Debates are not the proper way to conduct a sober assessment of science with regards to the determination of public policy. This is a publicity stunt by Monckton. Debaters can skew interpretations in a debate just like good defense lawyers can convince a jury to see the facts in a "new light" in order to get a client off.
Debates are not the proper way to conduct a sober assessment of science with regards to the determination of public policy.
And neither is Gore’s fossil-fueling his way around the globe with a Powerpoint presentation of lies and distortions. Serious assessments of science don’t get television ratings and movie reviews. High powered public bantering does. The scientific debate can still take place in more somber settings without ring announcers.
Gore isn’t a scientist and does not merit a scientific response. He’s a dancing bear and deserves a whipping and a muzzle.
--Debates are not the proper way to conduct a sober assessment of science with regards to the determination of public policy.--
However, such debates are useful tools to expose the inconvenient existence of a LOGICAL argument AGAINST the hyperbolic, oxymoronic, and emotionally-based notion of "global scientific consensus".
Maybe not. Maybe Monckton is just really fed up with AlGore's bull.
You probably have a point, but you are forgetting that this publicity stunt, if it occurs, will help spread some truth and dispel some of the hysteria about gw. Remember the great majority of the world's population has only heard one side of the story. Any attempt, publicity stunt or not, will help counter all the hysteria.
But scientist "consensus" is good enough to upend the world economy even though it is not a given that anything can be done about GW, man made or not?