Why has there never been a proper global warming debate?

Question

I love this planet as much as the next guy but all I've seen of global warming is it being used as an excuse to raise taxes(if the government isn't taking that much action;just raising taxes. Why should I take it as a serious threat?). I think GW could be explained by the climate cycles that do indisputably take place over the millenia resulting in hotter or colder periods I'd back this up by pointing out that when a climatologist comes on TV to talk about global warming he will always say something like 'last summer was the hottest on record for 100 years' but that means a hundred years ago before todays 'man made climate change' it was hotter.

Thats why Im a doubter its just like the 'the next Ice age is coming' stuff from 20 years ago. I've seen no concrete evidence I've just heard the theory. I bet there are millions like me who dont believe in it therefore don't take action on it why hasn't there been a proper debate to prove to the public beyond all doubt that global warming does or doesn't exist. Then we can either stop worrying and raising taxes or take the problem seriously and take some proper action and stop China giving out all that pollution. Surely the believers should want one just as much as the doubters.

Answer 1

There have been debates and the audience became more skeptical afterward.

That may not prove anything but it's interesting to note.

Answer 2

There has been.  It's taken place in the scientific literature, in scientific conferences, and in the deliberations of the large and diverse IPCC.

Those supporting the mainstream view have prevailed.  EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

The debate that has occurred is far more serious and definitive than a TV sideshow would be.

It's in no way like the "global cooling myth" of 20+ years ago.  Even then the majority of scientists predicted warming.  Just like today, there were a few "skeptics" with theories and no good data, who predicted cooling; and got a lot more attention in the media than they deserved.

EDIT - "If we deplete [ozone], why doesn't it cool the Earth."

It does.  It's the reason central Antarctica is not warming like most of the rest of the planet, since ozone depletion is most serious there.

Answer 3

We've never had a proper debate about Global Warming, because no one has evidence to prove anything. Or, they can take to the Debate, Records of Heat, and Cold, and then prove it by that matter.

Although, No one has ever thought to do that. I'm sure their scared to get beaten down. They need Sure-Fire Evidence. Something that will prove to the whole World that Global Warming does exist.

I am a believer. I think our World needs this. To stop a crazy Heat. Though there may never BE evidence.

I'm hoping meatheads like the government will understand more about our Earth, other than money.

A Debate is needed. And someone needs to take a stand for our world. No one has the guts. I would, but I'm way too young to be standing up infront of all the world, and make a speech with no evidence! I'm just a young girl who believes in Global Warming and Pollution.

A Political Debate, PERFECT! All we need to do... is Convince.  

Answer 4

Science does not work by public debate.  99.9% of the public would not understand the details of the science.  

What taxes have been raised due to global warming?  Please name one tax bill associated with global warming.

This is evidence, not theory:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Scientists did not promote the next ice age coming, Newsweek and Time did.

Answer 5

The debate happens every day in all aspects of government operation and in a nearly infinite variety of university and scientific circles.  Since no credible science has emerged to counter global warming, the tactic of denying it for so many years has backfired.  Now virtually anything offered under the banner of "global warming solution" is accepted as a viable thing to consider, support, or implement.  Politicians smell blood, and they're going to suck us dry creating "fixes" to a problem that they told us for years we didn't have.

I agree that current taxes and approaches are more harmful than helpful, but the debate needs to occur in the fields of economics, sociology, political science, etc.  In other words, the debate shouldn't be about global warming per se (that's like arguing that the world is flat), but we can certainly discuss the crazy, ineffective responses that have been proposed and even implemented (Kyoto and its ilk).  Developed nation growth wipes out any cutbacks proposed in response to the IPCC process.  Why would any nation get on board a plan guaranteed to fail?  Clearly the U.N. has failed to propose a solution, so new talks need to take place outside the auspices of the IPCC.

The average emissions across the world are too high, yet the #1 emitter China points at the U.S. and insists that it has the moral right to pursue a similar per capita emission rate.  If they want to commit suicide, let them for now, and developed nations shouldn't punish their citizens while developing nations flaunt their sense of entitlement.  When Chinese people are starving because the Yellow and Mekong rivers have dried up, they'll be more willing to talk about scaling back their self-destructive pollution growth plans (such as the hundreds of dirty coal power plants they're building).

A viable solution must consider all sources of warming (such as the black soot being released in Asia), not just CO2.  A viable solution must result in a global reduction in warming factors, and no existing or proposed treaty achieves that because developing nations, responsible for over half of CO2 releases and most black soot pollution, have not committed to any emission growth limits.  

Developed nations should cancel all taxes and reduction goals until developing nations join in a treaty that reduces global warming factors overall, globally.  If we can't agree on such a treaty, fine, then every country can simply focus on their own adaptation.  When developing nations are ready to talk about their growth and its affect on their majority share of the problem, then we can return to negotiations.

The problem could be significantly reduced if global corporations such as WalMart and Target would develop standards for how damaging the operations of their suppliers are.  An effective boycott of WalMart would cause them to lead the way towards cleaner and less damaging manufacturing operations worldwide.  A market-led solution such as that will be far more effective than letting governments use the issue as an excuse to squander our money.

