Global warming debate - who do you think won?

Question

I happened upon a debate about a year ago as to whether or not global warming is a crisis. There were 3 debaters on each side, the most famous being Crichton and Lindzen vs. Gavin Schmidt. You can get the podcast of the debate here, and also hear highlights:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

Here is Gavin Schmidt's post-debate assessment:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/

I'll be listening to the debate on my way to work tomorrow. After you've listened, let's hear your opinions - who do you think won?

No providing opinions without listening first - that's cheating. The 'skeptics' are always complaining that nobody will debate them, so here you have it.

Answer 1

i think that if u believe with your heart you can overcome this!

Answer 2

The true irony in all this, is that when mother nature finally demonstrates what she's going to do, the believers will never find the naysayers, hoax whiners and Al Gore fanatics, to say, "TOLD YOU SO................"

Answer 3

That is an old debate, and the skeptics won.  

"In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided."

That is why the doom sayers do not want to engage in debates.

Answer 4

The real question should not be about who won or lost a debate.

The truth is this, there will be not 'conclusive' answer probably in our life time.  What is not a matter of debate, is that fuel is now a major issue in everyone's life.  The cost of fuel is breaking the lowest paid workers, it is ending the 'middle class' and now we can see the cost of food rising to the point where in all honesty riots are not that far fetched.  Regardless of who is right or wrong on this issue, we need alternatives that we can use TODAY.

The promise of hybrids in 3-5 years won't do it.  The hope of hydrogen in 5 years won't do it.  To raise the cafe standards that will not help for years to come wont do it.

What we must have is a Government driven program of innovation.   NOT REGULATION but a push with tax dollars to overcome this attack on our nation, our way of life our future.  Once our nation with the right leaders and the right 'can do ' attitude built railroads across the impossible.  Once we did the impossible and split the atom.  Once we did the impossible and put man on the moon.    Only by working together, hand in hand, not hand at the throat stifling innovation can we survive.  Not due to what might or might not warm as the years go by, but by simple economics.

Answer 5

I've always found such debates a waste of time and very misleading.  A good debater can be completely wrong, yet convince the listening audience that they are completely right.

If a listener has a written transcript of the debate and does independent post-debate research to the numerous assertions made (by both sides) then there can be some value to it.  But most listeners (I'm not including you) are not sufficiently educated in the topic being debated to detect false assertions and misleading statements.

Answer 6

The skeptics won, however that doesn't mean that much to me, though I am a skeptic about the affects of global warming.  I don't want science settled on a debate which seemed to be more about entertainment, I want it settled on the facts.  Global warming should not be a left wing verses right wing issue which it clearly is, it needs to get back in the the arena of science where it belongs.

Answer 7

I read the transcript of the debate a while ago. In my opinion, the skeptics came out looking better simply because their arguments were flashier and attention-grabbier (if I can say that) in comparison to the other side's somewhat dry fare. In public debates it's important not only to make factually correct arguments, but to make arguments that lay people without much technical understanding will find convincing. I thought Lindzen and his buddies did much better in that regard, although it was clear that Gavin et al. had the facts on their side.

Also, I did laugh when Lindzen berated his cohorts for using a stupid argument.

Answer 8

Skeptics won, you lost.