- NEWS
- SPORTS
- BUSINESS
- ENTERTAINMENT
- LIFE
- TRAVEL
- OPINION
Free tix to “Why Dislike Al Gore” debate at UCI
March 14th, 2009, 5:58 am · 29 Comments · posted by Gary Robbins, science writer-editor
At 10 a.m. on Thursday, March 19, I’m going to moderate a panel discussion at UC Irvine that carries the provocative title, “The Climate Change Dilemma — and Why People Hate Al Gore.”
The seminar is being sponsored by Prosperitas, a small new group of “wealthy peers” which is partnering with with UCI’s Merage School of Business to explore whether political polarization is preventing the public from examining the science behind climate change and global warming.
The panel includes Michael Prather, a prominent UCI climate scientist, Brian Dunning, producer and host of the noted podcast “Skeptoid,” and John Coleman, a veteran TV weather forecaster in San Diego who founded The Weather Channel in the early 1980s. Coleman believes global warming is a scam perpetuated by certain scientists and politicians — a point of view he discusses in this essay.
The 90-minute panel discussion will be televised live as a webcast at ocregister.com, starting at 10 a.m. The discussion also will be blogged, live, by Register environment editor Pat Brennan on his blog, Green OC. Additionally, there are a few free spots left in the audience, and I will give the tickets to the first 10 Sciencedude readers who contact me by email. Please, only ask for tickets if you’re pretty sure you can attend. Audience members will be able to ask questions of the panel. I can be reached at grobbins@ocregister.com
You also can email me to pose questions that might get asked at the discuss. But there’s a strict ground rule: Make sure you ask a clear, civil question that I could actually use. Many people don’t like Gore, and sending emails like, “I think Gore is an idiot” doesn’t advance the discussion.
So far, I have given one or more tickets to:
1. Kathleen McDonald, Laguna Niguel (2 tix)
2. Ana Morales (2)
3. Richard Donagan of Irvine (1)
4. Lou Franson of Rancho Santa Margarita (2)
5. Martin Collett of Orange (1)
6. Kirk Peurrung of Seal Beach (2)
7. Naz Nazami (1)
8. Lee Connelly, Irvine (1)
9. Raul Ortiz (1)
10. Saam Mobasseri (2)
Reader Comments
Comments are encouraged, but you must follow our User Agreement.- Keep it civil and stay on topic.
- No profanity, vulgarity, racial slurs or personal attacks.
- People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.
29 Comments
-
ADVERTISEMENT
-
-
OC weather photos from readers
-
-
-
-
Fact or myth?
Brian Dunning of Laguna Niguel, producer of the popular Skeptoid podcast, separates fact from fiction in his new video series, InFact. Here's his take on the upcoming movie, "2012."
Sciencedude on Twitter-
Get Sciencedude by email
Subscribe to the Register's science news via e-mail.
-
-
-
ADVERTISEMENT
Please ask each of the participants to summarize the scientific evidence (not opinion) that supports their points of view. Give each participant at least 10 minutes to talk about the data.
We import a huge amount of goods from China,Korea,Mexico and other third world countries. What are we doing to put pressure on these countries to clean up their air? We can clean our air to ” 0 ” emissions and the worlds atmosphere will still be suffering if these countries do nothing.
Richard: Thanks for the thoughtful question.
Danny Brienze: I specifically asked readers to be civil when posing questions and comments. You included an insult in your remark. This issue can be discussed without insults, and all comments like yours will be deleted.
Mr. Robbins,
Please ask:
1. Why those who are supportive of global warming are so reluctant to engage those who have other, and at times, contradictory evidence?
2. What they can conclude from the evidence that seems to contradict the argument made in Mr. Gore’s movie, and does it alter their beliefs about climate change?
3. How confident are they in their position when confronted with 100s of climate scientists who believe that, at a minimum, more research is needed before policies are inacted?
4. Would they be open to changing their beliefs if confronted with evidence to the contrary?
Thanks.
The “Hate Al Gore” in the headline is both offensive to those who rationally disagree with Mr. Gore’s beliefs. The call for civility in the discussion is appropriate, but incredible given the prejudicial headline.
I suggest retracting the offensive headline along with acknowledgement of the error and apology. Otherwise, those who rationally disagree with Mr. Gore may be wise to avoid participating in something mislabeled as hate.
In my prior post, my first sentence should have indicated, “…headline is both unfair and offensive…”.
