Global Warming: Will Al Gore debate Lord Monckton on international TV?

Question

on the issue of "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."

Highly doubtful since Al is full of it.

Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher during her years as
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said, "A careful study of the
substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An
Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and
errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1

ken - can you give us a link to a single scientist who supports AGW? As far as I can see from the IPCC and the scientists that were listed as authors (although none authored it) NONE of them state that it is remotely possible. CO2 follows warming periods and it is proven that it does not lead them so how could there possibly be a link. Have you ever considered the science supporting sun spots and warming?

Answer 1

Of course not, he would not dare debate anyone who actually has a clue. However, I have to say, that on the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate, far from being settled, there is more widespread opinion then ever.

The problem is, there really are very emminent and excellent scientists on both sides, with good science and Phd's and doctorates and awards, and publications and Nobel prises etc, , and they all appear to have absolute faith in their own science and they rubbish the other side's 'pseudo science' and 'junk science'.

As the poor sap that will be stuck, in the middle, paying ever higher taxes, AND having my way of life changed in order to pointlessly accomodate the global warming fanatics, in order to reduce the UK's output of CO2 by 60% whilst the rest of the world's out put continues to increase.

I find it increasingly annoying that the scientific community cannot find enough solid, irrefutable evidence of anthropogenic global warming, and to create an imaginative way to solve the problem.

1. If we believe that the anti AGW people are right and we do nothing:
a) if they are right, no one is inconvenienced.
b) if they are wrong, we are doomed.

2. If we believe that the pro AGW people are right and we act,
a) if they are right, we are doomed, becuase politicians cannot solve the problem. They are much much too stupid.
b) if they are wrong, and global CO2 keeps rising BUT temperatures fall over the next decades, then there will be millions of seriously pissed off taxpayers looking for scientists to take their revenge on.