Gore Challenged to Debate "Foofaraw of Pseudo-Science"

Okay, I know this doesn't look for reals, but Lord Monckton, a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher, has challenged Al Gore to a Climate Change Challenge (for the fancy cursive you'll have to click on the link). Here's what Monckton recently sent to Gore's Tennessee home:

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous,” to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

Uh, yeah, truth is surely his endgame. Monckton had this to say about An Inconvenient Truth:

"A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

That science is based on a solid corpus of scientific evidence backed by thousands of scientists, including those involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for starters, and there is documentation aplenty of the truths laid out in Gore's film on Exxon's involvement in climate policy for the U.S. government. How do we know? Because science writer Chris Mooney was the one to unearth the documents and write about the series of events detailed in the movie, for Mother Jones in May 2005. I factchecked the article myself and have a foot-thick file of government documents backing up all of the ways ExxonMobil and the US govt have way-laid climate science. (Oh, and for those of you who want to use "foofaraw" in your next Scrabble game, find the definition here).

Monckton's is merely an effort to distract us into thinking that there is actually anything to debate (his challenge is a hot discussion topic at the official-sounding, Exxon-funded Center for Science and Public Policy.

His Lordship says,

"If Mr. Gore really believes global warming is the defining issue of our time, the greatest threat human civilization has ever faced, then he should welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issue before a worldwide audience of billions by defining and defending his claims against a serious, science-based challenge."

Al, tell him yes, as soon as "a serious, science based challenge" materializes, you're there.

Comments

Gore has to defend his claims against a serious, science-based challenge? From Monckton??? Oh please, I'm laughing my ass off!

Posted by: John Hansen on 03/21/07 at 4:01 PM Respond

I refer you to the BBC show "The global warming swindle". You can find it on google.

Posted by: robert heartland on 03/21/07 at 9:36 PM Respond

robert heartland,

I'm not sure how to interpret your comment. Does this mean you are a skeptic?

Either way, for anyone that actually is skeptical of anthropocentric global climate disruption, I'd strongly suggest using http://scholar.google.com/ for any points on which you are in doubt.

The most important thing is to ensure that all of the information you consider credible must be peer-reviewed. Sometimes, it may be acceptable to read a watered down version of a peer-reviewed article in a general publication.

Always make sure they explicitly mention the peer-reviewed journal in these cases and try to determine what came from that article and what crap they are peddling from someone that DID NOT publish in a peer-reviewed publication as the journalists efforts at BALANCED JOURNALISM.

Balanced journalism is not a good way to get scientific information. By attempting to find someone, ANYONE, who disagrees and has reputable sounding credentials, they give way too much credibility to people whose ideas are so far out there that NO PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATION WILL PRINT THEM. And, since there are fewer and fewer of these induhviduals as information increases on the subject, the few remaining get way too much air time in the popular press.

Posted by: Misanthropic Scott on 03/22/07 at 6:43 AM Respond