Al Gore refuses to debate global warming deniers - why should he?

[BushOut06]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/589551,CST-EDT-HUNT05.article

<snip>
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.
<snip>

This is so typical of the right-wing denial machine. They challenge Al Gore to a debate, and then when he refuses, they turn around and claim "Al Gore is afraid to debate us." These people are nothing more than paid-for propaganda machines, and as such they should not be taken seriously by anyone. Kudos to Gore for not kowtowing to them!

[Deep13]

1. An adversarial debate is not the best way to get tot he truth. nt

[Mrs. Overall]

2. It's like the American Astronomical Society refusing to debate the Flat Earth Society.

[BOSSHOG]

3. Good For Al

and fuck the "heartlanders." Isn't that a classic right wing name for an organization which obviously works for the trash which still supports the gop. No doubt they heart the earth very much. Like bush's clear skies inititiatives. And of course mark foley not wanting to leaving behinds!!! No behinds left behind.

[MADem]

4. Al Gore should send them and all media a short tape of himself

saying "You Heartland Institute nitwits are precisely that--nitwits. If you can't use the brains God gave you to do something other than take cash hand over fist from oil interests, well, you have my sympathies. You are not experts, you ignore valid research, and you are tools and fools. And I don't waste time with either. Have a nice day."

[wtmusic]

5. $700G is a drop in the barrel

when your industry pulls in $125B a year.

[Beelzebud]

6. The same reason Carl Sagan wouldn't "debate" Richard Hoagland about Mars or the moon.

[malaise]

7. It makes no sense debating with people who perpetuate

the assault on reason.

[drm604]

8. Heartland Institute.

Heartland Institute is a front for Exxon Mobil and the tobacco industry.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

[The2ndWheel]

9. Why shouldn't he?

Go in there like Colbert went into the White House/Press dinner whachamajiggle. Go in there and shut them up. Call them on their bluff. It's not as if we're going to actually do anything about any climate problems. Other than have goals for 2050. So go there, guns blazing.

[Beelzebud]

10. Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it!

[The2ndWheel]

16. Actually, that might help our situation

If we wrestled the pig, instead of cramping them into a cage with thousands of other pigs, that could be a start. At least you would earn the bacon.

Has to be better than setting some random goal for 40 years from now.

[DefenseLawyer]

11. It won't shut them up, only give them some legitimacy

The is one of the things Mr. Gore talks about in The Assault on Reason, the media couches everything in terms of a debate, as if it is always 50/50. One side vs. the other, even when it is the whole world on one side and ONE GUY on the other, they still present it as "point/counter-point" putting the one guy on equal footing. "But while many do believe the earth is round, here's ONE GUY we found, whose new book puts this theory into question..." It's better to ignore them.

[The2ndWheel]

18. Take them down face to face then

Either way, we're not going to do much about it. There is a reason the dominant culture is dominant; because it wasn't sustainable from the get-go. It had to expand in order to survive. It's been a slow process over thousands of years, and we're not going to change anything fundamental about it. We couldn't even if we wanted to. We're too far down the road. We can't stop, and we can't continue. Hell of a situation. Al Gore won't save us. Debates won't save us. Changing the fundamental principles upon which our society has been shaped certainly won't save us, since that would just cause a whole organic bag of new problems.

Unless we can find a way to keep pushing problems off into the future. If we can relentlessly continue doing that, we'll be fine.

[DefenseLawyer]

19. They won't be "taken down"

They are being paid. It's not like they are going to suddenly be "enlightened" the stage. Beyond that, if nuthin matters and what if it did, as you seem to suggest, that doesn't really seem to support your argument either.

[liberalsoldier5]

12. He should just debate them. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. So should we hold a debate with Ahmadinejad on holocaust denial?

[porphyrian]

14. There is no debate. It's established fact.

People who deny fact aren't debating, they are lying or crazy.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Exactly!

JEEBUS some people are just plain stupid. :eyes:

[porphyrian]

21. Heh, right on. - n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. he shouyldnt debate them. would give them legitimacy.

[gollygee]

20. If he did, it would make them look legitimate

just like when the news presents an issue and then gives a nutjob half the airtime so they can provide their side of the story.