Finally -- Open, publicized debate on Climate.

[flacaltenn]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

Not sure any credible scientist would want to be part of that circus.

It's not a circus. It's a debate. To resolve discrepancies between sides, suggest projections that can be used for Public Policy. Don't know if you noticed. But since the IPCC shut down, there haven't been weekly, monthly screaming headlines about what the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be. Since every important projection from 1980 to 2006 or so was constantly REVISED DOWNWARDS..

If ANYTHING -- it will provide a baseline for what is BELIEVED NOW.. Versus the early original BS being fed to the public in 1980 1990 that induced panic and rampant fear.... Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE. Need a fresh reboot on the CURRENT thinking..

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Those suds coming out of your ears are caused by the severe brainwashing you have undergone. For your reference, real scientists welcome debate and exploration of ideas. Especially on complicated systems like climate. Oh, and you have some soap coming out of your nose.

Yes. I'm well aware of all the debate about whether gravity is something real, and whether it has any impact on us. It is still just a theory, after all. I'm also impressed with all the debate on the heliocentric theory as well. After all, whether the earth circles the sun, or the other way around is still just another theory.

Well if that's the actual case - there should be open public debate on these things.

 

[BULLDOG]

1) Global warming isn't just ONE QUESTION. Every CONSENSUS is on separate questions. Doesn't matter if 99 out of hundred agree on just ONE question. You have to have consensus on ALL the issues.

2) When presented with even ONE CONTRARY FACT OF EVIDENCE -- it needs to get resolved COMPLETELY before ANYONE declares "the science is settled". That's why the science is rarely EVER settled

Exactly. Bray and Storch actually polled scientists from climate related fields, with specific questions rather than just simple general ones. There was no consensus.

What is meant by "Climate Related Fields"? Examples?

You can get a climate science degree the EASY way or the HARD way. The easy way is thru a geology dept where you focus on terrestrial effects of global warming, historical proxy evidence of past climates and such. Not really much in the way of Atmospheric physics, or Ocean Thermodynamics, or deep into modeling, statistics and math. The other way is thru a more comprehensive and rigorous "physics" approach which is usually the case when the school HAS a Climate program.

At any rate -- there are about 30 disciplines involved in GW science. All types of specialties. From dating ancient materials for climate clues to atmos physics, modeling, various oceanography specialties ect. ANY of these folks that publish vetted peer reviewed papers on climate change were eligible for the Bray vonStorch polling. No one person can cover all that ground. This also includes OUTSIDE specialties like the guys who design and maintain all the space science packages. Or the ice core/tree ring squad. Or folks that are specialists in the modeling and data preparation techniques. ANY of them -- if they publish on GW is considered "a Climate Scientist"...

In fact -- Bray is a statistician specializing in processing CC data and vonStorch was a contributing member to the IPCC (with which he's had disagreements) and a pre-eminent expert on many topics in Climate Change. But LATELY -- he was disappointed in the way that CC science was being handed to policy decision makers and he's VERY active in polling the field and assuring that the information given to policy makers is ethical, well reviewed, and objective.

Geology might touch on aspects that overlap climate science, but geology is not climate science. Setting up a satellite TV dish involves information also used in astronomy, but working as am installer for DirecTV doesn't qualify you to work for NASA, no matter how much you want it to.

 

[SSDD]

No.

Bravo....BRAVO... Answered like a true ignoramus. Answered like a person with absolutely nothing of interest to say on the subject. Answered in a true spirit of defeat. Thank you.

 

[SSDD]

Do you accept your doctor's word for your condition, or do you insist on seeing the x-rays, and results of the blood tests?

Your f'ing A I do. Some years back I had stomach ulcers. My doc, and the doc I went to for a second opinion both told me they were due to stress. And I was told more or less that any other doc I visited would also tell me that my ulcers were due to stress....it was the consensus opinion you know. I told them to keep looking because I was the least stressed person they ever met. Not so long ago, some real research, as opposed to the consensus opinion found that stomach ulcers were caused by gut bacteria and stress had nothing to do with the condition. Score one for the consumer.

