Sunday, February 04, 2007

Just to give you an idea...

...of how things work in the anthro-centric global warming debate, this article in the Wall Street journal details what happened when Nobel Peace Prize nominee and erstwhile Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, was scheduled to debate global warming with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist":
The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent 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.

The column goes on to pose questions that would have been asked of Mr. Gore if the debate had taken place. For example:
It would have been great to ask him why he only talks about a sea-level rise of 20 feet. In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Would it not be worthwhile to have global warming skeptics debate with proponents? How about a debate between Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, and Oscar and Nobel nominee Gore? Or between Bjorn Lomborg and the Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen?

It is evident to me, at least, that proponents want a clear field to express their views. There is so little regard for scientific skepticism that that alone makes me suspicious of the warmists' claims.

No comments: