There are probably additional reasons why Gore is not running for President in 2008. I believe that one important reason for not running is that he will have to debate a issue that he has flatly refused to debate. He claims that the debate is over, but there has been no real debate over "GLOBAL WARMING. Gore has only engaged in monologues.

The scientific community is united worldwide as far as I can tell. There is an overwhelming concensus surrounding global warming with only minor details questioned. There really is no debate anymore.

And that couldn't be more puncuated than by the yellow rim that hangs in the sky over every major metropolitan area.

I would say that the statement "he doesn't want to turn it into a debate" is accurate, though, it is more accurate to tag on the qualifier 'political' in front of 'debate'. It is clear that the science should not be muddied by political debate. The only political debate that should be taking place is what to do about it, not the science behind it.

Why isn't Dan Quayle running for President?

Here are the top ten "Global Warming" Myths:

Myth 10) IT's hot in here.
When comedian Henny Youngman was asked, "How's your wife?" he would respond, "Compared to what?" A more critical media would ask the same question about the temperature. Present temperatures are warm if you compare today to, say, the 1970s, or to the Little Ice Age (about 1200 A.D. to the end of the nineteenth century), or to thousands of years ago. Select many other baselines, for example, compared to the 1930s, or 1000 A.D.- or 1998- and it is presently cool. Cooling does paint a far more frightening picture given that another ice age would be truly catastrophic, while throughout history warming periods have always ushered in prosperity. Maybe that's why the greens tried "global cooling" first.

Myth 9) The 1990s were the hottest decade on record:
Targeting the intellectually lazy and easily frightened, this claim ignores numerous obvious factors. Of course, "on record" means "since we developed reliable temperature records," which generally means a very short period. Also, the National Academy of Sciences debunked this claim in 2006. Further previous rural measuring stations register warmer temperatures after decades of "sprawl" (growth). Measurement of "global mean temperatures" also appear to have been affected when hundreds of weather stations (many in the Soviet Union's Arctic) went offline at the beginning of the decade.

Myth 8 The science is settled; CO2 causes global warming:
Historically, atmospheric CO2 typically increases after warming begins, not before. The most common effort to dodge an actual debate over the causes is to claim that we had the debate, it's over, and there is "consensus" (about what is typically unspoken). If it really settled, why don't the scientists forgo the $5 billion in taxpayer money they get each year to research climate? what scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about Manmade global warming. Namely they agree that (1) global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degrees Celsius - or 1 degree Fahrenheit - higher than a century ago; (2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen by about 30% over the past two hundred years; and (3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increased greenhouse gases should have a warming effect, all else being equal (which it demonstrably is not). Regardless, "consensus" is the stuff of politics. It means ending debate in order to "move on". Stiffling debate is inherently anti-scientific.

Myth 7) Climate was stable until Man came along:
Swallowing this whopper requires burning every basic history and science text, just like "witches" were burned in retaliation for changing climates in ages past. The poster child for this concept is a graph that looks like a hockey stick, which has now been disgraced and airbrushed from the UN's alarmist repertoire.

Myth 6) The glaciers are melting!
As good fortune has it, frozen things do in fact melt or at least recede after cooling periods mercifully end. The glacial retreat we read about is selective, however. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If glaciers retreating were proof of global warming then glaciers advancing are evidence of global cooling; they cannot both be true and in fact neither is. Also, retreat often seems to be unrelated to warming, for example, the snow cap on Mount Kilimanjaro is receding - despite decades of cooling in Kenya - due to regional land use and atmospheric moisture changes.

Myth 5) Climate change is raising the sea levels:
Sea levels rise during interglacial periods such as that in which we (happily) find ourselves. Al Gore extrapolates and prophecies Manhattan underwater. However, even the distorted United Nations International Panel refutes such breathless claims, finding no statistically significant change in the rate of increase over the past century. In other words, sea levels have steadily and slowly been rising for a very long time, and industry, rising temperatures, and increased CO2 have not noticeably affected that rate. Small island nations seeking welfare and asylum for their citizens in, e.g. socially generous New Zealand and Australia, have no sea level rise at all and in some cases see a drop. These societies' real problem is typically that they have made a mess of their own situation. One notably cranky archipelago nation is even spending lavishly to lobby the European Union for development money to build beachfront hotel resorts, at the same time it shrieks about a watery and imminent grave.

