As the good people at Junk Science note, "Since Al Gore was offered the opportunity (in person) to facilitate serious debate on the underlying science of global climate change, 1 year, 3 months, 19 hours, 57 minutes, and 53 seconds have elapsed."The Heartland Institute are on to that. This morning across America's major dailies they've published these ads, calling for Al Gore to front up to a debate on the subject on which he claims some expertise, but over which there is nowhere near the consensus he claims, including over his own outlandish claims (7m sea level rises and the like).
Accompanying the ads is a well-stocked website, including suggestions as to why Al Bore won't debate.
RELATED: Global Warming
6 comments:
I am a global warming skeptic, but here is what bugs me about the debate challenge. It is a tactic creationists use in their fight against evolution. They do it for two reasons. One, simply by being on stage next to a scientist, creationists give the impression that there actually is some kind of controversy. Two, there is a strong asymmetry in the time it takes to level an allegation and the time it takes to rebut it, and this biases debates in favour of creationists who are the ones alleging this and that.
That is not to say that GW skeptics are in the same league as creationists, far from it, but why pick a forum for discourse that is susceptible to the tricks and distortions so amply demonstrated by creationists. It makes it unnecessarily easy to lump GW skeptics and creationists together.
Except that the facts are tending to support the GW sceptics more and more...
James, I fail to see how the 'facts' are supporting skeptics 'more and more' but am happy to be proven wrong. I would say that alternative theories for warming (GCR's etc) are getting a more regular airing in the blogosphere and to a lesser extent in the MSM.
As someone who takes the threat posed by AGW very seriously, I am all for this, as rigorous open and public debate will force those people who zealously cleave to one or other end of the spectrum will hopefully be forced to ground themselves a little, and consider what actual facts cause them to 'believe' so fervently.
That'll do for now, time to drink beer and celebrate the four-day weekend. Have a good break PC and all others.
DenMT
Denmt said "I fail to see how the 'facts' are supporting skeptics 'more and more' but am happy to be proven wrong."
How's this, a Ninemsn article showing that between the 1970s and the 1990s, temperatures have been increasing on Mars at the same rate as those on Earth. No human help on Mars. A resounding endorsement for those who say that GW is caused by increased solar activity.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=259649
"I am all for this, as rigorous open and public debate will force those people who zealously cleave to one or other end of the spectrum will hopefully be forced to ground themselves a little, and consider what actual facts cause them to 'believe' so fervently."
Which is exactly what is needed here. If there is a crisis (and I don't believe there is) then what's needed are clear headed practical solutions. Not gestures like Sydney's self imposed black-out or banning the use of the cheapest energy producing fuels on the planet.
That may be fine for the rich first world countries, but the 3rd world (i.e. the vast majority of humans on the planet) can't do that and still hope to improve their lot.
One thing that isn't in dispute here is that poor nations are more polluted then rich nations. Allow poor nations to become rich and the planet will get cleaner. No sensible human, sceptic or green, wants to breath polluted air if they can help it.
The problem is that poor people in India and China and Africa CAN'T help it. And banning CO2 emissions in the first world will not change a damned thing.
Well that is interesting isn't it!
Post a Comment