Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

12 Mar 2007 Global Warming debate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/global-warming-debate/

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

1 posted on 03/15/2007 9:35:43 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: xcamel; ChicagoConservative27; oldglory; MinuteGal; gonzo; mcmuffin; sheikdetailfeather; ...

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


2 posted on 03/15/2007 9:43:09 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI

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?


4 posted on 03/15/2007 9:48:52 AM PDT by jsh3180
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI

Doink.


7 posted on 03/15/2007 9:54:48 AM PDT by Doomonyou (Let them eat lead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI

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:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

8 posted on 03/15/2007 9:58:46 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (GW has more Honor and Integrity in his little finger than ALL of the losers on the "hate Bush" band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI
From NewsMeat.com: Brenda Ekwurzel - $500 donation to DNC 7/28/04, $500 donation to John F. Kerry for Presdient 4/10/04, $500 donation to DNC 10/27/04 from her position at Union of Concerned Propagandists..., er,..Scientists.
9 posted on 03/15/2007 9:59:13 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne (Compromise on your vote and you get a compromised government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI
...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

Like a couple of animated cartoon polar bears drowning. Made ME laugh!
Comment by [appropriately named]

12 posted on 03/15/2007 10:05:26 AM PDT by BufordP (I'd comment on the Democratic Party candidates, but I'm afraid I'd be forced into rehab.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI
From Gavin Schmidt:
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?

What arrogance. He believes that the question is settled; that global warming is a fait accompli and man is the cause. Therefore it is a waste of time to even discuss it because it takes away from doing more useful work. Besides, in his opinion, the mind of the common man cannot grasp the details.

Hillary talks about the vast right-wing conspiracy, but the global warming conspiracy is much more obvious and the leftist, one-world government radicals are behind it.

21 posted on 03/15/2007 10:25:06 AM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI

Bump.


23 posted on 03/15/2007 10:26:38 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Matchett-PI

bookmark


31 posted on 03/15/2007 10:46:52 AM PDT by Chena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: lepton

bookmark bump


83 posted on 03/17/2007 4:46:35 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson