Op-Ed: Why are Global Warming Advocates Unwilling to Debate?

Few debates are more polarized than Global Warming, aka Climate Change. Both sides seemed fixed in extreme positions. Global Warming/Climate Change advocates have called GW skeptics 'Deniers on a par with those who deny the Holocaust" and have both suggested and acted on requests to fire or dismiss scientists who won't toe the Global Warming line. Global Warming skeptics call GW true believers 'Chicken Littles' and a lot worse, and claim man's effect on the environment, especially with regard to carbon emissions, are insignificant compared to volcanoes, solar flares and even cosmic rays. There are millions of moderates on the subject who believe that there may be SOME truth that man is having an effect on the earth's biosphere, and that we should enact sensible responses that reduce man's footprint through new technologies and conservation of current energy resources. Though I agree with the moderate position above, I am not a moderate. When it comes to the religious-like fervor of Global Warming true believers who demonize their opponents, suggest we be taxed to death, promote intrusive state controls like remote regulation of thermostats, and stand greatly to profit from such GW industries as Carbon Credits, which are little more than an environmental Ponzi scheme, I am not moderate in the least. In the case of your thermostat, California would have you arguing with a state bureaucrat to raise your temperature because your kids are sick. One is sure to raise your temperature. As to Carbon Credits: If one company that underpollutes by 100,000 tons can sell those credits to another company that can now overpollute by 100,000 tons, where's the net gain, except in bank accounts like Al Gore's? And haven't you REALLY just increased pollution by 100,000 tons? Company A was underpolluting anyway, but now Company B is overpolluting by 100,000 tons. Do the math. How do you compensate for all that? Planting trees? And that's just one company. It's the Enron of environmentalism, UN-Style. And it's not exactly like I trust the jet-setting Gore's fellow Nobel laureates on the UN's IPCC much on the matter either, being so concerned about the subject they left a carbon footprint the size of China during their Bali bash. Like I trust the UN much on anything else, either. In this situation it is only right, considering the stakes for all concerned, for leading minds to discuss both the science and theories of Global Warming for all to see, and to decide for themselves. Czechoslovakian President Vaclav Klaus made exactly that suggestion recently, throwing down the gauntlet and challenging Nobel Laureate, Oscar winner and GW Icon Al Gore to a public debate on the issue. To date, Gore has turned him down. Why? Why won't Al Gore engage in a highly public debate on Global Warming? Standing at a podium or in front of a movie screen and demagoguing is one thing. Having to go toe-to-toe with a knowledgeable foe over inconvenient truths quite another. Like Bruce Lee said in Enter The Dragon, "boards don't hit back." Waiting for the Great Debate on Global Warming, starring Al Gore. Not holding my breath.