Answer 6

Scientific questions are not decided by "debate." They are decided by evidence, observation and analysis.

If you don't know or understand the facts--then get off your intellectual butt and learn them. Science is about knowing facts--not public debates and opinion. Those count for nothing.

Answer 7

There already has.

It occurred in the scientific literature and it has been pretty decisively won by those who think that global warming is happening, caused by us and probably going to cause us a lot of problems.

As for dealing with the problem, we can't just stop emitting CO2 without having an adequate replacement for whatever it was that was emitting it (human life (including our standard of living and that of the third world) must come before the environment) and we pretty much only have a viable one for electricity production (and we've only got one which many people who accept that global warming needs to be stopped don't seem to want to use for some irrational reason).

Oh and stop all this socialist this, socialist that nonsense, it really is tiring (and only makes you look like yet another paranoid conspiracy theorist).

"I think GW could be explained by the climate cycles that do indisputably take place over the millenia resulting in hotter or colder periods"

They are called Milankovitch cycles and we know enough about them to rule out that conjecture.

We have also been monitoring the Sun closely enough to know that it isn't causing our temperature rise.

Answer 8

It's extremely difficult to have a meaningful debate between scientists who know what they're talking about and mudslinging politicians who don't have a clue and just want to support Big Oil.

Answer 9

There have been debates and you can even find some of them on YouTube.  Personally, I find actual debates almost useless, because the "winners" and "losers" can be different than the people making the best arguments.  There are some very slick liars out there. The real debate is and should be in the peer-reviewed literature.

I'm not particularly for taxes, but the money that needs to be spent on fighting global warming is less than what governments waste elsewhere.  A gasoline tax to fight GW would be much less than the rise in gasoline prices over the last year. I think the real question is whether you want to prevent global warming with a small investment or try to fix all the problems caused by it with a large investment.

Answer 10

That would be a short debate.  

They would call us deniers and equate us to the people who deny the holocaust and we would call them fanatics and equate them to a bunch of con artists (which they are).

And time will settle this.  20 years from now when the weather is pretty much like it is today and the ocean is in the same place it is now, we skeptics will be vindicated, and the true believers will continue to insist that the apocalypse is 10 years away.

Answer 11

Because Al Gore would lie!

Answer 12

Alarmist don't debate, they preach.  If you don't believe in their cause, you are a blasphemer.  

Look at this little jewel of ignorance:

"The first symptom of climate change was depletion of the ozone layer, recognized in the late 1970's"

He is obviously mixing doomsday scenarios.  The hole in the ozone is not significantly related to global warming.  Ozone is a greenhouse gas.  If we deplete it, why doesn't it cool the Earth.  Obviously it protects us from excessive UV.  Alarmists seem to want to promote ignorance and politics rather than a meaningful discussion.  This is evidenced by their complete unwillingness to weigh potential benefits to warming.  

Answer 13

First off, science doesn't work by public debates.  Scientists publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals, and if another scientist thinks he's wrong, he can prove it in his own study and again publish in a peer-reviewed journal.  In peer-reviewed studies, the man-made global warming side has already won.  See the 'Consensus' section here:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

Honestly, if a bunch of climate scientists were debating the issue, do you think you know the subject well enough to determine which side was correct?

As a matter of fact, there have been some debates like this.  For example, a 3 vs. 3 including Gavin Schmidt, Michael Crichton, and Richard Lindzen.  Gavin Schmidt's "pro" man-made global warming side made much better scientific arguments.  Michael Crichton's "anti" man-made global warming side spent most of the time blabbering about poverty rather than debating the science.  Lindzen even made some flat-out false claims, but of course the audience didn't know they were false.

Despite the "pro" side making clearly better arguments, the audience thought that Crichton's side was more convincing because he made glitzier arguments, even though they had no substance.

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

This is a great example of why scientists don't engage in public debates.  There's just no point.  The average person doesn't know enough about the subject to tell which side is right.

For a summary of the scientific evidence, see the link below.

Answer 14

There was never a proper debate because all opposition to the theory of AGW was ruthlessly suppressed and the people opposing this theory were immediately labelled as being in the pocket of the oil companies. Now this is completely rediculous because the pro-AGW's get a lot of money from the theory. Not only this but climate scientists found it almost impossible to find funding for research unless they signed a contract saying that they must show AGW to be true. This is very biased and unscientific. It's censorship of science and if you do that there can be no advancement in science. The only non-internet place where you can ever find both sides of this arguement is the Fox news channel because they're not afraid of fighting propaganda and exposing the truth.

Answer 15

The debate has been going on for over 20 years. The first symptom of climate change was depletion of the ozone layer, recognized in the late 1970's.

Answer 16

There has been a thorough debate in the scientific literature.  Read any of the journals on environmental science (Environmental Science and Technology, or Journal of AIChE, for example) if you want to see it.  Global warming is not something that should be decided by politicians, and that is why any political debate is meaningless.  Any debate that was opened up to non-scientists would quickly lose all scientific legitimacy and become a political circus.

Answer 17

There has been extensive debate on this subject, both among scientists and politicians, for at least the past 30 years.

Check out the history of the subject here:

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

Answer 18

Wouldn't be too much of a debate would it.