Will Al Gore Melt? (Cowardice in Denmark)

[jbg]

The article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

Excerpts below (link):

Will Al Gore Melt?

By FLEMMING ROSE and BJORN LOMBORG

January 18, 2007; Page A16

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Today he is in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore's agent yesterday thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

One can only speculate. But if we are to follow Mr. Gore's suggestions of radically changing our way of life, the costs are not trivial. If we slowly change our greenhouse gas emissions over the coming century, the U.N. actually estimates that we will live in a warmer but immensely richer world. However, the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

*snip*

He considers Antarctica the canary in the mine, but again doesn't tell the full story. He presents pictures from the 2% of Antarctica that is dramatically warming and ignores the 98% that has largely cooled over the past 35 years. The U.N. panel estimates that Antarctica will actually increase its snow mass this century. Similarly, Mr. Gore points to shrinking sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but don't mention that sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere is increasing. Shouldn't we hear those facts?

*snip*

Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate, and we invite him to take the time to answer our questions: We are ready to interview you any time, Mr. Gore -- and anywhere.

Edited June 21, 2008 by jbg

[Borg]

I wonder if someone ghost wrote the book for him?

Cannot understand it so he cannot debate it.

Isn't this guy the same person to claim he invented the internet?

Borg

[Riverwind]

Isn't this guy the same person to claim he invented the internet?

Gore can claim to be one of the "fathers" of the Internet because he sponsered the legislation that made it possible. Gore has been given a Webby award for his contributions. The 'invented the internet' claim is a deliberate misquote by Gore's critiques.

[Borg]

Isn't this guy the same person to claim he invented the internet?

Gore can claim to be one of the "fathers" of the Internet because he sponsered the legislation that made it possible. Gore has been given a Webby award for his contributions. The 'invented the internet' claim is a deliberate misquote by Gore's critiques.

OK - so he sponsored it.

Does this mean that the person who actually wrote the legislation gets nothing? ;->

Oh to be rich and famous - or perhaps even infamous.

Never mind, this could be considered a hijacking - later.

Borg

[jdobbin]

I wonder if someone ghost wrote the book for him?

Cannot understand it so he cannot debate it.

Isn't this guy the same person to claim he invented the internet?

Lomberg can't do anything without it being ghostwritten.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

[jdobbin]

The article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

Bjorn Lomborg himself doesn't debate. Check it out. Reputable scientists have gone up against him and he doesn't reply.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

[tml12]

The article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

Bjorn Lomborg himself doesn't debate. Check it out. Reputable scientists have gone up against him and he doesn't reply.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

You know, Gore has done more on the environment than most other politicians in North America. If he were president, my guess would be the U.S. would be leading the war against the environment and Canada would be in the position it is in now (as polluted as ever after years of Liberal neglect).

[jdobbin]

You know, Gore has done more on the environment than most other politicians in North America. If he were president, my guess would be the U.S. would be leading the war against the environment and Canada would be in the position it is in now (as polluted as ever after years of Liberal neglect).

War against the environment? What do you mean?

[tml12]

You know, Gore has done more on the environment than most other politicians in North America. If he were president, my guess would be the U.S. would be leading the war against the environment and Canada would be in the position it is in now (as polluted as ever after years of Liberal neglect).

War against the environment? What do you mean?

War against environmental pollution was what I meant.

[jbg]

The article below (link)details Al Gore’s artifice and cowardice in ducking an interview with people who actually know something about the environment and global warming. It seems that he prefers Sunday morning potshots on MSM interviews, where a panel or reporters, half asleep, lob softballs. He realizes that a debate with someone knowledgeable would be fatal to his book and movie sales if not to his political career.

Maybe Dion should step up to the plate that Gore left behind.

Bjorn Lomborg himself doesn't debate. Check it out. Reputable scientists have gone up against him and he doesn't reply.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bjorn_Lomborg

Then why wouldn't Gore take the plunge?

[jdobbin]

War against environmental pollution was what I meant.

Don't you mean emissions rather than pollution?

[jdobbin]

Then why wouldn't Gore take the plunge?

