ANSWERS: 19
  • In the upcoming weeks, New York City will host a meeting of several hundred scientists who believe human-caused global warming is not true. . The scientists at this meeting invited Al Gore to attend and present his evidence……..However, Al Gore turned down the invitation. . Why does Al Gore wish to avoid debate about global warming if he is so sure it is true? Is Al Gore’s case really that weak? Is he afraid this summit of scientists might prove him wrong? Any thoughts? Opinions?
  • It is an unpopular debate and as with many theories is as yet unproven but that does not boost failing political careers!
  • He is paid to "care". I do believe that global warming is happening but I don't believe that it is ALL human doing. It is nature's way of preparing for another ice age in the next handful of years (10,000 or so) We really could do without all the pollution cos it is damaging to not only the environment but our lungs as well. But it prolly won't destroy us all in the sense that it is heating up the earth. I have also heard it said that global warming may be caused by the heat of Planet X that is supposed to kill us all on December 21, 2012. I dunno what to think about that idea or even the subject matter collectively.
  • When I first saw an Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, I was struct by the information it reported. I have since discussed this theory with what I consider very intelligent people who feel there are many theories on GLobal Warming. I have included a synopsis from a Scientist below. Article published Feb 13, 2008 Baliunas Says Global Warming Related To Sun In her lecture series, "Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change," astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunas shared her findings Tuesday at the University of Texas at Tyler R. Don Cowan Fine and Performing Arts Center.Dr. Baliunas' work with fellow Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics astronomer Willie Soon suggests global warming is more directly related to solar variability than to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an alternative view to what's been widely publicized in the mainstream media."Some people argue solar influence is large; some argue it is small. I'm somewhere in the middle," she said during a press conference Thursday afternoon.Her research goes back to time periods when the amount of carbon emission was small enough that it wasn't a major player."If you go back far enough you eliminate some of your variables," she said. "I've always been interested with the changes of the sun and how they impact the earth. I decided to look at a narrower time scale this time."Baliunas asserts that increases and decreases in solar output led to historically warmer and cooler periods.Baliunas said concerns for world energy poverty should be more significant than worrying about something 100 years from now."I'm all for saving energy resources and eradicating energy poverty around the world," she said. "One can be concerned by the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and come to it from the philosophical idea of caution. We just don't want to take the chance; still we can take a view of precaution."She also said civilizations have always looked for the cause of climate changes.In 16th and 17th century Europe, thousands were executed for what was called "weather cooking," where religious and political institutions blamed witches - mostly women - for poor growing periods or storms.Dr. Baliunas received her M.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) degrees in Astrophysics from Harvard University. She serves as senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C., and chairs the Institute's Science Advisory Board.Her talk was part of the university's Distinguished Lecture Series.
  • Maybe he has plans to run for office, again!:)
  • He has turned down all debates. According to him, the debate is over even though it has not been done in th first place. His evidence has been blasted out of the water by so many people, not even scientists. His hockey stick J curve was refuted soundly years ago. He based his movie on his book. He did not update most of the findings. His is not only bad science, but bad journalism.
  • The short answer is: because Al Gore doesn't have to prove his point in the scientific community in order to get the fame and adulation he's so desperate for -- he just has to convince the pin-headed American public...
  • I think it was simply because he would have no argument. The scientists would come at him with thousands of pages of evidence and although a counter argument MIGHT exist for all of them, I doubt he would know every single one of them. . It would be a bit like me arguing against Christianity with a Christian priest. I have my arguments but he knows a darn site more about it than I do.
  • Let politicians bring the arguments to the broad masses and let scientists debate with scientists.
  • Duh, cause he invented the internet! Don't you know that... umm... when you invent the internet, you.... don't have to prove anything. He just doesn't want to go over there and pwn them! Cause that's what he'd do, he'd pwn them! That's what I say. Cause just the other day, it was like, really hot outside, and I was convinced, right there that global warming was happening. I mean, it just had to, it was hot for no reason(I live in southern Texas)! I think Al Gore deserved that nobel piece prize, cause he's saving people with his theory! He should have gotten it for inventing the internet, but other people just want all the credit for doing it, so they did... take it... So that's what I say, he just doesn't want to pwn them, he's getting tired of pwning.
  • i agree with the scientist human dont cause global warming, Burning Fossil fuel like coal and oil, but million of years ago these fossil fuel were living plants and animals that took in carbon dioxide from the air to get to the stage of fossil fuels, so burning fossils fuel is just putting the co2 back were it was, and if people belive that burning producing co2 will make earth like mars, if this was true then the earth would been like mars millions of years ago and life would of not existed today
  • Gore is not a scientist; he's a politician who is lobbying for political approaches to the problem of human release of carbon which has been sequestered for tens to hundreds of millions of years, producing levels of atmospheric CO2 to which humans have never been exposed to before, over the entire course of human lives. It is the greatest human guinea pig experiment in history. Asking Gore to debate envirnomental scientists is no more fair than asking George W Bush to debate university economists. Politicians to not need to be scientists themselves to support political positions relating to science, and they don't need to be economists to support political positions on economics. Politicians may properly debate other politicians. Scientists debate other scientists in review papers, editorials, and in scientific meetings. It is a just a cheap trick for scientists to challenge a politician to a debate on science. Just as it would be a cheap trick for economists to challenge George W Bush to a debate on economics.
  • Maybe he had a dinner date that night :)
  • Because Global Warming is fake! It is being used to induce fear. The changes occuring are a natural cycle of the earth. Short answer.
  • Firstly freeluncher i live in england so dont watch fox,i'm assuming it's an unreliable source,the planet is very resiliant it can handle this change in climate it's survived much worse,were the ones who have to adapet and survive.I sugest you both google the great global warming swindle it was a documentary on channel 4 in the u.k that i think you'll find very intersting.
  • Science is not a debate, it's evidence or not.
  • Global warming is a new religion... don't question, have faith. . AlGore made over 100 million bucks with his carbon credit scheme.
  • Why give credence to a bunch of crackpots? That would be like an archaelogist openly getting into a debate with a bunch of creationists.
  • Because Al Gore is a hypocrite and his facts would never stand up in a debate with science. The fact that he he thinks that there is nothing to debate, when it's 20 degrees cooler this summer were he lives, blows his whole argument out of the water.

Copyright 2017, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy