Liberals are always talking about the importance of dissent, dipolomacy, discussion, debate, yadah, yadhah, yadah…
This penchant for “open debate” I guess does not apply to liberals such as Jimmy Carter who write books with numerous distortions of fact, outright lies, and non-footnoted sources (i.e. plagerized material) and refuses to debate Alan Dershowitz. And the “Dersh” as we fondly refer to him as here at Pundit Review is no right wing conservative.
And neither evidently does this propensity for open discourse apply to Al Gore, author of “An Inconvenient Truth” about how human induced carbon emmisions are causing “global warming.” Like Carter, Gore refuses to defend the claims he makes in his book with noted environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, who like the “Dersh” is also not some sort of right-wing corporate shill. According to Mr. Lomborg who was supposed to debate Gore about the claims in Gore’s book:
The interview had been scheduled for months. Mr. Gore’s agent yesterday 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. What happened?
Perhpas what is really inconvenient is that Al may have a little trouble rebutting the evidence Mr. Lomborg cites:
Clearly we need to ask hard questions. Is Mr. Gore’s world a worthwhile sacrifice? But it seems that critical questions are out of the question. 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?
Mr. Gore says that global warming will increase malaria and highlights Nairobi as his key case. According to him, Nairobi was founded right where it was too cold for malaria to occur. However, with global warming advancing, he tells us that malaria is now appearing in the city. Yet this is quite contrary to the World Health Organization’s finding. Today Nairobi is considered free of malaria, but in the 1920s and ’30s, when temperatures were lower than today, malaria epidemics occurred regularly. Mr. Gore’s is a convenient story, but isn’t it against the facts?
The fact that Al Gore has gone to great lengths not to debate the absurd claims from his book says it all. The guy is an eco-hysteric who has acted irresponsibly in my opinion by making apocolyptic claims of global environmental destruction to advance his far left agenda mainly consisting of imposing a global emissions tax and more onerous regulations on U.S. companies.
Lefties like Carter and Gore, I am sure, liked it much more when there was no alternative media to expose their distortions and lies. Too bad for you guys.