Gore Dodges Repeated Calls to Debate Global Warming
Bonzo
Sunday, September 30, 2007
By Bonner R. Cohen Ph.D.
http://qtech9.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html
As over 150 heads of state and government gather at UN
headquarters in New York to discuss climate change, former Vice
President Al Gore, the most prominent proponent of the theory of
the human-induced, catastrophic global warming, continues to
refuse repeated challenges to debate the issue.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus, who addressed the General Assembly
on climate change September 24, is but the latest global warming
skeptic to receive the cold shoulder from Gore. In ads appearing
in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times,
Klaus has called on Gore to face him in a one-on-one debate on
the proposition: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." Earlier in the
year, similar challenges to Gore were issued by Dennis Avery,
director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow
at the Hudson Institute, and Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former
adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. All calls on
the former vice president to face his critics have fallen on deaf
ears.
The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free-market think tank,
launched the debate campaign in April, using ads, press releases,
and other tactics to prod Gore into confronting those who reject
his alarmist views on global warming.
For his part, President Klaus has not minced words on what he
sees as the real agenda of those promoting climate hysteria. In
an op-ed in the Financial Times (June 13, pointedly titled
"Freedom, Not Climate, is at Risk," Klaus said: "Let us not scare
ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and
promote irrational interventions in human lives." Arguing that
the issue of global warming "is more about social than about
natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about
tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global
temperature," Klaus rejected the notion of a "scientific
consensus" on climate change as an effort by a "loud minority" to
impose its will on a "silent majority."
However, Klaus reserved his unkindest cut of all for the movement
that has joined forces with Gore is spreading fear about global
warming:
"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I
feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom,
democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious
environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to
replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort
of central (now global) planning."
Gore's refusal to take on the likes of Klaus, Avery and Lord
Monckton is no isolated incident of the former vice president's
lacking the courage of his convictions. In June, Professor Scott
Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania urged Gore to put his
global warming money where his mouth is. Armstrong, one of the
world's leading experts on forecasting, has studied the forecasts
made by Gore and such organizations as the UN's Intergovernmental
Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) and found their methodology
wanting.
Convinced that Gore and the IPCC are overstating how much
temperatures will rise in the years to come, Armstrong has
challenged Gore to the following wager: Each man bets $10,000 on
how much temperatures will go up in the next ten years. The money
will stay in escrow until 2017. The one whose forecast come
closer to the actual change in temperature will be declared the
winner and be allowed to donate the $20,000 plus accumulated
interest to the charity of his choice. But despite being flush
with cash from his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," and from
lucrative speaking engagements around the world, Gore has not
taken Armstrong up on the bet.
Gore's reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics
may have something to do with the - from the standpoint of
climate change alarmists - unfortunate outcome of a global
warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of
global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard
Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology
Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael
Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by
NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly
two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3
percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global
warming is a "crisis." At the end of the debate, the numbers had
changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical
point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.
Bonner R. Cohen is a senior fellow at the National Center for
Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and author of "The
Green Wave: Environmentalism and its Consequences, published by
the Capital Research Center.
--
Regards
Bonzo
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth,
social and environmental." Dave Forman, Founder Earth First
Journal
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." John
Daily, Editor, Earth First Journal
"The suffering of a crippled ant deserves equal consideration to
that of a crippled human child. If we could only save one, he
says, we should decide by the flip a coin or else we would be
"speciests". Peter Singer, 'bioethicist' Princeton University
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> 1998 14.57 *********************o*****
>> 1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
>> 2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
>> 2001 14.48 ************************o
>> 2002 14.56 *************************o**
>> 2003 14.55 **************************o*
>> 2004 14.49 *************************>>o
>> 2005 14.63 *****************************o**
>> 2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
>>
>> Look at all those "o"'s lined up there.
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> The "0"'s are NOT THE DATA!
> They have created a trend which does not exist in the data.
> Voodoo statistics!
Ahahahahahahahahaha... Stupid KKKonservative KKKlown. A trendline skirts
across the top of the data leaving equal portions of the data above and
below. In this instane 10 dots above, and 14 below as a result of the crude
nature of ascii graphics. Nevertheless it represents the best line that can
be fitted to the data based on minimizing the square of the distance between
the line and the real data. It's called a least squares curve fit.
You are completely ignorant when it comes to statistics and mathematics in
general aren't you Bonzo.
Ahahahahahaha.. You don't know what statistics are, where it comes from,
how it is used, or how to use it, and yet in your vast ignorance, you seem
to think that you know more about science than all of the worlds scientists.
"Voodoo statistics" Ahahahahahahahah... You need to go back to public
school and take a refresher course in basic technical literacy.
Stupid... Stupid.. KKKonservative KKKlown....
"Bonzo" <boo...@optusnt.com.au> wrote
> Here is the data which shows NO TREND!
>
> 1998 366.50 2.5721 14.57
> 1999 368.14 2.6148 14.33
> 2000 369.41 2.6399 14.33
> 2001 371.07 2.6672 14.48
> 2002 373.16 2.7032 14.56
> 2003 375.80 2.7487 14.55
> 2004 377.55 NA 14.49
> 2005 379.75 NA 14.63
> 2006 381.90 NA 14.54
No? Lets plot the data and find out shall we? Here it is along with the
best linear fit to the data shown as "o".
1998 14.57 *********************o*****
1999 14.33 *****************>>>>o
2000 14.33 *****************>>>>>o
2001 14.48 ************************o
2002 14.56 *************************o**
2003 14.55 **************************o*
2004 14.49 *************************>>o
2005 14.63 *****************************o**
2006 14.54 ***************************>>>o
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
So Bonzo, who is paying you to post lies to this newsgroup?
Roger Coppock
> Gore Dodges Repeated Calls to Debate Global Warming
>
> Sunday, September 30, 2007
> By Bonner R. Cohen Ph.D.
>
> headquarters in New York to discuss climate change, former Vice
> President Al Gore, the most prominent proponent of the theory of
> the human-induced, catastrophic global warming, continues to
> refuse repeated challenges to debate the issue.
Gee!
The global warming deniers will have to stand in line.
Charles Manson, Ed Conrad, and David Duke want to debate
Al Gore too, and they got first dibs.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1191814734.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Why do you think it is, Roger, that Al Gore refuses to debate?
If you were him would you debate?
Why not? Don't you feel a responsibility to stand up to the deniers?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
<claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> Why do you think it is, Roger, that Al Gore refuses to debate?
Because debates are for politicians and this is a issue of science.
Why do you think that a political debate will change the science?