Chilly reception for debate offer
October 5, 2007 Steve Huntley of the Chicago Sun Times
source
Excerpts ....
Seven hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money to spend to try to get someone to talk to you and not get an answer.
That's how much the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based libertarian
think tank, has forked over in six months for advertisements in
national newspapers trying to persuade Al Gore to debate one of its
experts on global warming issues. "We have tried, repeatedly, to
contact Gore directly, with registered letters and calls to his office,
and have never received a reply," says Joseph Bast, Heartland president.
A spokeswoman for Gore told me by e-mail that Heartland is an
oil-company-funded group that denies that global warming is real and
caused by human activities.
"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if
there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to
engage in a dialogue with them at this time.
The issue is a bit more complicated than that. What Bast wants is
for Gore to debate one of three authorities who dispute the former vice
president's assertion that global warming is a crisis that requires an
immediate, hugely expensive response potentially damaging to the U.S.
and world economies.
One of the Heartland experts is Dennis Avery, an economist, senior
fellow at the Hudson Institute and co-author, with Fred Singer,
professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of
Virginia, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
As you might guess from that title, Avery sees global warming as a
natural phenomenon in which "there may be a human factor but if so it's
small." He describes the warming as "moderate" and says there's been no
warming since 1998. "Where's the crisis?"
When you talk with Avery, he cites numbers on carbon dioxide and
temperature change and dates of previous warming periods, such as
during Roman and medieval times. A layman like me soon finds himself in
deep water, and you know someone on the other side of the issue will
cite other sources, such as a U.N. panel on climate change that says
most of the warming since the mid-20th century is likely due to
greenhouse gases.
But the point is that Gore and his movie "An Inconvenient Truth"
aren't the last word. In March, the New York Times reported that while
they praise Gore for raising awareness about warming, a number of
scientists see exaggerations and errors in some of his assertions.
"They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism," the Times
wrote. For example, Gore forecasts sea levels rising up to 20 feet,
flooding parts of New York and Florida. But the U.N. panel's actual
estimate is that seas will rise 7 to 23 inches in this century.
As for the Gore camp's statement about Exxon funding, Bast says
those contributions are too little to control Heartland policy and
amount to "far less than what Heartland spends speaking out on climate
change."
The Heartland case is not the first time Gore has ducked a forum.
Earlier this year he canceled an interview with Denmark's largest
newspaper when he learned it would include questions from Bjorn
Lomborg, respected author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. "Gore's
sermon is not one that will stand scrutiny," says Christopher C.
Horner, another one of Heartland's debate candidates, a senior fellow
at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.
Bast says the ad campaign will continue until March, costing a total
of $1.2 million. But he won't get a debate from Gore. Still,
Heartland's effort serves the worthy purpose to spotlighting the need
for an informed discussion on the severity of global warming and how
best to deal with it, by trying to halt it or adapt to it. Gore offers
a worst-case scenario of unmitigated disaster. If he's wrong about
rising sea levels, what else is he wrong about?
My 2 cents ...
Note how in the bolded section above that they bring up the ploy about the debate being over. They started that trick once people wanted to debate the facts. It's an often repeated excuse to refuse any and all debate.
|