Thursday, April 5, 2007


In a challenge unlikely to be met,
"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."Global warming is not a crisis," Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley declared in an ad published in the Washington Post Tuesday. The ad, also scheduled to run in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, directs readers to a website in which Monckton challenges Gore to a debate in Oxford, England at a date of the American's choosing."

"Al Gore has become the world's most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world's climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced," Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said in a statement. "But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis."

"In a recent statement, Monckton declared, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw [a fuss over a matter of little importance] of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

I haven't heard that word in a while, "FOOFARAW", but it fits Al Gore's Global Warming Crusade perfectly. Wouldn't you love to see such a debate, televised and broadcast around the world? Gore won't take the bait. At this point he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose. He has public opinion on his side and he's not going to let science, reason and logic get in his way.
Any ideas for how we can get Gore, or any human-induced global warming advocates to have an open and honest debate? I don't know how it is possible.

To read the entire article, go here.


Anonymous said...

Whenever I argue that global warming is not caused by man, so-called environmentalists always accuse me of not caring about the earth. They immediately fire back saying that I hate the earth. The reason why radical environmentalists lash out in this way is that they tend to fuel the debate through emotion rather than articulate reason and fact. While it is important to be passionate, emotion should not lead public policy.

My instincts tell me the thrust of their position is the lack of good science and fact to back up their claims. They assert that there is a consensus among scientists that man-made CO2 is causing global warming and leading us down a path of doom and gloom. Consensus is not fact and because they have no facts, they resort to name calling. Fancy documentaries and high resolution charts do not constitute a fact.

In my opinion, liberal elitism is pervasive in the radical environmentalist movement. The idea that in less than fifty years we have managed to destroy the earth through modernization is audacious. Their fear and loathing for free markets and industrial self-determination is evident in all that they do. Radical environmentalism is the new face of socialism. They hate capitalists, corporations or individuals that spire to improve the community around them. While a careful balance should be struck between progress and preservation, the radicals would rather have us go back to living in caves.

Finally, one point that all radical environmentalists always seem to conveniently leave out of the debate are all the people of the world that have benefitted immensely from the modern industrial complex. Industrialism has created wealth beyond our imagination. Industrialization can be credited in great part to the creation of the middle class. In essence it equals opportunity. This point is something that radicals so vehemently despise. The pay no attention to the benefits society as a whole and instead constantly fuel the class warfare debate. Industrialism has brought better food, cleaner water, medicine, and shelter to billions of humans around the globe who otherwise would of lived shorter, and a less desirable existence. They never bother to mention all the good modernization has done.

I say to my critics the only way to move forward is through debate, discourse and the exploration of ideas in the public arena. I challenge Al Gore and everyone for that matter to continue to keep the discussion alive. To report fact and not fantasy through good science and honest journalism. Debate is the cornerstone of democracy and to deny it in a time such as this would be futile!

Dane said... is a blog that is focusing on the Gore debate issue right now.

The science of global warming is not concrete and it's definitely not a consensus

check out
for the real debate over global warming and the human impact.

Peter said...

By all means let's promote continued debate on global warming. It is far to important an issue to ignore. is doing a great job. Thanks,