Over the past 6 or 7 years my doc has been after me to get on a regimen of statin drugs for my cholesterol. Says that it is going to result in heart disease. Every time I asked, I asked him to show me a definitive study linking cholesterol to heart disease. He couldn't show me one. Recently the largest study of its kind ever done revealed that cholesterol, in fact, has nothing to do with heart disease. You are as likely to develop heart disease if you have normal or low cholesterol levels in your blood as you are if those numbers are high. If you wonder if you are likely to develop heart disease, look to your family history, not your cholesterol numbers. Now, how many people are now on statin drugs which pose a danger if they try to get off them based on the advice of doctors regarding their cholesterol? Score another one for the consumer.

In addition, I never much paid attention to the arguments over natural sugar, high fructose corn syrup, fad diets, natural fats vs polyunsaturated fats and lo and behold, as actual research comes out based on fact, rather than consensus opinion, we are finding that all of those consensus ideas were patently wrong.

Any rational, reasonably intelligent person asks to see the results of test, X-rays, MRI's, and any other test you have performed on you and then they begin to do their own research to see if they can tease out the facts from the consensus opinion, and marketing done by drug companies. If you don't, then you are just as ignorant in that aspect as you are on climate science.

Unless you are an expert in something like that, you would be a fool to think just looking at a few bloggs and a couple of web sites makes you as qualified to interpret the data as well as someone who has put in the years required to know what they really mean.

Relying entirely on the opinion of "experts" is nothing more than being a sheep. It is fine to listen to an expert to get an idea of where you should begin doing your own research, but here, in the information age where you can access as much information as an "expert" relying on them rather than doing your own research is just stupid. There are experts and then there are experts. If you are unable to tell the difference because of your own laziness or stupidity, then you deserve exactly what you get.

 

[SSDD]

I'm losing sleep due to a tonal tinnitus issue and they are stumped. Everything they've TRIED is because I've prompted them to look at it.

I have some of that going on myself. I hear tree frogs and crickets...sounds just like sitting in a lawn chair in the evening next to a forest. Fortunately I like the sound of tree frogs and crickets. I am writing it up to one to many Ted Nugent concerts in my youth.

 

[SSDD]

Did you insist on being awake during the removal of that kidney so you could make sure they were doing it right? If 99 out of 100 doctors told you that kidney had to go, but one said it's not a problem, would you give the 1 doctor's opinion as much credibility as the 99?

The issue isn't the surgery. Surgery is a trade, like being a mechanic or a plumber. I don't feel the need to watch my mechanic work on my car but I do feel the need to not simply accept his statement that the top end of my engine is bad and needs to be replaced in its entirety....and I don't need to watch an operation but damned well feel the need to question the reasons why I might need the surgery.

You seem to be so ignorant that you not only have no idea what is going on, but lack the mental acuity to even wonder which and what kind of questions you should be asking? Is there any aspect of your life in which you don't seek the opinion of an "expert" to tell you what you should do?

 

[SSDD]

LOL

Right to name calling while avoiding any question that would expose your ignorance. Some of us actually have degrees in this field and are unafraid of the name-calling and fantasy drivel you call "science" which is actually politically driven pseudoscience..

Sorry guy, this one isn't trying to avoid his ignorance, hell, he is wearing it on his chest like it is some sort of award to be proud of. He is standing here in the middle of the information age when the average joe has easy access to as much information on any topic as the most elite ivory tower dweller and he is standing up saying essentially that he is ignorant and is perfectly satisfied with it. And apparently he believes because he is an ignoramus that everyone else who isn't an "expert" is as ignorant as he is. He is so ignorant that he really doesn't even begin to know what he doesn't know.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

Not sure any credible scientist would want to be part of that circus.

It's not a circus. It's a debate. To resolve discrepancies between sides, suggest projections that can be used for Public Policy. Don't know if you noticed. But since the IPCC shut down, there haven't been weekly, monthly screaming headlines about what the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be. Since every important projection from 1980 to 2006 or so was constantly REVISED DOWNWARDS..

If ANYTHING -- it will provide a baseline for what is BELIEVED NOW.. Versus the early original BS being fed to the public in 1980 1990 that induced panic and rampant fear.... Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE. Need a fresh reboot on the CURRENT thinking..

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Those suds coming out of your ears are caused by the severe brainwashing you have undergone. For your reference, real scientists welcome debate and exploration of ideas. Especially on complicated systems like climate. Oh, and you have some soap coming out of your nose.

