Why can't there just be a debate on a world stage with the global warming cultists vs global warming denier?

Question

The scientists on both sides in a worldwide debate.

Answer 1

I don't know, but, the founder of The Weather Channel is suing Al Gore so that there will at least be a case heard in a legal court of law.

Answer 2

Do you want to cause another riot like Kent state? Bite your tongue !

Answer 3

the agw/mmgw control freaks would lose their case. they are so almighty to themselves. Ignore them, get on with life, have some beers and smokes and die happy. Sod the world. we won't be there when it ends. 2nd law thermodynamics says it WILL end.

Answer 4

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case.

Answer 5

There is.  It's called scientific research.  The deniers are demolished.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

The reason scientists don't participate in the kind of debate you're suggesting is that it's a a lose-lose situation for AGW proponents.  Almost all scientists already accept that humans are the primary cause of the current warming, and to debate this issue would create the illusion that there is validity to the opposing viewpoint.

Laymen often can't tell the difference between a valid and invalid scientific argument, so what good would it do?  Just look at how often the Swindle is cited on this forum.  It's complete garbage, but people who don't know any better think it makes great opposing arguments.

The experts already know the answer, and it wouldn't help the laymen, except it would make it seem like there was a scientific debate on this issue when in reality the science is settled.

One scientist who tried to do such a "debate" said this:

"One reservation I had regarding the discussion is being cut off when I get into the science and the details. I had the feeling of taking part in a football match where the referee and all the spectators were blind and then tried to convince them that I scored a goal. The problem is that people without scientific training often find it hard to judge who's right and who's wrong. It seems that communication skills are more important for convincing the general public tha[n] scientific skills."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

Answer 6

Because the deniers would be slaughtered due to their minority and the poor quality of many (not all) of their arguments

Answer 7

There was one earlier last year. It turned out better for the skeptics than the AGW side:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...

On this link you can find a short explanation of those involved, and find an audio version of the whole debate ( all fifty minutes). You can find the videos on youtube, though the videos don't include the closing arguments and the audience's reaction.

A quote by J.S.: "Accepting the invitation for a debate would lend a false sense of credibility to the skeptics' position. Denying the invitation lets them pretend it's because they're shut out (ooooo, a conspiracy....)."

This is what the flat-earthers thought too, so your in good company.

Oh and here is a summary of a study about peer-reviewed papers by leading climate scientists:

"DAILYTECH SURVEY:

LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS

ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY;

COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED

CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING

VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher

August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a

survey of research papers on climate change.

Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI

Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she

found a majority supported the "consensus view,"

defined as humans were having at least

some_effect_ on_global_climate_change.

NOTE: "Climate change" but not "Global warming"

Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as

some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its

conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte

recently updated this research. Using the same

database and search terms as Oreskes, he

examined all papers published from 2004 to

February 2007. The results have been submitted

to the journal Energy and Environment, of which

DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.

The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%)

gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If

one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the

consensus without explicit statement), the figure

rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%)

reject the consensus outright, the largest category

(48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept

or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one

remembers the watered-down definition of

consensus here. Not only does it not require

supporting that man is the "primary" cause of

warming, but it doesn't require any belief or

support for "catastrophic" global warming. In

fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to

February 2007), only a single one makes any

reference to climate change leading to

catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances

in climate science over the past decade. While

today we are even more certain the earth

is warming, we are less certain about the root

causes. More importantly, research has shown us

that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of

warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for

mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation

IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which

gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an

impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC

represent a consensus view of world scientists?

Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists"

involved in the report, the actual text is written by a

much smaller number of "lead authors."

The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" --

the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is

written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and

approved, word-by-word, by political representatives

from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual

report chapters -- the only text actually written by

scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with

the summary, which is typically published months

before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database

covers 8,700 journals and publications, including

every leading scientific journal in the world."

So J.S.'s study is outdated. The new one gives a different conclusion.

Another quote by J.S.: "With numbers like the ones described below, why debate global warming? Why not debate gravity? It's only a theory, and one probably much less studied than global warming."

Gravity is one of the least understood forces. Maybe we should start debating it so we can get some real information about it...

Answer 8

There has been. And it turned out pretty much like gncp said.

Answer 9

There already has been.  The debate raged on for nearly 100 years before the AGW theory clearly won.  It's just that the Johnny-come-lately doubters around here (and a handful of cranky old scientists unwilling or unable to admit they were wrong) don't realize that.

The debate was waged in something called the "scientific literature", an area where the current doubters (who prefer personal blogs by non-scientists or op-ed pieces) seldom, if ever, tread.

You can read all about it here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...

Here's more evidence of the victory:

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

Answer 10

If there were, and the scientists supporting the idea that anthropogenic CO2 was affecting climate won hands down, would you abide by the outcome and accept that something should be done?  What if, after the "pro" side won, some guys on the internet posted some non-verifiable studies showing the debate was biased and therefore the results were invalid?  Would you still believe the results of the debate or would you still be a skeptic and therefore argue nothing should be done?

Which do you think has already happened?