I would also like you to ask their opinion of the IPCC conclusions based upon current facts on its’ participants:
1. Only 30 percent were scientists, why has it been considered to be a “done deal”?
2. I have read that as many as 40% of the participating scientists of the IPCC report have requested to have their names removed from the report (I don’t have support for this)? I’d like to see this validated either way. If there has been a substantial number request to be removed, why?
3. Can scientists who study climate change do so and be non-political?
4. One specific question for Mr. Coleman, if he founded the Weather Channel and still owns it, why do they have some many segments perpetuating global warming/climate change?
5. It seems as though global warming has morphed into climate change. It seems that there is back peddling on the warming issue. If not, why the change?
6. Why would anyone believe a politician??
Thanks
How mauch funding does the American Petroleum Institute provide various climate change skeptics?
The post by lwps asks a good question. To make it more complete, why not identify the source and amount of funding for both sides of the debate? It would also make sense to know when funding occurs, as some funding that occurred years ago may have since been terminated, while in other cases funding may have more recently increased. The trend in funding each side may shed light.
Gordon: Excellent question
LWPS: Another good question. I don’t know the answer. But I’ll see if I can find time to look into it.
Loufca: You ask many interesting questions. I don’t believe the claim that only 30 percent of the people on the IPCC were scientists. Dr. Prather can set everyone straight on that; he was a member of the IPCC.
And, yes, scientists who study climate change can be non-political. In fact, I know many climate scientists and I very, very, very rarely hear any of them make a political remark.
Gordon: The headline stands. The fact is, I get flooded with email that contains hateful remarks about Al Gore. The seminar is meant, in part, to look at why so many people dislike him, and whether there is really any basis for their beliefs. It is not true that everyone hates Al Gore. As I’ve reported in the past, he won the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election. He also won election to the U.S. Senate. Many, many people respect and admire him. And the Nobel Prize committee clearly appreciated the work he has done on climate change. But it is equally true that he is a polarizing figure, and we’re going to discuss that at length at the seminar in an attempt to get past the vitriole to a rational discussion about what climate scientists are saying, and what they’re not saying.
I mistakenly assumed that the discussion was more about science than an attempt to understand the fact that you, “get flooded with email that contains hateful remarks about Al Gore”. So the headline is correct in clarifying that in reality the substance is that hate, rather than an objective scientific debate regarding the basis for accepting or rejecting global warming / climate change assertions. Thank you for making that clear.
I have personal reasons why I appreciate Mr. Gore, and no reason to hate. When the subject returns to science, I’ll be interested to follow that discussion.
More diversion instead of solutions.
Gordon: The seminar is about science. You’re simply choosing not to recognize it.
Jan: Solutions come with discussion. We’re going to have a discussion.
Gary: Thank you for your replies. The assertion regarding my choosing to not recognize something is simply false, and suggests that my words “more about” were ignored – was that a choice on your part? I will allow you to speak for yourself, regardless of whether I am allowed the same. And I promise to try to not be judgmental.
The truth is that I am trying to understand the logic presented here. How does one relate an openly, plainly, explicitly prejudicial headline to science? The earlier response makes no attempt to deny the prejudice, but rather defend it based on an added justification, and I sincerely commend that honesty. If it is the case that you receive “email that contains hateful remarks about Al Gore”, then having an open and honest discussion of that can lead to improved and hopefully productive communication with your audience. If the root cause is found, that could help find a solution to that problem. Misjudging my statements is as wrong as it would be to assert that all those that disagree with Al Gore are hateful – which is implied by the headline but clarified by your response to my earlier post.
Is it possible that what I see in the headline is different from what you see? What I see is pasted between the following set of square brackets: [Free tix to “Hate Al Gore” debate at UCI].
In what way is the seminar actually about science? Is the seminar more about science or more about the hate mail? I humbly suggest that it would be more productive to resolve the issues with the hate mail separately from the science. I am sorry if it offends you that I am less interested in the hate discussion, and more interested in the science, but you are free to believe what you wish.
Cheers.
Well, I hate AL Gore because he invented the internet, thus making my abacus obselete and costing me 10’s of thousands of dollars in technological hell.
I hate AL Gore because he set up companies to profit off his proclaimed Global Warming FIRST, then went on the markteing campaign second.
His last name has negative connotations. Kinda yucky.
