How do you feel about scientists 'debating' global warming with skeptics?

Question

The newest entry at RealClimate is by Pierrehumbert.

Raymond Pierrehumbert is the Louis Block Professor in Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, having earlier served on the atmospheric science faculties of MIT and Princeton.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=207

"Some of us have even been cajoled into accepting [debate challenges]...Gavin did an infamous one against Crichton and company. People are always demanding that Al Gore debate somebody or other...It is not that scientists don't debate, dispute, disagree about matters related to climate. All those things happen, but not on the subjects that skeptics like Inhofe or Fred Singer or Dennis Avery would like to debate (like whether global warming is mainly caused by CO2 or solar variability, or whether the IPCC warming forecasts represent a credible threat.). Those sorts of things are indeed considered settled science by serious climate scientists."

What do you think of Pierrehumbert's take on debates?

Answer 1

Its a waste of time to debate further with the skeptics. As far as I am concerned, the whole world have accepted AGW  and are taking necessary steps to remedy the situation.

Answer 2

It's a waste of their valuable time.  Just like evolutionary biologists won't debate creationists.  

Of course, this is seen as proof of a conspiracy by the denialists.

This will end up in court eventually.  

The denialists will get their a**es handed to them, just like the creationists did in Chester PA.

Answer 3

Hmmm...... First of all, Al Gore is the LAST person that the 'Man-did-it' club would send to the podium to debate the virtues of their cause.  He is a media 'pitch-man' ..... instead of selling cereal, he's selling 'Man-did-it' Global Warming....and he's managed to sell the product to a lot of the uninformed masses.

Secondly, any debate would be futile, as so much of the data that has been used to argue the catastophic warming of the Earth has been found to be flawed (see www.surfacestations.org).  With such flawed data being used....the so-called science being proclaimed out there is also.....flawed.  Before the 'Man-did-it' folks can get away from being perceived as a 'Mutual Admiration Society'....they are going to have to insure that their claims are based on RELIABLE climate information.  As things stand now, their credibility is pretty weak!

Answer 4

Yep, as Dawkins and Gould say, high-profile scientists 'debating' with denialists just gives the denialists the oxygen of the appearance of respectability.

Answer 5

Here's who's behind the "demand debate" circus:

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/11...

The scientific process is a debate.  People who want to question and modify science do so and release their own papers.  That's how we arrived at the current consensus.  Before the deniers jump in reagrdinng that term, consensus is a fair and accurate term for the current status (look up the definition of consensus).  Consensus specifically includes and considers alternatives, just as Gray, Lindzen, McKitrick, and others were considers in arriving at the consensus IPCC opinion.

The debate for the science is wide open.  There just aren't many scientists seeing viable opportunities to accept the wealth of funding available to skeptics.  If there were, we'd see a lot more peer-reviewed papers coming from skeptics.  

Instead they have to publish lists of people who state their personal opinions.  How desperate is that?

Answer 6

I agree completely. Debating with GW denialists (say, Tim Ball*) is just like debating with creationists. It gives their position credibility, and creates the illusion that serious scientists are actually still debating whether SUV's are causing Mars to warm.

There are real and fascinating discussions being had in the scientific community about climate change right now. The denialists have chosen not to take part in them.

*Who, as it turns out, is a cdesign proponentist himself (oh shock, oh surprise).

Answer 7

Pierrehumbert's site was somewhat interesting, although I drilled down to this http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/Climate...  

and of course, then found myself completely at a loss to understand the programming script.

I had been expecting some nice pretty pictures to help me understand the properties of different gases. Or maybe even an interactive program !! OK OK.. I admit, my expectations were unrealistically high.

So that sucked - I was pretty disappointed.

___________

on reflection, to actually answer the question you asked, I don't mind if they do, but the sceptics are complete idiots ... so would they agree?

He doesn't look like he would win many of the audience over with his facial hair and general appearance and therefore, I'd suggest he gets some help before he gets up on stage. The majority of trying to 'sell' an idea is the quality of the person presenting it... take Al Gore as a good example of a spokesperson.

Answer 8

If the scientist are on gores payroll, as most seem to be?  why waste the time.

Answer 9

Debating issues of fact is stupid, as is arguing with someone about the fundamental phyics.  If they disbelieve the underlying science, it is a waste of time.  Debates in this context would have merit on what mitigation strategies are best, since those are policy questions and have indeterminate answers.

Answer 10

THE DEBATE IS OVER... except for some who will never accept facts.

I would like skeptics to show me their graphs of the earth cooling... :-)))