Why won't Al Gore debate Lord Monckton on global warming? In fact, why does he only preach to the converted?
Topic: Why won't Al Gore debate Lord Monckton on global warming? In fact, why does he only preach to the converted?
April 19, 2019 / By Tonya Question:
For more detail:
Al Gore says there is no longer room for doubt. If that is the case, then he should be out there making fools of the unindoctrinated. But his agent only allows specific questions during interviews and Gore doesn't accept challenges to debate.
Elana, I’m not asking why he won’t debate every person who disagrees with him. I’m asking why he won’t debate anyone. I’m asking why he won’t even take semi-hostile questions in an interview.
Kevbeer, Newtonian physics was past the point of debate until Max Planck and others came along. Eugenics was past the point of debate, and it led to the Final Solution. If the discussion ends here, we will not get any closer to the truth; we will just get true believers in lock-step taking away our freedoms without questioning. “What I need are people who won’t stop to think when I tell them to knock somebody down.” --Adolph Hitler
Poliscinut, I am not taking a position one way or the other. But there is a growing faction worldwide that does not consider this to be “settled science.” Besides, lots of things were “settled science” including Global Cooling in the 70s. But I’m only talking about one man: Al Gore. And this one man is doing all he can to silence dissension by refusing to acknowledge it or address it. What is the harm in hearing from the other side?
Commandercody, why the ad hominem? Can’t argue facts and reasoning? The fact is that there is an entire industry wrapped up in Global Warming. Nearly all of it is government subsidized. Even the science is government subsidized. If you do the research, you will find plenty of names of scientists who have gone on record stating that their grants were conditioned on the result of their research, i.e., support GW or lose your grant. (This is the Scientific Method in reverse, but that is the topic of a whole different question). All of the so-called “alternative energy” sources must be subsidized (with the exception of nuclear power, if allowed to develop without government roadblocks). The oil companies, by contrast, don’t depend on the government because they have an extremely marketable product. (I am not saying that they get no help from the government; just that they really only need the government to get out of its way, for the most part.)
This is/was also true of the tobacco industry. (And I’m not defending their actions either; just saying they have a very marketable product.) By contrast, the GW side of the debate must live on subsidies. They will lose those subsidies if the GW train loses momentum. So let me ask you (if you can think logically): don’t you think both sides of the global warming debate have an agenda? Given that the answer is yes, whose existence is at stake here: that of the oil companies, or that of career GW beneficiaries?
Cabron O, you summed up my point nicely. There is to be no more discussion, and even those who simply call for open debate without choosing one side or the other should shut up and absorb the pre-packaged sound bites. Nice vacuous, unsupported rant.
Re commandercody’s EDIT: You really need to read my posts more slowly. I never said anyone was getting paid for doing no work, and I have no idea what that has to do with the original question. In fact, you neither addressed my original question, nor responded in any meaningful way to my edit.
As for your other arguments, you need to look up George Taylor for an example of a scientist being pressured to support GW theory or lose his position.. Read also the Leipzig Declaration, signed by 140 climate scientists. Read also this quote by one of Gore’s advisors, Stephen Schneider: "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." [Quoted in Jonathan Schell, "Our Fragile Earth," Discover, October 1989, p. 47.] His own people put honesty and “effectiveness” at opposite poles!
(Continued comment to commandercody's edit:)
Can’t comment to your “liberal media” comment because it’s just an empty ad hominem statement. Try to focus.
Again, all I’m asking for is honest dialog without masking or suppressing arguments from either side. What’s wrong with that?
Commandercody, your edit includes the entire story of the Bush/GW "scandal." But where in the press has it been covered that the UN has been worse? From Fred Singer:
"To convince countries to support the Protocol a counterfeit "scientific consensus" was concocted by UN bureaucrats. First came a 1995 UN scientific report which explicitly claimed no discernible manmade global warming. Then, a policymakers' summary was prepared from the report and stressed the opposite conclusion -- one based solely on computer models which don't match historical data and which incorporate assumptions that grossly exaggerate the warming effect of carbon dioxide. To eliminate the contradiction, the politically undesirable statements in the science report were quietly removed, yet the authors' names were retained."
Is that not exactly what you are complaining about when talking about Bush's actions? Why not condemn the UN for its long history of doing the same thing for the other side?
Commandercody, with your "final" edit, we have finally reached an answer we can both agree on. The GW argument "should be the focus of unencumbered scientific research." I would add "...of both sides of the argument."
