Climate change skeptics around the world are painfully aware that the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore, despite his supposedly vast knowledge on the subject, has refused every invitation to debate his theories concerning man's role in making things hot for the planet.
Fearing the globe's foremost warm-monger will never step up to the challenge - why should he...the debate's over! - top scientists from everywhere you can imagine have decided to debate the former vice president the only way seemingly possible: on YouTube.
As marvelously announced at PR Newswire Thursday (debate video available here):
Since former Vice President and global warming activist Al Gore has so far refused to debate global warming skeptics, the debate has been brought to him. The public can now watch Al Gore make his case head-to-head against expert climatologists in the first episode of the new environmental education video series, "We Debate, You Decide," launched by DemandDebate.com.
How delicious. The announcement continued:
"Al Gore has refused multiple invitations to debate in-person about global warming," said Steve Milloy, executive director of DemandDebate.com. "So we've decided to let video of his previous remarks do the talking for him," Milloy explained.
In the first installment of DemandDebate's "We Debate, You Decide" series, Al Gore 'debates' expert climatologists on the central issue of whether carbon dioxide drives global warming.
Al Gore says in the video that we're witnessing an unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that is driving global temperatures higher. But expert climatologists .- including Syun-ichi Akasofu, Tim Ball, Ian Clark, Piers Corbyn, Patrick Michaels, Nir Shaviv and Frederick Singer - say there is no evidence carbon dioxide drives global temperature change."
"We'll see what the public thinks after both sides make their case on a specific and narrow point," said Milloy. "Global warming alarmists didn't fare so well last time that happened," he added.
Last March, the prestigious New York debating society, Intelligence Squared, sponsored a debate on global warming, which may be viewed at http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/Event.aspx?Event=12. A pre-debate poll indicated that, by 2-to-1 (57 percent to 29 percent, with 14 percent undecided), the audience believed that manmade global warming was a crisis. But in the post-debate poll, the audience reversed its pre-debate views -- the ranks of the skeptics swelled to 46 percent, the believers plummeted to 42 percent and the undecided declined slightly to 12 percent.
Of course, unless you read NewsBusters, you likely didn’t hear about this debate in New York. After all, the results didn’t mesh with the media’s agenda.
That said, DemandDebate.com is to be commended for its efforts, and we sincerely hope that these videos will help the public better understand the facts that a global warming obsessed media are doing their darnedest to withhold from the citizenry.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sweeeeeet :o)
October 5, 2007 - 08:29 ET by HelenSThis is bound to roust this massive ego wielding buffoon out of his ivory castle if for no other reason than to pontificate on how his words were mis-represented and he didn't really say whatever.
He almost has to respond because if he doesn't, us hicks might believe the skeptics and buy into the truth. (Those still not aware, that is. I, fortunately, can say that I have never bought into Algore's hype and lies. I was immunized as a child by a wonderfully cynical father).
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
Miss Helen, I fear you are
October 5, 2007 - 08:56 ET by MikeBMiss Helen, I fear you are wrong about Algore almost having to repond. He will ignore this and let his brain-dead minions go around chanting, "The debate is over, the science is settled" over and over again. He knows that if he does respond and finally accepts a debate or series of debates with the skeptics he will have his manbearpig gluteus maximus handed to him and the political tide will turn away from his scams. He might even lose out on his Nobel prize. (I'm pulling for the long shot in that race: Rush Limbaugh.) So, no, he won't accept or respond to this at all.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Drat!
October 5, 2007 - 10:24 ET by HelenSOf course you're right but it is one of my dreams to live long enough to see even ONE lib finally get shown the door (boot to the rear).
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
This is chickenshit
October 5, 2007 - 08:41 ET by NL207That wooden dummy, Al Gore, still hasn't got the starch to stand eyeball-to-eyeball with Richard Lindzen or any of the other sceptical scientists and debate his position.
I think he would be humiliated and he knows it.
Oh good. For awhile I
October 5, 2007 - 08:54 ET by Hero SquadOh good. For awhile I thought Gore was always going to just duck his critics. *eyes roll.*
This is truly a beautiful thing.
*****
"I heart famous people."
}}---> Noel, I've got a question or two
October 5, 2007 - 09:31 ET by Cool ArrowDo we already know the format of the debate?
Will the honorable Warm Monger really answer in person, or will the assigned flunky take the flak when the answer just doesn't ring true?