Yes. I'm well aware of all the debate about whether gravity is something real, and whether it has any impact on us. It is still just a theory, after all. I'm also impressed with all the debate on the heliocentric theory as well. After all, whether the earth circles the sun, or the other way around is still just another theory.

Sarcasm huh. Here is the BIG difference between classifying the movement of celestial bodies and gravity as theoretical like climate change. Models. Yep, we have models that support the “theory” of gravity. We have models that support the “theory” of the sun being the center of our universe. Show me the PROVEN AND WORKING model of anthropogenic climate change. They have all been wrong, kinda like you.

 

[bripat9643]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

Not sure any credible scientist would want to be part of that circus.

Only paid off hacks would be afraid to debate the facts.

 

[bripat9643]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

Not sure any credible scientist would want to be part of that circus.

It's not a circus. It's a debate. To resolve discrepancies between sides, suggest projections that can be used for Public Policy. Don't know if you noticed. But since the IPCC shut down, there haven't been weekly, monthly screaming headlines about what the temperature anomaly in 2100 is gonna be. Since every important projection from 1980 to 2006 or so was constantly REVISED DOWNWARDS..

If ANYTHING -- it will provide a baseline for what is BELIEVED NOW.. Versus the early original BS being fed to the public in 1980 1990 that induced panic and rampant fear.... Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE. Need a fresh reboot on the CURRENT thinking..

What is BELIEVED NOW is well known. No need to give the climate change deniers the credibility of a debate. Only a qualified climate scientist would be suitable to moderate it, and any qualified climate scientist would see no reason for a debate.

Hell NO -- it's not "well known". Whats the ACCEPTED projected temp anomaly for 2100? To any accuracy that would guide public policy? Where are the projected ACCELERATIONS in both Temp and Sea Level that we were told 30 years ago would be happening NOW?

You're not a scientist. They LIVE for debate. Biggest primadonnas on the planet. The only time they HIDE from debate is when they KNOW the there's skeletons in their closet of theories.

Don't be silly. If the oil companies hadn't paid scientists to fight the idea of climate change the same way tobacco companies paid doctors to promote cigarettes, there wouldn't be a crazy denier problem anyway.,

There is no "crazy denier problem" except for the paid off hacks who call themselves "climate scientists."

 

[saveliberty]

Yes and Pruitt's next debate will be Rhodes Scholar's in an open and real debate with the Flat Earther's on whether the Earth is flat or round. All participants will arrive in a jetliner that travels a Great Circle navigation route which is the only way to navigate over the surface of a sphere.

I'm so tired of the current crop of morons trying to frame everything as a 'fair and balanced' disagreement. Global Warming has been settled science for the last 15 years, PH.D's around the world already had the debate. It's over. All you ignorants that are scared of the reality you really just need to stay home and scream at the tv. Your 'opinion' has no relevance to scientific reality.

There is no debate. The phoney Lying Trump crap is just more snake-oil salesmen bullshit.

I suppose you think you can use debate skills too, but the sad reality is you took a completely different subject and attempted to claim the groups were the same as causation. Perhaps you can learn debate first, then venture into science.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Yes and Pruitt's next debate will be Rhodes Scholar's in an open and real debate with the Flat Earther's on whether the Earth is flat or round. All participants will arrive in a jetliner that travels a Great Circle navigation route which is the only way to navigate over the surface of a sphere.

I'm so tired of the current crop of morons trying to frame everything as a 'fair and balanced' disagreement. Global Warming has been settled science for the last 15 years, PH.D's around the world already had the debate. It's over. All you ignorants that are scared of the reality you really just need to stay home and scream at the tv. Your 'opinion' has no relevance to scientific reality.

There is no debate. The phoney Lying Trump crap is just more snake-oil salesmen bullshit.

I suppose you think you can use debate skills too, but the sad reality is you took a completely different subject and attempted to claim the groups were the same as causation. Perhaps you can learn debate first, then venture into science.

You believe in unreality. You could debate this just as well as you couuld debate bigfoot. Which I'm sure you do on many occasions. Get over it Pinky, you reject science and in so doing you reject reality.

Go throw the bones and see how your day is going to go.

