Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?

Question

Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?

Author: Joseph L. Bast
Published by: The Heartland Institute
Published in: News Releases
Publication date: June 2007


CHICAGO, IL: In recent months, former vice president 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. He is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity from the press and from environmental groups that echo his warning.

But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.

Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.

Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, is still waiting for Gore to respond to his April 16 formal debate challenge:

[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.

Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He holds awards for outstanding performance from three different government agencies and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. He travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks. He is well-qualified to debate Gore ... and certainly at least merits the decency of a response to his challenge, which he has yet to receive.

Avery is not the only person to challenge Gore to debate. Lord Monckton of Brenchley, a former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, issued the following challenge on March 14:

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.


Like Avery, Lord Monckton is eminently qualified to debate Gore—see here and here for his recent writing on global warming—and Gore thought highly enough of him to respond to one of his essays. Like Gore, Lord Monckton is a prominent figure in the global warming debate who is not a scientist or professional economist. He would seem to be an appropriate and worthy opponent.

But Gore refuses to debate Lord Monckton, just as he refuses to debate Dennis Avery and a growing list of prominent scientists, economists, novelists, and policy experts.

If the scientific debate over global warming is over, as Gore and other climate alarmists so often claim, why is Al Gore afraid to debate?

Is it because there is no scientific consensus on the causes or effects of global warming? Is it because a growing number of experts believe we should invest in adapting to global warming—whether it is due to natural or human causes—rather than spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Whatever the reason, we believe Al Gore should debate his critics. If you agree, please ask Al Gore to accept Dennis Avery's challenge.

Dennis Avery can be contacted directly via email at [e-mail].

For more information about Lord Monckton’s challenge to Al Gore, go to the Web site of the Center for Environment and Public Policy.

Answer 1

Avery is an agricultural analyst and Lord Monckton is a publisher. Neither has actual credentials to be called an expert on this topic. While Gore is not a scientist, he has been involved with the topic for thirty years now, has done a lot of research, and actually listens to those scientists best qualified to understand the situation. I feel he would be more willing to debate legitimate climatologists who feel there is not man-made component to climate change. Finding them is the problem.

Answer 2

Gore's decision to decline is almost certainly designed to decline global warming skeptics a major platform. The scientific community is in almost 100% agreement that global warming is caused by human behavior, and to Gore, engaging in debate on the issue would cloud that fact. If Mr. Gore were to debate, he'd be at least tacitly recognizing the legitimacy of arguments opposing the science, which would be detrimental to his cause.

Answer 3

I concur--global warming advocates simply do not have anything other than alarmism and "Chicken Little" Syndrome to bring to the table.

The data that supports the presumption "human beings are the primary cause of global warming" has enough other credible explanations that no concrete conclusions may be reached.

Furthermore, there are no studies of a "control" (an Earth that has no human beings), so "global warming" science doesn't even follow the Scientific Method.

Answer 4

he won't debate the problem considering relies upon premise not actuality and congress knows it. the thought people who do not purchase into the hype are deniers is widespread of socialist cowards keen to resign open debate. Why is it congress will enable Al Gore to chat approximately international warming to sell his end of the international doom and gloom, which with the help of how made him over one hundred million. i assume he does not want the believers of this scam to make certain the golden goose isn't probable golden and while challenged sponsored down like a coward. Our u . s . a .'s foundation is geared up upon freedom of faith, freedom of speech and open debate. seems that the far left who declare to be tolerant are actually not tolerant of real freedom. Why is that? according to probability they are petrified of transparency because of fact the people will see them for who they are and it is not what they declare to be.

Answer 5

Politicians don't debate unless they have to. He's not running so no one expects him to debate. Although, I'd like to see him debate with others. It would be interesting to see if he really knows all the details and scientific evidence for global warming.

Answer 6

If you don't think that global warming exist, fine. Your question is rather long and argumentative. May be he won't debate them because they would answer in much the same way you asked your question--long, drawn out and with a lack of facts.

Answer 7

I spent a large part of my college and high school days debating a fundamentalist friend of mine. How do you debate people who don't honor scientific consensus? If I say, "Sir, you are wearing no clothes..." will you say, "Yes I am!". And are you the fool for your beliefs or am I the fool for discussing them with you?

And you set a straw man argument: "Al Gore must be wrong because he won't debate such and such." And you insiste they are prominent and respected. Sir, there is a serious lack of peer reviewed data and analysis to support you, as much as you wish it to be so.

Answer 8

Well stated! I find the true reason for lack of debate, is as you've said, no flaws in the science could be made public. & Al Gore being a career politician knows the power of mass media & manipulation. He has certainly convinced most of the impending "crisis" theory, & it's up up to those with common sense to let cooler heads previal!

Answer 9

Why go to a debate when he gets paid major bucks to do public speaking engagements.

Answer 10

Whoa, long post. Why debate? He went though all that, won the election, and was denied entry into the presidency. What's the point of doing it again?