In other debating news, Lord Monckton has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging Al Gore to an internationally televised, head-to-head debate on the subject "That our effect on climate is not dangerous."

REPLY: Gore will never do it! For two reasons. 1. He is a big chicken who is afraid of being challenged. And 2. He has proved, that when he is challenged, (a la the 2000 debates against George W. Bush) that he is nothing more than a snobbish, defensive, condescending, cranky, sarcastic, bitter cry baby (like most on his side of the fence). I wish he would accept the debate invitation, so Lord Monckton can make Al Gore look like the blow hard fool that he is!

I found that a very interesting debate and it was nice to see the pro side (it's not a crisis) sway the attendees so much just by their logical presentation. I only saw Richard Lindzen a couple of times on tv and I wish he would talk faster to get more points in.

I especially liked reading the comments of Gavin before and after.

Essentially, he opines before that debate in this format is not worth his time, that the people listening to the debate are not intelligent enough to understand the seriousness of the topic, and that it may serve to only validate the least serious opposition.

After, he discounts his opposition as just "performing" better with flashier topics and being taller. He then states emphatically that since he is a scientist his disussion is "drier" and less entertaining. He further then discounts the audience and congratulates imself and the the other proponents for not emitting an ounce of CO2 from a "luxury" SUV on the 5 block ride to dinner.

I read through some of the blogs and his replys and I must say, if he is representative of the AGW proponents, it is no wonder they make it such a big issue and try to drown out all others. I mean how down can you talk to people? It is very clear from his comments and wirting style that he knows so much more than any of the rest of us. Very pompous.

Not having heard the debate, or read the transcript, I would be willing to bet a bunch of money that the AGW proponents got their hats handed to them.

I love how the goalposts have been moved in this debate. First, the argument was that humans aren't causing global warming.

Now, the debate has shifted to accepting that humans are causing global warming, but saying "it's no big deal."

Hey, when you're constantly moving the goalposts, you can never lose an argument, right? LOL.

Mark:

Not sure any posts have been moved really. The first debate is really just simply, is the planet warming? The second is, what might causing this warming if it is found to be real? The third is, do humans have any significant input to this warming? Both AGW proponents and opponents can maybe agree on 1. They differ greatly on 2 and 3.

As far as I know, these questions remain as is from the first time I heard the term GW in the late 80's or early 90's. Oh sure, there has been a tremendous amount of research since then and every graph or hunk of data available has been torn down, rebuilt, and torn down again (by both sides of the issue by the way), but the essential questions remain.

The only goal that has moved is the rhetorical imagined results of GW. Where it was seen as just a potential problem in the past, we now are treated to broad statements that just about everything negative on the planet is due to GW, and things will get worse. Further, humans, specifically American humans, seem to be the primary problem. This comes solely from those who are proponents of AGW.

Why even today, one of the proponents of AGW on this blog earlier stated that the Earth will end up like Mars. That's a pretty big negative result if you ask me. I'm still trying to figure out what happened to all of the SUVs on Mars that obviously caused the apparent Mars GW problem he mentioned. You'd think that by now, one of our rovers would have taken a picture of a rusting hulk somewhere on that planet. Though it is red so maybe the whole surface is nothing but rusted explorers, hummers, and suburbans. Wonder what happened to the tires. I digress.

Seriously though, I think the posts are in exactly the same place.

Not having heard the debate, or read the transcript, I would be willing to bet a bunch of money that the AGW proponents got their hats handed to them.

Another denier who sees no need to hear a debate or read its transcript in order to express an opinion about it. And these people expect to be taken seriously?

Laura,

Obviously the key word here is is, and it depends on what your definition of is is. Perhaps in Al Gore's mind, a few hundreds from now constitutes a legitimate planetary emergency whereas in Sen James Inhofe's mind there will never be an emergency no matter what the anthropogenic emission.

Gee Mark, I thought there was no debate!...I thought the debate was over!....;-).....

I have to wonder what, if any advantage there is in calling it a crisis. Any sustainable change would require a decade or two to pull off. This isn't something that can be fixed in a frenetic weekend.

BT:

At least I admit that I did not take the time to listen or read something that was, by the admission of a person who was in it, was not very informative. Proponents often seem to just make up stuff and then claim a "consensus" of "experts" approves.

Darren, the transcript is RIGHT THERE. It doesn't take long to read. The exchanges are sharp, witty, acerbic, and to-the-point.

Do you also review books, movies, and music you haven't read, seen, or heard because you think you already know what's there?

My name is Tyler and i was needing some info..is global warming fake? Im doing a science project for environmental science,half of our class is against global warming and half of the class is for it,and i need some info on why it is not a crisis.Please comment back with some info.Thank you