The answer is precisely why there will be no debate.  Nobody is going to refight WW2 either.

Answer 11

What would that settle?  You cannot change someone's opinion who does not want it changed.  The people on both sides are 110% sure they are correct.

Bottomline,  we still would know no more than before.

Answer 12

Because the AGW supports refuse. They know the evidence is not on their side. Hence the reason they attack "denier" scientist personally, and not the actual science.

I did hear one debate last years. "The Global Warming skeptics team led by Michael Crichton defeated the Global Warming advocates led by Brenda Ekwurzel in a debate moderated by Brian Lehrer before a live audience in New York City. Before the debate the organizers polled 57.32% to 29.88% in favor of Global Warming, but after the debate the numbers flipped to 46.22% to 42.22% in favor of the skeptics."

During the debate, I do not think the "deniers" did a very good job. But even with them not doing a great job, the audience still changed their mind. If this happens in the main stream media, then the AGW loonies lose. People will begin to realize they have been lied to, and AGW crazies can not allow that.

Answer 13

there was. the cultists as you call them had the preponderance of evidence. now all you can do is whine about it. it's only going to get worse for you because the cultists are the only ones doing any actual research, as opposed to public relations damage control by oil companies and the like.

Answer 14

good question but waft

Answer 15

Al gore vs the president of China would make a good show

Answer 16

The cultists would lose.  That is why you never see a debate.

Cults just want to cut to the chase and burn the heretics at the stake.  All this work to make people come around and "confess" just drags out the process.

Answer 17

There is, but there is a lot more money in fortune telling than in not fortune telling so guess who is getting all the best PR.  The only non gamble is on the sun, eventually it's going to toast us all no matter how expensive we make life for the people who can't afford to pretend they are 'green.'

Answer 18

The stage would tip over.  The side with the global warming scientists would collapse under the pressure.

There's vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

"The fact that the community overwhelmingly supports the consensus is evidenced by picking up any copy of Journal of Climate or similar, any scientific program at the meetings, or simply going to talk to scientists. I challenge you, if you think there is some un-reported division, show me the hundreds of abstracts that support your view - you won't be able to. You can argue whether the consensus is correct, or what it really implies, but you can't credibly argue it doesn't exist."

NASA's Gavin Schmidt

Answer 19

With the answers i have gotten from the GW crowd, I would be afraid I'd get shot, their more violent than an Obama supporter.

Answer 20

Accepting the invitation for a debate would lend a false sense of credibility to the skeptics' position.  Denying the invitation lets them pretend it's because they're shut out (ooooo, a conspiracy....).

Here's a profile of who's behind the "demand debate" proposal:

Part I

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

Part II

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

With numbers like the ones described below, why debate global warming?  Why not debate gravity?  It's only a theory, and one probably much less studied than global warming.

---

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Note that Peiser has altered Oreskes' original category from "reject" to "reject or doubt" so it is logically possible that both are correct. Also, there were several other differences between the studies: Peiser included "all documents" in the database rather than just scientific articles, and he included Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities as well as Sciences. Peiser was kind enough to share the 34 articles that he says reject or doubt. A discussion of the 34 argues that probably two to five of them should count, and the two best examples are editorials, not scientific publications (which is probably why they were not included in Oreskes' study).

When faced with a controversy like this, the great thing is that you can do your own research. If you suspect Oreskes or Peiser (or both) might be biased, you can look at the data yourself.

So that's what I did. Of the 34 articles, I would say that #10 and #27 clearly reject the consensus, but they are editorials, not scientific papers (and #27 is from an oil industry trade association). #1 and #6 doubt, but again are not scientific papers. #7, #17, #31 and maybe #22 doubt, and #15 says that both greenhouse gases and solar activity are roughly equal contributers to warming; so I counted it as "doubt." So overall I would say that Oreskes is correct; that Peiser has not shown a peer-reviewed scientific paper that clearly rejects the consensus. I would also say that Peiser is correct in that he found at least 4 papers that place some doubt on some of the premises of the consensus, but he is widely wrong in claiming 34. Update (June 2007): Peiser has backed off his claims, and now says there is actually only one out of the 34 papers that rejects the consensus, and that one is an editorial, not a scientific paper (and therefore was not included in the Oreskes study).

---

Answer 21

As you can see from the alarmists/cultists, they don't believe the rest of us are smart enough to understand the debate.  How quickly they forget that Algore was able to make people understand, albeit with incorrect data.  Perhaps if the alarmists/cultists actually had a case, they wouldn't be so hesitant.

Sadly, it won't happen because they are scared they will lose and they will do everything to make sure that doesn't happen.  They have way to much tied up in AGW (money, pride) to risk losing a debate.

EDIT:  Interesting how the AGW alarmists continue to excuse themselves from a debate.  A legitimate scientific theory ENCOURAGES criticism, skepticism, and debate.  How else do you prove the theory?  Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so.  You have to PROVE it.  The AGW alarmists have taken up the tactics of the left (especially the Clintons) - say it enough and the MSM will believe you and it will become "truth".  Pathetic.