Myth 4) Climate change is the greatest threat to the world's poor:
Climate, or more accurately weather remains one of the greatest challenges to the poor. Climate change adds nothing to that calculus, however. Climate and weather paterns have always changed, as they always will. Man has always best dealt with this through adaptation and technological advance - and most poorly through superstitious casting of blame (again remember the witches). The most advanced, or wealthiest, societies have always adapted best. One would prefer to face a similar storm in Florida than Bangladesh. Institutions, infrastructure, and access to energy are keys to dealing with an ever-changing climate, not rationing use.

Myth 3) "Global warming" proposals are about the environment:
Here again even the UN's climate change panel doesn't support this. Storme are cyclical and, that said, are not more frequent or more severe than in the past. Luckily for Al Gore, reporters typically have little use for actual data.

Myth 2) "Global warming" proposals are about the environment:
Only if this means that they would make things worse, given that " wealthier is healthier and cleaner". Even accepting every underlying economic and alarmist environmentalist assumption, no one dares say that the expensive Kyoto Protocol would detectably impact climate. Imagine how expensive a pact must be - in both financial and human costs - to so severely ration energy use as the greens demand. Instead, proponents candidly admit desires to control others' lifestyles; supportive industries hope to make millions off the deal; Europe's environment commissioner admitted that Kyoto is "about competition, about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide" (i.e. bailing them out)

Myth 1) The U.S. is going it alone on Kyoto and "global warming":
Nonsense. The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol's rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world's population, economic activity, and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom are in fact presently reducing their emissions. Similarly, claims that President Bush has derailed some Clinton - Gore effort to ratify Kyoto are false on every front.

Hmmm...

I guess we should expect to see such half-truths, disinformation, and outright gibberish from a lawyer, Christopher Horner, who gets paid by Exxon Mobil, Texaco, and the American Petroleum Institute.

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Myth number 255.
Just because you found information on the internet doesn't make it good information.

Check the source.

haha

Very good detective work. What I posted is indeed from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism", by Christopher C. Horner. I clicked on your link and I must admit that even if I were doubtful about Horner, I would be convinced that he is a credible source.

If you are interested, here is an interesting review of his book for you to read that I found on Amazon:

"Chances are, if you want to read this book, you have already made your mind up that global warming is at best, a minor nuisance, and at worst, a leftist conspiracy to weaken America. You will not be disappointed. However, you will find a lot of information on the politics of global warming, and very little on the science behind the theory. If you are truly interested in understanding the contrarian point of view on global warming (that it's either not real, or insignificant), then I recommend reading a book with actual science and facts in it titled "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years", by Avery and Singer.

Avery and Singer are every bit as committed to "de-bunking" prevailing wisdom on global warming as this author, but they do not resort to name-calling and vague pronouncements. No, as scientists, they put forth their best evidence to prove their point of view. Although I interpret the scientific findings differently, I applaud their rigorous scientific approach. Save your money and time, and skip to the better book "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years".

If you have not already fossilized your point of view, and are willing to look at evidence that perhaps global warming is occurring, and may not be such a good thing (and therefore worth trying to reduce), I highly recommend "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery, and "With Speed and Violence, Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change" by Fred Pearce."

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Politically...

Perhaps the Avery and Singer book is a better read if you wish to look at countering the man-made global warming conclusion from a much more scientific perspective.

Perhaps I'll give it a read myself...

I do not think that Christopher Horner is guilty of "name calling or vague pronouncements". What he writes makes holes in the case for global warming big enough to drive the proverbial mack truck through.