 

[saveliberty]

You believe in unreality. You could debate this just as well as you couuld debate bigfoot. Which I'm sure you do on many occasions. Get over it Pinky, you reject science and in so doing you reject reality.

Go throw the bones and see how your day is going to go.

So you thought hey, why not just go completely off debate and make wild accusations. Now we are suppose to assume you also have good deductive reasoning skills relating to science? I think not.

 

[ding]

Actually I was wrong to say many opportunity for debate have occurred. There really is only ONE of substance and I can provide the recording of it if anyone wants to watch.. But here's the gist..

Why Warmists Hate Debate: Flashback 2007: Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate – RealClimate.org’s Gavin Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.


The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.
The scientists arguing for a climate ‘crisis’ were NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public Radio’s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: “Global warming is not a crisis.”
Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience
The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate “crisis” moments before the debate began.
But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of 46.2% — a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official audience voting results]
[Link to full debate pdf transcript]
Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics
NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming “crisis” conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at “a sharp disadvantage.” Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealClimate.org.
“…I’m afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I’d say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s Philip] Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it’s hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull,” Schmidt wrote.

FYI Gavin Schmidt was the GWarning jedi knight James Hansen's replacement at NASA GISS..

So instead of dry facts, the deniers claimed victory based on Michael Chrichton's story telling ability. Sounds about right..

Are you already making excuses for losing, bro?

 

[mamooth]

It's not a circus. It's a debate.

But there's already an open debate. It's in the scientific community, open for everyone to see. Only cult liars claim there's not open debate now, and they claim that because they've lost that open debate in a completely humiliating fashion. All denier "science" has been proved to be shit. If it wasn't open fraud, it just failed hilariously.

That's why you're pushing for a circus instead of actual open debate. You're going for sound bites, knowing that telling a lie is a hundred times easier than refuting it. The lying side always pushes for fast debates over slow discussions with ample room for actual data and refutations. That's yet another reason we know deniers are the lying side.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not a circus. It's a debate.

But there's already an open debate. It's in the scientific community, open for everyone to see. Only cult liars claim there's not open debate now, and they claim that because they've lost that open debate in a completely humiliating fashion. All denier "science" has been proved to be shit. If it wasn't open fraud, it just failed hilariously.

That's why you're pushing for a circus instead of actual open debate. You're going for sound bites, knowing that telling a lie is a hundred times easier than refuting it. The lying side always pushes for fast debates over slow discussions with ample room for actual data and refutations. That's yet another reason we know deniers are the lying side.

You forget the conspiracies to restrict publishing.The running to Congress to cut off funding for those that dissent. The sarcastic and serious sniping about incarcerating skeptics and deniers.

Even the stacking of the IPCC. With their biased mission statement not to investigate Climate Change.. But only MAN MADE climate change. And there have BEEN no open debates. No opportunities to air questions and discuss assertions.

 

[mamooth]

You forget the conspiracies to restrict publishing.

I've forgotten many denier conspiracy theories. Given the sheer quantity of them, nobody can remember them all.

The running to Congress to cut off funding for those that dissent.

So whose funding was cut off? Name names.

Speaking of dissent, the Trump admin is censoring inconvenient science hard. And not a peep of protest from deniers. Deniers loooooove their censorship, which makes their claims of wanting open discussion rather suspect.

The sarcastic and serious sniping about incarcerating skeptics and deniers

So you're claiming victimhood because of a couple cranks, who always get criticized heavily by the mainstream.

In contrast, not a single denier here, including you, has ever said the Republican party was wrong for attempting to imprison Dr. Mann and other climate scientists. I've asked over and over, but all the deniers are apparently good with it. That is, every denier here is thrilled by the idea of sending climate scientists sent to the Gulag for ThoughtCrimes against TheParty. All of the Stalinism is on the denier side.

Even the stacking of the IPCC. With their biased mission statement not to investigate Climate Change.. But only MAN MADE climate change.

That darn IPCC, biased towards reality. They should have been more PC and sensitive, and pretended that the evidence didn't say the climate was changing due to humans.

And there have BEEN no open debates. No opportunities to air questions and discuss assertions.

There have been no open debates (if you define open debate solely as "government sponsored affirmative action for paid shills and crazy people") on the flat earth either, proving a conspiracy to censor flat-earthers. At least by your standards.

