What he actually said was directed to Al Gore, as follows:
“I don’t mean to corner you, or maybe I do mean to corner you, but would you be willing to have a debate with me on that point?” asked Mr. Lomborg. Goracular
Can there be a more telling confession that you have nothing of substance to offer than challenging a public figure to debate matters of fact and science?
People who have facts, evidence and reasoned analysis simply lay it out for the world to see. Did Einstein offer to debate? Hell no! He just published his work for the scientific community to assess. Newton? No debates, just published.
There were debates about evolution, but these were at the insistence of the Deniers like Bishop Wilberforce. Darwin himself would have nothing to do with them.
His work spoke for truth. His attitude was that if they could fairly dispute it with actual evidence then they should do so.
In matters normally determined by fact and evidence, those who have nothing to offer but performance want to “debate.”
Such challenges are the intellectual equivalent of a loser who has lost everything pathetically pleadingc to play for “double or nothing?” They have nothing to lose and want to gamble that chance and popular opinion will give them something.
Fact apparently little known to Deniers, scientific fact and reality are not subject to polls of popular opinion.
The reasons such debates are nothing more than cheap theatre were discussed recently in relation to that other clown The dud Czech Vaclav Klaus, and I refer you to that post for more on why debates are the favoured tactic of frauds and charlatans.
“I want to be polite to you,” Mr. Gore replied. He then proceeded to say Mr. Lomborg’s work had been discredited.” Goracular
Indeed it has, repeatedly – as the WSJ would know if they bothered checking, but apparently they went to ‘The George Will School of Journalism‘ .
Most recently discredited in Climate change sceptics confuse the public by focusing on short-term fluctuations, with some good commentary here “Lomborg yet again tries to mislead on SLR, gets taken to the woodshed by Rahmstorf”
But see also:
- Willful Idiocy: Unpacking Lomborg’s Climate Nonsense
- The Australian’s War on Science XXVI
- The Australian’s War on Science XXI
- “BJORN LOMBORG, Wizard of misdirection & Reincarnation of Julian Simon”
- Bjorn Lomborg: How did you get those numbers?
- Global Warming and the Posture of Skepticism
- Lomborg skewers the facts, again
- The Copenhagen Consensus
- So what’s wrong with Lomborg?
- A few reviews of Lomborg’s “Cool It”
- Bjorn Lomborg’s “Cool It” Spouts More Hot Air
- Hot Air
- Bjorn Lomborg’s Apples and Oranges Argument
- Correcting myths from Bjørn Lomborg
- Bjorn Lomborg is neither sceptical nor an environmentalist
- Lomborg’s $10 Billion Question? Silly, Really
- Bjorn Lomborg Bibliography
- Bjorn Lomborg
- Never mind the investigatons for scientific dishonesty
Biologist Kåre Fog even has a most excellent website devoted to Lomborg’s errors and distortions.
So here is a challenge for Lomborg, if you actually have anything of substance (which under the circumstances seems highly improbable), publish it in the academic literature.
Publish without distortions, misrepresentations or cherry picking.
Publish so that it may be fairly and intelligently assessed by the scientific community. Publish and stop with the juvenile theatrics.
And if you are as intellectually bankrupt as you seem to be, for God’s sake run off and join the circus with that other clown Klaus!
“The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand, on the other hand’ issue,” he said. “It’s not a matter of theory or conjecture, for goodness sake.” Al Gore Goracular
HOUSEKEEPING: I have had to insert the following amendment to the post on “Deniers vs Septics.”
Stoat has taken umbrage (a fine purgative, good for gout, shingles, and high in vitamin D) at perceived plagiarism of his coining of “septic” to refer to Deniers.
He offers the indisputable evidence of The septics are cr*p (part XVII…) and Septics and skeptics; denialists and contrarians, although his REALITIES OF GLOBAL WARMING reference is a bit dubious, it may be a typo
- Global Warming Deniers, Delayers Gather for Unreality Check
- Move over Heartland, there’s a new kid on the denialist conference block
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 139 … still no evidence.