How come no one is talking about their 9,500 sq mile boo-boo? Thats a lot of ICE we put back! If you mis-read 9,500 miles, is there more change for error? Were the ice calucations conducted by Barney Frank (who erred 78 billion out of 350 billion)?
How come; after writing Obama, Congressmen, and Senators repeatedly; that no one has taken me up on my idea yet: “take the ACLU and all other Unions…ship them off to Antartica and have them start working on turning foul weather and ice into a renewable energy source”. (it would solve so many problems,. so easily) (no one listens to me)
Note of clarification….The Comment above from a reader named Gary was written by an anonymous writer, not by me.
CAN: Your message was deleted because it was simply an insult. It doesn’t advance the discussion. Ask a thoughtful question and I’ll gladly post it.
For generations CA kids have gone on field trips to the La Brea Tar Pits. They learned how a scant 10K yrs ago our home was covered in ice and snow and there were mammoth, saber tooth tiger, and giant camels running around. Now of course we live in an arid desert, civilization only possible because of the CA aquaduct. Who are these idiots who think climate is stable?
Regarding those who believe current climate change theories are a conspiracy by the world’s climate scientists: why do they generally not show an equal amount of skepticism for scientific conclusions in other fields?
Even in other areas of science that have been politicized, such as stem cell research, the actual scientific conclusions are rarely contested to the same degree. Usually there is consensus on the findings, and then a debate about policy follows.
This actually makes me a little sad, almost like the skeptics who still refuse to believe we landed on the moon. Although a lot of people are becoming more aware every day, many people still treat the topic of Al Gore discussing global warming (or climate change for those who are offended) as if it’s just some money making scheme. Advocates and scientists make money every day for discoveries. Why does this seem to be the worst?
This isn’t a question for the panel, just in general discussion.
If the climate changed prior to the arrival of humans, why do we now think that the climate is a static system that shouldn’t warm and cool with time?
And as a follow-up, is it narcistic of humans to think that we can change the eb and flow of the planet’s climate changes?
The “essay” probably explains it best.
Mr. Gore
I have no wife or kids (unlike the Illegal Invaders)
I live in a shoe box apartment
My electric bill is $20 a month
I take transit to work, the store, and friends and family
I cut by gasoline usage by 90% and it would be 100% if the bus would show up all the time
I have a 1970 Toyota (no smog bull$#!t or expensive computer to break down, cheap to insure, keep running and drive)
I am doing my part to help the environment
How about you and your idiot stooge politician friends cut even 30%
Like useless Nancy Paloser and large jet
Also stop rewarding people having large families
The fewer the people the cleaner the air the less global warming
Think about it AL!
My son is a scientist. Isn’t the debate over? The ice caps are melting. the need for action is now. We have to change our ways. it’s time for reasoned thoughtful solutions, not crazy name calling. I hope to attend, if you still have tickets, I’d like two.
Question for panel:
It has been asserted that “the debate is over and there is scientific consensus - global warming exists” (or words to that effect). It has also been asserted by the other side that there are tens of thousands of scientists that disagree with the assertions of global warming.
What are the reasons or combination of reasons that global warming advocates dismiss the opposing scientists?
A) They think the large numbers of opposing scientists are invented?
B) They think none of the scientists in the opposing camp have legitimate credentials?
C) Other reasons
a side of global warming we must address
TOO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. too many unable.
MOTHER NATURE CREatES DISEASE and MORE TRY TO BALANCE. and we are still saying nah, looks pretty good today.
SO ONE BIG QUESTION IS how do we make better use of who is here, limit populations growth and still maintain a good economy?
adopt the disabled and homeless and help unemployed get jobs that go green.
one example:
REGIONAL CENTERS OUT OF FUNDS - some clients CAN HELP REUSE AnD RECYCLE in sheltered workshops.
“Richard Duthie Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am
We import a huge amount of goods from China,Korea,Mexico and other third world countries. What are we doing to put pressure on these countries to clean up their air? We can clean our air to ” 0 ” emissions and the worlds atmosphere will still be suffering if these countries do nothing.”
Hello-
That’s how we cleaned up our air -sent the dirty mfg over there.!!!!!!!!!
is this only pro business or when do i get the ticket i asked for ?
Gary - Thanks for the ticket and the leadership you demonstrated leading the discussion today. It was a balanced and calm discussion and I enjoyed hearing the viewpoints of all three guests. Their statements confirmed my belief that we all must “think globally; act locally” to solve whatever environmental claims we’ve individually accepted as true.