I also agree that, if the worst-case GW scenarios turn out to be true, that fact would trump both politics and economics, and wishing it were not true would not be a suitable response. You might have said the same about Iraq a few years ago. If we let our government cherry-pick information to bolster just one side of the argument, pretty soon we will find ourselves fighting battles against imaginary enemies.
Jury's still out on this one, but we can't close the books on the argument yet.
Best Answers: Why won't Al Gore debate Lord Monckton on global warming? In fact, why does he only preach to the converted?
Rubye | 2 days ago
Maybe he doesn't like pretending to be a scientist, unlike some others. But at least he has respect for real science.
Did you believe the tobacco companies debunking of smoking hazards, too?
Which side of the global warming debate do you think (logically if you can) has an agenda?
Scientists or oil companies?
Edit the only scientists that I know of who have been pressured to voice opinions one way or another are the ones threatened by the Bush administration to "tone down' or deny
their opinions about global warming or lose their government jobs.
It's pointless to argue with someone who believes in a "global warming industry" because I'm sure that you also belieive in a "liberal media" whose sole enterprise is making conservatives and their views look absurd.
As if anyone could get paid for doing no work....
Ok, you've revealed yourself as a Medhead. Now, focus...
First, the being paid for doing nothing was a humorous (granted non-sequitor) reference to how little work is involved in making certain conservative viewpoints look absurd.
Okay, from the Australian Press
US scientists 'pressured' on global warming
Deborah Zabarenko, Washington
February 1, 2007
US SCIENTISTS were pressured to tailor their writings on global warming to fit the Bush Administration's scepticism, in some cases at the behest of a former oil industry lobbyist, a congressional committee has been told.
"Our investigations found high-quality science struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
A survey by the group found that 150 climate scientists experienced political interference in at least 435 incidents over the past five years.
"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Mr Grifo said.
Rick Piltz, a former US government scientist who said he resigned in 2005 after pressure to soft-pedal findings on global warming, told the committee in prepared testimony that former White House official Phil Cooney took an active role in casting doubt on the consequences of global climate change.
Mr Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, resigned in 2005 to work for oil giant ExxonMobil.
Two private advocacy groups told a congressional hearing Tuesday that climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.
WASHINGTON - Six former heads of the Environmental Protection Agency — five Republicans and one Democrat — accused the Bush administration Wednesday of neglecting global warming and other environmental problems.
“I don’t think there’s a commitment in this administration,” said Bill Ruckelshaus, who was EPA’s first administrator when the agency opened its doors in 1970 under President Nixon and headed it again under President Reagan in the 1980s.
Russell Train, who succeeded Ruckelshaus in the Nixon and Ford administrations, said slowing the growth of “greenhouse” gases isn’t enough.
Ok, focus. Al Gore is NOT qualified to debate science.
Scientists make the same salary whether there is global warming or not.
Manufacturers who emit mass quantities of greenhouse gasses wil be harmed, possibly fatally, by regulation.
Oil companies will not be able to charge 3.00 a gallon for their product, when it is not a neccessary commodity for people to get back and forth to work.
There are likely to be companies pursuing alternative energy sources who will have enormous growth, but they are not currently capitalized to the point they could impact public policy on this issue.
And for the record, I don't know one way or another whether there is global warming, what's causing it, etc. But when I do decide that I know something about it, it will be based on what qualified scientists convince me of. and not what one aristocratic snot from Britain OR Tennessee tells me.
Final edit (Hopefully, right)
Yes, I'll condemn it, My whole point is that this should not be a political or economic argument, it should be the focus of unencumbered scientific research. IF it is true, it trumps both politics and economics, and wishing it were not true is not a suitable response. Like I said, I don;t know.
But the weather is getting pretty damned freaky where I live....
👍 192 | 👎 2
Did you like the answer? Why won't Al Gore debate Lord Monckton on global warming? In fact, why does he only preach to the converted?
Share with your friends
Originally Answered: How big a liar about climate change is "Lord Monckton"?
I’m not saying this because of Lord Monckton’s stand against climate change… but the man is an utter idiot and a pathological liar. He is a laughing stock and the butt of countless jokes and lampoons.
He claims he was Scientific Advisor to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. He wasn’t.
He claims to be, or to have been, a member of the British House of Lords. He never has been and in an unprecedented move they’ve threatened action against him if he doesn’t stop pretending to be a member. He did stand for election but didn’t receive a single vote whereupon he stormed off and declared the process to be a “bizarre constitutional abortion”.