I get the sense he'll insulate himself from the tricky questions and we'll be left with something very empty.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
If I May
October 5, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Wildcatter1980Algore has an esteemed position much like Mrs. Bill Clinton when it comes to the MSM. Such a position means they will not be asked any tough questions, questions they should be made to answer. In fact, they are more likely to be complimented for not being asked the proper and tough questions that the MSM SHOULD be asking Algore and Mrs. Bill Clinton.
What will happen is the sycophant lemming-like followers of Algore will launch a smear campaign filled with the usual rantings of corporate financing and "bad" science.
In fact, I was reading elsewhere where an AGW believer who regularly asks we skeptics to provide "peer-reviewed" research disputing the anthropogenic aspect of our current global warming was shown Fred Singer's new book summarizing just that; many "peer-reviewed" papers that dispute/refute one or more key aspects of AGW. So, after years of wrapping himself in the "peer-review" banner, one would think this person would at least concede that there is indeed "peer-reviewed" evidence that casts doubt on the anthropogenic aspect of global warming.
NOT! This person is evidently so "invested" in AGW, that he had the nerve to say, in essence, that the "peer-reviewed" science that Singer and his coauthor cite isn't any good!
Wow! Who knew that you could "win" a debate simply by saying, "Oh, I don't think your evidence is any good, therefore I win."
Hhmm? Come to think of it, isn't that what Algore says?
Just my $0.02
People, people, people, we
October 5, 2007 - 09:36 ET by MikeBPeople, people, people, we here at NewsBusters and other AGW skeptics have had it wrong all along. I did some research, and according to my Physics text, The Mao of Physics, AGW is a fact, and those of us who do not acknowledge this must report for re-education immediately. According to The Mao of Physics only running-dog lackies of the bourgeoisie oppressors of the proletariat masses like Exxon-Mobil would question the science of man-made global warming. Arise! Throw off your chains! Drink the kool-aid! Experience the tranquility of letting Algore and Hillary and MoveOn.org and DailyKos do your thinking for you!
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
}}---> Thanks, MikeB
October 5, 2007 - 09:42 ET by Cool ArrowYou just gave me a flashback to Lemmings (National Lampoon).
Goldie Oldie was singing about a gooey gooey pizza pie.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Oh, I bet this is going to
October 5, 2007 - 09:40 ET by bassndudeOh, I bet this is going to be really really good:-)
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Just listened to the NPR IQ2 debate
October 5, 2007 - 10:29 ET by c5thenEXCELLENT!!!
What really struck me, was that the anti-global-warming-is-a-crisis side offered that if the climate WAS warming to a crisis point, and if it WAS primarily man-made, aren't there better things that we could do that would generate much better effects (more bang for the bucks) than trying to reverse effects on climate when we already admit that we know only a little about so many of the factors?
One of the panelists brought up that sea level rises predicted in the models will flood Battery Park. One of the lay audience members made the statement: "We can move all the people out of Battery Park much more cheaply than if we try and affect the climate to prevent the flooding."
In the end, the pro-crisis side could not show that there was a consensus, that a consensus was even a good thing in science and that their proposed solutions were even the best return on humanity's investment.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Don't Hold Your Breath, Though
October 5, 2007 - 16:53 ET by Wildcatter1980We can point out to the alarmists what you just said here and it still won't change their thinking. That's because GW is not crisis. It is a tool, an opportunity, a means to an end.
They (the alarmists) want to gain political control over anyone who does not kowtow to their way of thinking, their point of view. They do not want the average person to be free and to have the equality of opportunity that our founding fathers put forth when they founded this great country.The alarmists do not believe in a free marketplace, capitalism and entrepreneurism.They do believe in big, nanny-state government and socialism and that is despite the fact that no one can point to an example in history of a successful socialist nation/economy.
Just my $0.02
$$$$$
October 5, 2007 - 11:25 ET by BeanManWhen George W. Bush was sworn in as President in January of 2001, Algore's declared net worth was about $1M.
Recently his declared net worth was about $100M.
This is the main reason Algore is so hesitant to debate anything that will stop this money train from lurching down the tracks or even slow it down.
I'd perpetrate a hoax like this if it would make me $100M in seven years.
Follow the money!
Since government is coercion, politics is largely the exercise of deception regarding the intended use of coercion - George Orwell
Follow the Money!
October 5, 2007 - 16:58 ET by Wildcatter1980Need we say any more?
Well, just one thing. When I related to a friend of mine how Algore stood to benefit financially from AGW and asked him what it reminded him of, he answered with one word: Haliburton!
Just my $0.02
Al Gore's major
October 5, 2007 - 13:58 ET by BuffNBoneAl Gore's major contribution to debates is he makes John Kerry look dynamic and animated.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"