Posted on 03/15/2007 9:35:38 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
Along with Richard Somerville (UC San Diego) and Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists), I'll be appearing at a debate on Wednesday (March 14th) about whether Global Warming is a crisis (or not). That might have gone without notice (like most of my public talks), except that our opponents are Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott. The preliminary position statements (from me and from Philip Stott) are available on the ABCnews site. It's sold out, but the proceedings will be broadcast on NPR (for instance, WNYC 820 AM on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 2PM) and there will be a podcast (though I don't know if it will stream live). There's an online poll as well for what that's worth.
I'm quite looking forward to this, but I have to admit to conflicting thoughts. Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? Can this be entertaining and educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging?
I'd be interested in any thoughts people might have. ~ Gavin Schmidt
Comment #2: "One of the postdocs I work next to recently told me 'Michael Moore has it right. If you can't make it entertaining you will never reach the general population. When it comes to disseminating the truth you need to set up a solid backbone for credibility and then grab their attention with entertainment.' .." Comment by Wacki 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:44 pm
15 Mar 2007 http://www.realclimate.org/
Adventures on the East Side
gavin @ 1:20 am
So that http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/global-warming-debate/ was .... interesting.
First off, I'd like to thank the commenters for all of the suggestions and ideas to the previous post. They were certainly useful. In particularly, the connection with the difficulties faced by evolutionists in debates vs. creationists proved to be very a propos. Our side played it it pretty straight - the basic IPCC line (Richard Somerville), commentary on the how 'scientized' political debates abuse science (me, though without using the word 'scientized'!) and the projections and potential solutions (Brenda Ekwurzel). Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying Eastsiders present) and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that global warming is a problem using any energy at all. Lindzen used his standard presentation - CO2 will be trivial effect, no one knows anything about aerosols, sensitivity from the 20th Century is tiny, and by the way global warming stopped in 1998. Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science. (more...) Comments (pop-up) (38) 4 blog reactions
The comments here from Al Gore's fans about the debate are hilarious:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/#more-420
I had read about this debate a couple of weeks ago, but forgot it was yesterday. I remember reading that the audience was to vote at the end of the debate about which side "won". Do you have any info how that vote went?
Can we get a link to some video or audio of the debate?
Never mind.......I found the results of the debate vote....the GW skeptics won!!
Last night, NPR and intelligence squared hosted a debate in New York City on the motion "Global Warming is not a Crisis." The proposition, Michael Crichton, Prof. Richard Lindzen and Prof. Philip Stott, won by 46% to 42%. What makes the performance all the more impressive is that before the event the organizers found the motion would have been disapproved of 57% to 30%, so there was quite a swing as a result of the arguments deployed.
Doink.
The video link below has real scientists not Green Goron Enviralist Druids pretending to be scientists. They shred Goron‘s Global Warming caused by us bs:
Ping me if anyone finds a transcript or video.
Like a couple of animated cartoon polar bears drowning. Made ME laugh!
Comment by [appropriately named]
Gavin Schwartz, one of the debate participants comments regarding a podcast he will be making available next Wednesday here: http://www.realclimate.org/
He says:
"The podcast should be available next Wednesday (I'll link it here once it's available), and so you can judge for yourselves, but I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull. ..."
Thanks!
Who knew? LOL
If their politics weren't so transparent they might get more traction for their Gaia propaganda.
As long as they keep making these sorts of comments, we'll keep quoting them. These quotes serve to illustrate the contempt they have for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the rest of us.
"Comparatively, we were pretty dull. ..."
Say it ain't so.
Thanks for the link. It's a great documentary. As soon as this Crichton debate is available on google or Youtube, I want to link that here also. bttt
Will do. I want to link it here as soon as it's available.
ping for ipod...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.