I have no idea. Does it matter? Lomborg has offered to debate others and then reneged. I see no evidence that Gore even committed to it or had time for it when he was there for a short time.

[tml12]

War against environmental pollution was what I meant.

Don't you mean emissions rather than pollution?

Look at the Liberal environmental record vs. President Bush's record and you'll know what I mean.

[jdobbin]

Look at the Liberal environmental record vs. President Bush's record and you'll know what I mean.

What is good about George Bush's record?

[geoffrey]

Look at the Liberal environmental record vs. President Bush's record and you'll know what I mean.

What is good about George Bush's record?

It's better than Dion's?

[jdobbin]

It's better than Dion's?

I am trying to find some indication that Bush's policy on the environment has been model of excellence.

I already know the Liberal one was piss poor.

[geoffrey]

I am trying to find some indication that Bush's policy on the environment has been model of excellence.

I already know the Liberal one was piss poor.

No country has an acceptable plan on environment.

Dealing with GHG is a good thing, I support it. But doing that while ignoring the fact that it's more than likely that you and I are going to die of environmentally related cancer is rather reckless IMO. The world might be a nice temperature, but we'll all be dead and health care costs will have destroyed us.

The CPC tried with a ban on some chemicals, but it doesn't go far enough. I'd like to see big stickers like on cigarette packs affixed to all carcinogen containing substances. Would you buy laundry soap that had a picture of a massive tumour on it? Not likely. That'd be an effective step at forcing industry to adapt.

And it would be 100 times cheaper than Kyoto. And would save 100 times the lives.

I'm all about pragmatic efficiency.

[tml12]

It's better than Dion's?

I am trying to find some indication that Bush's policy on the environment has been model of excellence.

I already know the Liberal one was piss poor.

Unlike the U.S., Canada has no EPA and no Clean Air Act and as such, Canada (under the Liberal government of which Dion was a cabinet member of) allowed greenhouse gas emissions to rise 25% vs. Bush in the U.S.

[jbg]

Unlike the U.S., Canada has no EPA and no Clean Air Act and as such, Canada (under the Liberal government of which Dion was a cabinet member of) allowed greenhouse gas emissions to rise 25% vs. Bush in the U.S.

I'm quite surprised that Canada does not have the equivalent of a Clean Air Act. An "EPA" is a uniquely American creation, and not an entirely good one (think Indian and Native Affairs Canada), which would be supplanted by the ministry that Dion and Ambrose headed.

The US has wisely focused on "health threat" pollutants, whose dangers are more or less proven. The GHG scare is phony.

[jdobbin]

Unlike the U.S., Canada has no EPA and no Clean Air Act and as such, Canada (under the Liberal government of which Dion was a cabinet member of) allowed greenhouse gas emissions to rise 25% vs. Bush in the U.S.

The U.S. isn't great skates on emissions either.

I am still waiting for evidence that Bush is a great environmentalist.

[tml12]

Unlike the U.S., Canada has no EPA and no Clean Air Act and as such, Canada (under the Liberal government of which Dion was a cabinet member of) allowed greenhouse gas emissions to rise 25% vs. Bush in the U.S.

The U.S. isn't great skates on emissions either.

I am still waiting for evidence that Bush is a great environmentalist.

Bush ISN'T a great environmentalist...that's the whole point...

[jdobbin]

The GHG scare is phony.

Why do a majority of scientists disagree with you?

[geoffrey]

The GHG scare is phony.

Why do a majority of scientists disagree with you?

I'm sure a majority of chemists, oncologists and biologists would say toxins and poisions in our environment are a much more considerable threat to our health.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure a majority of chemists, oncologists and biologists would say toxins and poisions in our environment are a much more considerable threat to our health.

They might say that but isn't it a separate issue?

[geoffrey]

I'm sure a majority of chemists, oncologists and biologists would say toxins and poisions in our environment are a much more considerable threat to our health.

They might say that but isn't it a separate issue?

Could be a separate issue... but GHG takes up this pressing issue's airtime and dollars, so I think they are quite linked.