When in history has the government ever before mandated intellectual affirmative action for conspiracy cranks? I mean, outside of the Soviet Union.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

This is, of course, a stupid idea. For one, it gives a false impression to laypeople that there is anything even remotely approaching "equal weight" on both sides of the argument, by putting two people on a stage. This is not how the truth of scientific theories is decided. Second, laypeople simply do not have the tools to understand when the denier has been debunked, for the most part. So this is merely an attempt to legitimize pseudo-science and appeal to emotion. The deniers cant make any headway based on actual scientific work, so they have to appeal to the superstitions and politics of laypeople.

Predicted result: Denier preconceptions are fed well, they declare victory, global scientific community rolls its eyes at a bunch of people who know less than nothing about this topic.

My proposed response: The scientific community should sieze the intitiative and lay into the charlatans now. Make sure that whatever lying piece of shit walks onto that stage for the denier set has already been established to be a lying fraud before he even sets foot on the stage. Do it with direct attacks on their credentials, their history of bad science, and their lies. Highlight there lack of publised science. Highlight the times their published science was foind to be terrible, and how they subverted the normal prpcess to get it published. Make sure the world knows who butters their bread. Make sure the world knows that their claims have already been debunked, and that doing it again is an academic exercise best reserved for a college science course, instead of a made-for-tv event.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Only cult liars claim there's not open debate now,

Absolutely, 100% true. They try to cite "The Great Debate", which was actually a debate between scientists, for scientists. It wasn't meant to put the truth of any scientifoc theory to a public referendum.

What a terribly stupid idea this is. But, it favors the weak, dishonest denier position, as they will be looking to ignorant laypeople to decide the measure of their success, instead of to educated scientists.

 

[bripat9643]

This is actually an idea I wrote up into a Libertarian candidate white paper. And has already been adopted by the Johnson/Weld ticket last year and many other LParty candidates. And that is to stage and host a series of technical debates at a high visibility in Washington D.C. and encourage the public to view them. It's a very thing to have open debate on the subject EVER. And most of time, very questionable folks (like the Science Guy) ruin the decorum..

Trump’s EPA Chief Promises ‘Red Team’ Climate Debate Sometime Next Year


EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agency’s much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.

The agency’s plan to pit climate scientists against one another on a public forum could come to fruition early next year after the review process is concluded, Pruitt said before lawmakers on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment. Democrats have railed against the idea.

Environmentalists and scientists are not buying Pruitt’s argument. They believe it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a “red team vs. blue team” project.

Stay tuned. We'll all meet here for the viewing !!! I'll cater the affair. The whining is ALREADY epic. Every excuse in the book NOT to discuss and debate the science. Not happy that Heartland is a player. I hope that gets fixed. Because there are DOZENS of better choices. Especially folks like Bray, vonStorch (moderates on the issue), Christy and Spencer at UAHuntsville, several former disgruntlled IPCC chairs, and superstars like Judith Curry.

"Bout time. The "Romp in the Swamp" grudge match is ON !!!!

This is, of course, a stupid idea. For one, it gives a false impression to laypeople that there is anything even remotely approaching "equal weight" on both sides of the argument, by putting two people on a stage. This is not how the truth of scientific theories is decided. Second, laypeople simply do not have the tools to understand when the denier has been debunked, for the most part. So this is merely an attempt to legitimize pseudo-science and appeal to emotion. The deniers cant make any headway based on actual scientific work, so they have to appeal to the superstitions and politics of laypeople.

Predicted result: Denier preconceptions are fed well, they declare victory, global scientific community rolls its eyes at a bunch of people who know less than nothing about this topic.

My proposed response: The scientific community should sieze the intitiative and lay into the charlatans now. Make sure that whatever lying piece of shit walks onto that stage for the denier set has already been established to be a lying fraud before he even sets foot on the stage. Do it with direct attacks on their credentials, their history of bad science, and their lies. Highlight there lack of publised science. Highlight the times their published science was foind to be terrible, and how they subverted the normal prpcess to get it published. Make sure the world knows who butters their bread. Make sure the world knows that their claims have already been debunked, and that doing it again is an academic exercise best reserved for a college science course, instead of a made-for-tv event.

In other words, use anything aside from logic and the scientific evidence.

You just admitted you're nothing but a hack.