If Global Warming is so important, why won't GloWarm leaders debate with Scientists? Facts get in the way?

Question

Al Gore refuses to debate scientists who want to question the validity of Global Warming science. Lots of facts don't add up, and lots of respected scientists need to know how "activist scientists" came up with scientific figures so that they can verify and replicate some of the findings.

Considering how important Global Warming is to their adherents, and this is such an important issue that needs to be addressed immediately, why the silence on the facts?

I see questions all the time "What if it's true, wouldn't you be glad you did something, even if it wasn't"? Well, before you demand instant action, let's at least make sure there is a legitimate solution to a legitimate problem.

I see neither, except in money making "Buy Carbon Credit" Scheme, and political nutbags trying to remain significant.

Here is Al Gore. Why won't he debate scientists? Isn't it important enough?

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Al_Gore_REFUSES_to_debate_ANYONE_about_Global_Warming

I'm not being insincere with this question.

Where is it listed that 99.9% of scientists agree? Half of them went from "GloWarming" to "Climate Change" due to "unforseen changes", so I'm having a hard time buying the argument. I see a lot of reports saying otherwise. Such as decades of volcanic eruptions putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in a few hours than most countries do in 5 years. But that never comes out in the global warming community's reports.

Answer 1

Don't you know?

The Debate That Never Happened is over!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/18059379/

Answer 2

I think it would be interesting and I think those who have legitimate questions about some of the claims being made would tune in too watch. However, as you can see by several of the answers you received many have already made up their minds and any opinion which doesn't fit that mindset will be ignored, or they will attempt to discredit (i.e. claims that any opinion which doesn't accept the global warming theory must be a schill for oil companies). These are the people who claim to be interested in science, but only when it supports their view of the way things are. Talk about flat earthers, they cannot even accept the possiblity that the models and theories may be incorrect. ducky: Are these the same scientists who have decided that once they have a concensus no further research should ever be conducted? Gimme a break. Scientists are no better than anyone else, if they are not willing to defend and explain their positions then they are hacks. Further, scientists debate each other all the time at conferences. How would this be any different other than having to do it in front of a larger and more critical audience?

Answer 3

Scientists have "debated" global warming by researching the issue and publishing scientific papers. They read eachothers' evidence and decide if the conclusions in the paper are sound, and do their own research on the issue. By this point, virtually all scientists have concluded that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Al Gore is not a scientist. If the "scientists" who are skeptical of global warming want to debate him rather than debating other scientists, that's pretty revealing, don't you think? That's like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays being so tired of getting whooped by MLB teams that they decide to challenge the Harvard baseball team.

Also, you have been misinformed about volcanoes. Volcanic emissions account for less than 1% of the greenhouse gas emissions that humans create on a yearly basis.

http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm

Answer 4

Do you really think you're getting both sides of the story? I'm not suprised Al Gore won't debate with scientists. That's not his field and/or major. I believe in Global Warming 100 percent but I'm not educated in scientific terminology so debating with one who is claiming it is not a problem would be useless. He, like myself, has been shown evidence for this WORLD WIDE problem by other scientists and are emotionally involved. Are you forgetting he is a representative for the cause, not an environmental engineer?
And, scientists have defended their case several times. I'm not sure where you're getting this, but it's about as reasonable an argument as the assumption that this is limited to the US and their political games.
BTW, I've heard/seen plenty of attacks on Al Gore but there are a ton of other media friendly global warming advocates. Leonardo DiCaprio has even bought a hybrid car b/c of what he's seen/read. Considering he makes enough to buy several high-priced sports cars, he, and others, are putting their money where their mouth is.
If you think getting scientific facts from another country would be more reliable, look up what the UK lands are doing. They're environment is dependant on the Gulf Stream and it's already being affected.

Answer 5

Seeing Al Gore debating with a scientist would be like watching a fight between a boxing fan and a professional boxer. I wouldn't want to see that.

The reason why you never see volcanoes brought up in a global warming debate between scientists is because the skeptic scientists knows they would make fools out of them selves by bringing that up. Their arguments would never stand the test. If they use arguments like these they just do to confuse the public.

Answer 6

Who considers themselves eligable to say that a scientist is "legitimate"? Just because a scientist doesn't agree with you does not make him or her any less of a more educated human being.

There are also so many things that we still do not understand about this planet. It is pretty arrogant to say what they are saying. And anyways, the forcasts for the future continually change. Everyone who supports global warming also change with it.

Oh yeah, wikipedia is the worst source. Anyone can post anything on that site.

Answer 7

Al Gore debating denier scientists would be far less pathetic than Rush Limbaugh debating one of the 99% of scientists who concur with global warming theory.

...wikipedia isn't the worst source, articles in wikipedia are scrutinized, especially popular articles. Wikipedia also has many useful links ( and a few bad ones). So, wikipedia isn't the best source, but it isn't the worst source. Blogs are the worst source.

Answer 8

This "question" is nonsense from start to finish. Proof below.

"Such as decades of volcanic eruptions putting more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in a few hours than most countries do in 5 years."

Typical global warming denier nonsense, made up "facts" even though the scientific data says it's ridiculously wrong. Proof.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11638/dn11638-4_738.jpg

Why would "scientists" debate Al Gore, who has nothing to do with science?

If this debate was to represent the actual situation in the scientific community, for every global warming skeptic, there'd have to be hundreds of mainstream scientists. That would fairly represent the division. Proof:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

Dr. James Baker - NOAA

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 9

Al Gore is a messenger not a scientist, it would be pretty pointless debating with him. Kind of like taking issue with the mailman because of a letter he delivered.

If the scientists who question global warming wish to debate the subject at a serious and scientific level then it's the scientists who support global warming that they need to be speaking with. This happens all the time.

Scientists don't work by themselves they work in groups. If there is a skeptic amongst the group they can discuss matters with their colleagues.

There are a multitude of scientific forums open to anyone, the skeptics can debate any matter they so wish.

Anyone in the scientific community will have easy access to at least an e-mail address and probably a phone number for anyone they wish to communicate with.

Science only advances when people question findings and to this end the scientists who support the theory of manmade global warming welcome input from all quarters.

If there are some scientists who are claiming they are unable to debate matters or can't access research findings then clearly they aren't trying very hard.

This is my line of work, I regualarly contact scientists from all around the world - those who support and those who refute manmade global warming. I've never had a problem contacting them or accessing information I'm searching for.

About an hour ago I e-mailed a well known scientists who is on the 'other side of the fence to me' asking for his interpretation of some data, he's replied already. It certainly wasn't hard to do.

Answer 10

The "Debate that Never Happened" was with Sheryl Crow.

True, she is a global warming leader, but when did she become a scientist?

Science has to do with facts. You can't have two opposing truths, but I don't want to pay more money and change my entire lifestyle, such as manufactured products or energy use due to someone's mere hypothesis.

Answer 11

Because they ARE the scientists, perhaps? Al Gore is in no sense a "Global Warming Leader" (whatever that is) or any other type of leader as far as I know. Carl Rowe hired him to march the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party off a cliff, and it seems to be working.