousands, you got it plus more.

Their conclusions were based years after the IPCC report; there has been plenty of new science in that time. Claiming otherwise is shear ignorance.

But here is some more debunking

"There is no consensus on global warming. Over 60 respected scientists signed a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister this past April contending that "Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'" Between 1999 and 2001, thousands of scientists and researchers signed the Oregon Petition, stating, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.""

Global Warming Consensus is a Myth

The keyword in there is catastrophic. I have addressed that numerous times and it does not concern me.http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/8391/2007-01-31.html

Are you claiming he is a scientist? Has he debated any scientist? He's enriching himself by scaring those who fall for his assertions.

I'm not claiming he's a scientist. I want proof of his motives otherwise it seems blatantly clear your allegations are nothing but speculation.

My quote: What tactic? The individuals I cite are cited for their factual declarations, not because they claim there is a consensus so there is no more debate.

That is not the recursive theme. I rarely - if ever - see you explaining the science.

But let's get back to Gore not debating in public with an authoritative scientist. Here from the WSJ

What's this have to do with science. You JUST claimed to want to dispute facts and not what individuals or organizations thought. I don't think I have seen a bigger set of outright contradictions presented on this board.

What is he afraid of?

Again, more wild speculation.

 

[Stinger]

Again, I have yet to see one.

Then you aren't looking

Quite convenient you're not informing us of which one.

Webster

Their conclusions were based years after the IPCC report; there has been plenty of new science in that time.

What? The record hasn't changed and the models are no more accurate.

Claiming otherwise is shear ignorance.

No ignoring the fact that there are many many many scientist who do NOT subscribe to the GW desciples assertions is though. This whole thread is about Gore not wanting to debate any of them.

The keyword in there is catastrophic. I have addressed that numerous times and it does not concern me.

"There is no consensus on global warming. Over 60 respected scientists signed a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister this past April contending that "Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

Even that we are driving climate is not a proven fact.

There is no consensus. And claiming that your side is correct by claiming there is a consensus is folly.

I'm not claiming he's a scientist. I want proof of his motives otherwise it seems blatantly clear your allegations are nothing but speculation.

Is he enriching himself using this issue?

That is not the recursive theme. I rarely - if ever - see you explaining the science.

I prefer to let the scientist do that.

What's this have to do with science. You JUST claimed to want to dispute facts and not what individuals or organizations thought. I don't think I have seen a bigger set of outright contradictions presented on this board.

Nope you have just misrepresented it. And as I said let's get back to the topic which you are trying to stay away from and that is Gore and will he debate the subject and allow himself to be questioned over his assertions.

Now he is trying to get special treatment when he testifies before Congress. Why they are having him testify when he is not an authority but merely a bloviator is curious but here from the news this morning.

"Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET."

So he can talk and not be questioned on his assertions.

"But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.
But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill -- the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore."


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=71e7e4c1-802a-23ad-4c16-02e25ed1bfd3



He doesn't want to allow anyone time to prepare to refute his assertions.


What is he scared of?

Again, more wild speculation.

An observation, whenever anyone tries to debate him in public on the facts he runs or tries to skew the rules in his favor.

 

[Sauwan]

Then you aren't looking

Please, do show.

Webster

So you feel it's OK to tack on whatever to the end of a dictionary entry? That's highly intellectually dishonest.

Definition of consensus - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

What? The record hasn't changed and the models are no more accurate.

This is a downright lie and you know it. What do you think scientists have been squabbling about all these years after? Semantics?

No ignoring the fact that there are many many many scientist who do NOT subscribe to the GW desciples assertions is though. This whole thread is about Gore not wanting to debate any of them.

Like you said, Gore is not a scientist. His not engaging in a public debate with a scientist is hardly surprising. "Don't kill the messenger".

"There is no consensus on global warming. Over 60 respected scientists signed a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister this past April contending that "Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

Source this and back it up with your loved science; you continue to argue with appeals to authority, which you claimed you did not want to.

Even that we are driving climate is not a proven fact.

That's not what the science says. If you want to debate the science I hereby challenge you to a formal debate.

There is no consensus. And claiming that your side is correct by claiming there is a consensus is folly.

Hahah, and how is it not a folly to claim your side is correct because there is none?

Is he enriching himself using this issue?

More speculation.

I prefer to let the scientist do that.

Not from what I've seen.

Now he is trying to get special treatment when he testifies before Congress. Why they are having him testify when he is not an authority but merely a bloviator is curious but here from the news this morning.

Really? You think most scientists are adept at spreading this to the public? That seems silly.

He doesn't want to allow anyone time to prepare to refute his assertions.

Either that or he's a politician and is quite busy...One of the two.

What is he scared of?

More....speculation?

 

[jfuh]

That's not what the science says. If you want to debate the science I hereby challenge you to a formal debate.

$20 says he's going to cut and run.

 

[Gill]

Stinger, you're wasting your time with this guy. As you've already seen in this thread, he challenges you for an answer, you provide it, then three posts later he challenges you for the same answer again.

He keeps posting as 'proof' a private blog. I was challenged to prove it wrong which I did in about 30 seconds. Yet he continues to link to it as supposed proof. Maybe he should actually read the comments in this blog where posters rip apart the blogger's assertions.

 

[Sauwan]

Stinger, you're wasting your time with this guy. As you've already seen in this thread, he challenges you for an answer, you provide it, then three posts later he challenges you for the same answer again.

You can add ad hominem to the lengthy list of logical fallacies you use in debate.

He keeps posting as 'proof' a private blog. I was challenged to prove it wrong which I did in about 30 seconds.

You did nothing of the sort. The only thing you did was make yourself look foolish. I now, once again, extend the challenge to debate the actual science to you.

 

[jfuh]

You can add ad hominem to the lengthy list of logical fallacies you use in debate.

You did nothing of the sort. The only thing you did was make yourself look foolish. I now, once again, extend the challenge to debate the actual science to you.

Another $20 says cut and run.