The evidence would suggest otherwise. Al Gore responded to Sarah Palin’s Wednesday op-ed in the Washington Post in which, in addition to calling into question the science behind anthropogenic global warming, she asks President Obama to boycott Copenhagen and put the interests of the American people before his political agenda. In a sane world, it would be the last nail in the co2mmunist coffin. MSNBC, naturally, was happy to give Al Gore a platform to obfuscate the issues raised in Palin’s article in an interview with Andrea Mitchell, complete with bonus webcast.
In her op-ed, Palin states her stance on the issue of whether or not the “debate is settled”:
But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs.
She, in essence, lays out the Underpants-Gnomesian flaw in Gore’s theory that climate change is caused by human activity, namely the lack of evidence that a causal relationship exists between man-made C02 and global warming, let alone any actual proof of global warming. Even if a strong correlation existed, and we have no reason to believe that it does, that still would not prove a causal relationship. On the contrary, the evidence, if anything, shows a non-correlation, and a non-correlation means no causal link.
Gore’s response to Palin article? When he was not defending the IPCC and NASA scientists (whose work just happens to reflect Gore’s imminent doomsday scenario “exactly as predicted!”), Mr. Gore relied upon cyclical logic which he delivered via the “everybody knows…” line of argumentation to make his point, which was that he was right.
Well, the scientific community has worked very intensively for 20 years within this international process, and they now say the evidence is unequivocal. A hundred and fifty years ago this year was the discovery that CO-2 traps heat. That is a — a principle in physics.
It’s not a question of debate. It’s like gravity; it exists.
Oh, because “they now say the evidence is unequivocal.” Then it must be true.
Which brings us back to sixth grade, when, dear reader, if you were anything like I was, you relied heavily upon the same debate tactics as Mr. Gore because you knew everything and so did everyone but the individual who happened to be challenging you at the moment. Then, to prove your point, you just made up your own numbers and facts, e.g., “[The emails in question are] from — the most recent one was like 10 years ago. And what they’ve done is they’ve snatched a few phrases completely out of context.”
Some sixth graders, fortunately for their parents, are more astute than I was and Al Gore is. Some of them can make great use of GISS data to demonstrate that warming is local and related to land use rather than global and related to everything for which the EPA is currently dreaming of taxing us.
Given that this kid managed to employ the very oh-so “unequivocal” “evidence” which Gore touts as the be-all and end-all of scientific knowledge to show persuasively that anthropogenic global warming is a crock, this sixth grader is, in my estimation, smarter than Al Gore. Mr. Gore, it seems, has shot himself in the foot yet again, debunked by the same inconclusive data which serves as the foundation for his entire cult, let alone his argument.
While Sarah Palin makes a great case for a common-sense approach to the whole MannBearPig non-issue (before thoroughly rebutting Mr. Gore’s non-argument) I think the sixth grader actually blew Gore’s whole theory out of the water. Although listening to him is less entertaining than reading Sarah Palin’s Facebook retorts, I would be more interested in watching Gore debate this kid.
Big hat tip to Reliapundit.
Update: Maybe Mr. Gore could just debate himself.
- Al Gore, Climate-Killing Carnivore
- Lord Monckton Trashes Al Gore's Global Warming Nonsense
- Just How Big Is Climategate? The Tiger Woods Index Measures Media Incompetence