* My comments in red *


Best-selling author Dennis Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is promoting in his global warming crusade. Mr. Avery is co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years." Both Al Gore and Dennis Avery have New York Times best-selling books on global warming, but with opposite conclusions.

The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) among others.

* Well, ..... HUH ? I thought there was a CONSENSUS !!*

Gore claims recent climate change is the result of human activities, and society must give up most of its energy supply to prevent global catastrophe. Conversely, Avery amassed physical evidence of past warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations in solar activity affect Earth's constantly varying temperatures.

* Earths constantly varying temperatures ? Variations in solar activity ? *

"My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable -- and not very dangerous anyway," stated Avery.

"These 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," continued Avery.

*.. it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides ? Both SIDES ? *

Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than $500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times promoting a debate.

Gore Refuses to Debate Global Warming Theory

* Almost forgot. We can dismiss and forget this "story" since it came from NewsMax. They obviously made all this up. *

Made up or not, I think the bigger question is, "who cares?"

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

That's a good point. A lot of people don't care about the hot air coming out of al gores neck.

Those that don't care, don't usually waste their time commenting on it though.

Not what I meant, of course.

I meant, who cares if Gore participates in a "debate" or not? He's not under any obligation to. I suspect that, given the source, there's a fair amount of information being left out - who was hosting, why he declined, etc.

I mean, I could challenge W to a debate, but his declining doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

All I know is when they outlaw methane I am worried they will ban my White Castles because of it.

__________________
Listener of the Wilkow Majority
Patriot, Conservative, Libertarian

This is one of a few debates on the subject he has been invited to and decided he didn't have what it took to take part in.

It's becoming obvious that he wants no part of really discussing and debating his man caused global warming theory with anyone but himself and maybe an occasional beleiver.

But, you're right.

I don't care if he takes part in debating/discussing this with someone that doesn't beleive in his theorizing. I understand perfectly well why he WON'T.

Maybe he realizes that he's not a particularly good debater (too much sighing), and so he chooses other methods to discuss the issue. It's not particularly significant one way or the other.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Maybe.

Even so, if one is very very well informed and knowlegable on a subject, ones personal mannerisms shouldn't be an excuse to shrug off discussing it with those that might have other opinions/ideas

That's a matter of opinion.

HE brought this subject under the worldwide magnifying glass by producing a movie about his theory. It seems to ME that in doing so, he'd be very interested and motivated to discuss and debate it at every opportunity.

Unless he's really not a scientist and didn't base his movie on solid science, but instead, on his opinion(s) and political motivations.

Many biologists refuse to debate with creationists in public, precisely because what the creationists want is the publicity of a debate. Public debate is notoriously bad at getting across a scientific subject to an audience and just turns into a popularity contest, where debating skills become far more important than knowledge of the subject.

I heard a climate scientist on the radio the other day discussing how scientists (both those believing in Global Warming and those not) are really bitter about the way that the media has politicized global warming.

Science is used to, and indeed thrives on disagreement amongst its ranks. Just because a scientist draws a different conclusion from a colleague does not mean they become hardened enemies.

I think it's appropriate that global warming is discussed in a scientific manner, not used as a political point-winner.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

If you've listened to anything Al Gore has said, he has repeated time and again that global warming is beyond a state of debate. And it's true. The only dumbasses left in the world who really dispute it are ignorant Americans. So what? An adviser to Margaret Thatcher challenges Gore? Who cares? If an idiot like Rove or Rumsfeld, who have both advised Bush, were to challenge Gore, they would show their ignorance too.

Making Al Gore seem ridiculous instead of learning from him is just another example of how much dumber America has gotten in recent years. The same lazy people who dismiss Gore are also the ones who believe that America is #1despite having been anywhere in the world.

Ok, so I'm surfing the net to learn about Dennis Avery, and he's an intelligent design believer who works for a thinktank that's funded by an oil company.

'nuff said. This whole thread has no credibility.

I certainly agree with you. It seems appropriate to put Gore in the creationist shoe, though, since he, as Thane pointed out, did actually go the publicity route. It's like having the Phelps family holding up signs, yelling out their proclamations but, as old Fred has said to reporters, "I'm willing to share my views at any given opportunity but you won't find me debating them with you".

I agree for the most part but I think the reason it has become political is that if you draw the conclusion it is a real problem then it would probably take government to make a real difference which makes it political.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

It is beyond debate because Gore said so? I didn't realize he had that kind of power.

__________________
"Chaplain Charlie will tell you about how the free world will conquer Communism with the aid of God and a few marines! God has a hard-on for marines because we kill everything we see! He plays His games, we play ours! To show our appreciation for so much power, we keep heaven packed with fresh souls! God was here before the Marine Corps! So you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps! Do you ladies understand?"