He claims he’s a Lord. He isn’t, he’s a Viscount. “Lord” is the term that a Viscount is addressed by, something very different from actually being a Lord.
He invented the Eternity Puzzle and offered a million pounds to anyone who could solve it. Two mathematicians wrote a computer programme, cracked it and claimed their winnings (I believe the story you linked to has some errors in this respect). Monckton claimed he personally paid the winnings and paraded himself in the media as a man of his world who could be trusted despite having almost been bankrupted. In reality he’d taken out an insurance policy and it was the insurers who paid up.
He has a string of affiliations with the oil industry. Not least is a list as long as your arm of organisations that were financed by the oil industry to discredit the science of global warming. It’s through the propaganda campaign that most of his public speaking engagements have been arranged and it’s oil money that has paid for his publications (I believe through the Heartland Institute). The of course, there’s the fact that his family’s wealth comes from one of the earlier Viscount Moncktons having been Chair of the Iraq Oil Company.
As climate change deniers go, Lord Monckton is one of the more bizarre examples of irrationality and if I were a climate change denier I’d be embarrassed about having him on the same side.
In all his outpourings all he’s ever done is regurgitate the same nonsense again and again. The fact that his claims have been categorically ripped to shreds is of no consequence to him.
He appears to have a classic case of psychological denial in which information that contradicts his preconceived notion is filtered out by a mental barrier. People who are thus affected find it very difficult to perform rational information processing functions because they can only accept what they want to hear. It’s common amongst conspiracy theorists and criminals who plead innocence despite mountains of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
We did once stay in a guest house owned by Lord Monckton (he wasn’t there at the time) and by all accounts he is a very nice person, quite upstanding and reliable most of the time but prone to make outlandish claims and not shy when it comes to seeking media attention. Some people, who are in a position to know such things, have stated that much of the stance about climate change is nothing more than an attention grabbing gimmick and a money making opportunity; quite how true this is I wouldn’t like to say, but it comes from those who should know such things.
Gore only preaches his BS to the stupid. How about his "I buy green energy" BS? When it all goes to the same grid?
👍 80 | 👎 -6
Monckton focuses on particular aspects of the science to win debates. When he debates scientists he focuses on aspects that aren't the speciality. Being scientists they are usually unwilling to discuss these aspects (as they leave that up to the experts). If he was honest he won't debate the speciality of the scientist with them ... but avoids this at all cost. In Australia he should debate Dr Karl. Dr Karl is a public scientists willing to debate and argue matters that fall outside the realm of his speciality. He is a well read person. Also to argue someone like Monckton (who is a good public speaker) you need to get a scientists with a personality (who is also a good public speaker) - Dr Karl would give him a good run for his money!
👍 79 | 👎 -14
Won't you allow for the benefit of the doubt? I feel that whether or not you believe in it we should do all we can because the alt. doing nothing might lead to catastrophe. What we need is to understand that a large majority of scientists have come to the conclusion that this is a real, that action should be taken. The political climate is such that those on your side will never believe us, and those on my side will never do anything to help you. What we need is to impartially look at the facts, which support Mr Gore in point of fact. What we need here is a Manhattan Project aimed at figuring out what to do about this problem. Doing something is better in my mind, and wiser than doing nothing at all.
👍 78 | 👎 -22
What's there to debate? Global Warming is happening whether you believe Al Gore or not. What do you think that's is causing all this radical changes in weather? Al Gore's rhetoric? And The Katrina disaster? Al Gore's lack of converted followers? "Making fools of the unindoctrinated". What that supposed to mean? Do you think that this is all about Al Gore being right and win arguements? This is a GLOBAL PROBLEM! and if you Republ;icans or whatever political party you belong to are "undoctrinated" and want to live in denial that's your problem, but don't go around asking stupid questions in which you are [email protected]
#$ "UNINDOCTRINATED". Don't pretend to be sophisticated and try to appear intelligent and superior by asking retorical questions about a subject you had showed , you don't know anything about.
👍 77 | 👎 -30
Originally Answered: Global Warming?
I don't think humans really have an effect on global warming. The earth goes through cycles. A few years back, the hype was all about global cooling.
Here's a few random facts:
- The earth was actually warmer in the middle ages than it is now.
- Mt. St. Helens produced more greenhouse gasses in a single eruption than humans did in our entire existence.
The earth has natural cycles of warming and cooling. We just happen to be on a warming cycle right now.