Finally -- Open, publicized debate on Climate.

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Exactly the opposite of what I said. I clearly said that the content and quality of their past scientific endeavors should be publicly flogged. Their bad science is bad precisely because of reason and evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Exactly the opposite of what I said. I clearly said that the content and quality of their past scientific endeavors should be publicly flogged. Their bad science is bad precisely because of reason and evidence.

Their past scientific endeavors and their reputations are irrelevant, especially since your ilk have done everything possible to smear them. Your tactic is pure ad hominem.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Exactly the opposite of what I said. I clearly said that the content and quality of their past scientific endeavors should be publicly flogged. Their bad science is bad precisely because of reason and evidence.

Their past scientific endeavors and their reputations are irrelevant, especially since your ilk have done everything possible to smear them. Your tactic is pure ad hominem.

Both of those things are perfectly relevant for framing a context for whatever lies they are going to push in this debate.

"Mr. Denier has pushed these same lies before, such as when his paper on ________ was widely rejected as terrible science, discrediting him greatly. And now he has been given a forum to push these same lies, as he could not find one in the serious scientific community.""

And listen to yourself anyway, you little crybaby. You denier idiots routinely call the scientific global community "liars" and "incompetent". But if anyone dares suggest they do the same to defend themselves (note: and do so as backed up by the actual evidence), you throw your little hissy fit and cry that it is unfair.

Would you suggest that the scientists just sit there and take these insults not only from you ignorant denier footsoldiers, but from your figurehead across the stage from them? Of course you do, because you fools know you would lose any fair fight on this.

You loudmouthed sissy bullies are all exactly the same.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

For instance:

"Mr. Denier, can you explain to me why your patrons, the energy industry, have chosen to pour resources into an information campaign to sow misinformation and confusion, instead of funding hard science? Monsanto, for instance, funds science by others and performs its own. Large tech companies do the same. Even shoe companies fund and perform science. 3M? Dow? Ely Lilly? The milk industry? All fund science and take the results under advisement.

As we all know, the energy industry is awash in money, recording record profits year over year. Now, why do you think they are not funding mountains of science which reaches conclusions which undermine the accepted climate theories? Could it be that such an endeavor is simply not possible? Or do you have a better explanation?"

INSIST the denier charlatan answers, instead of wriggling out and slithering away. In this way, the scientists can seize on the advantage of shining a spotlight on these denier fools.

Another:

"ON March 17 of 2009, you were quoted as saying _______________________ about climate science, which is demonstrably false. You were met by all manner of public statements and published articles describing both why what you said was false, and how this behavior is consistent with other false statements you have made. Your statements directly contradicted mountains of published science and empirical evidence, and you had and have not one iota of either of these things to support a word you said. Why should any layperson, who is not going to be intimately familiar with the rigorous science of this topic, believe a single word you are saying?"

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

I'm sorry.. DId I miss the Billboard List of most powerful and knowledgable Climate Scientists being published? Is there like a vote on this? Can you appeal your "power ranking" ???

What flavor synthetic BS jerky is this? WHAT SCIENCE operates on a hierarchy of their contributors? Where did you get this crap from?

But it's to be expected. After all, there's a REASON debate has been completely stifled.. And I (WE) expect MASSIVE "screaming at the skies" days to come before this unfolds..

You're FRIGHTENED actually --- aintcha?? Scientists are hardly ever FRIGHTENED about debate..

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Is it SECRET "open" debate??? Put up or shut up... Show me a CC conference proceedings with OPEN debate for all qualified participants.

One of the FEW times there was any kind of "open comprehensive debate" -- Australian Geophys Union put up their GW statement for comment to its membership.. The fighting was so long and vigorous that they TABLED the whole idea of having a statement.

 

[IanC]

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.

Is it SECRET "open" debate??? Put up or shut up... Show me a CC conference proceedings with OPEN debate for all qualified participants.

One of the FEW times there was any kind of "open comprehensive debate" -- Australian Geophys Union put up their GW statement for comment to its membership.. The fighting was so long and vigorous that they TABLED the whole idea of having a statement.

Recently Susan Crockford was smeared in a peer reviewed paper that obviously wasn't reviewed for anything but homage to consensus. She was excoriated for claiming that polarbears weren't threatened and that the lead scientists had rigged the evidence to get them on the list. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on which side you're on) a tranche of emails was released through FOI from junior members of the Polarbear Group that were saying the same thing. Who do you believe? The official position, or the real debate going on behind the scenes where no one is supposed to be watching?

 

[mamooth]

Recently Susan Crockford was smeared in a peer reviewed paper that obviously wasn't reviewed for anything but homage to consensus.

Paranoia is a form of virtue-signalling for deniers, as is creating alternate realities. The denier cult sees the paranoid and delusional as virtuous, and the cultists want to display their virtue.

 

[mamooth]

So, 6 weeks later and still nothing from the denier team. They seem to have decided that the red team was very bad idea.

Why? Because deniers don't want to do science. They want to snipe from the sidelines and toss faked party propaganda. If this "red team" was formed, they'd have to go on the public record with the actual "science" that they say backed them up, and then stand by it. And all the lead deniers know how they'd be revealed as paid frauds if they tried that.

Thus, the "red team" idea has been quietly put out to pasture.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The debate among scientists ended 15 years ago. There is no debate.

That we have a fake president that continually wants to invent fake debates and his fake demons are running around to get him only points to his and his minions mental illness. This is like all the fake 'trials' in the old Soviet Union or in North Korea. The process is a constructed lie to make it appear to be legitimate. It isn't, neither would any 'outcome' be legitimate.

The Flat Earth Society is holding a debate on whether the Earth is round or flat. There are also 'debates' on whether bigfoot is real, where aliens have landed on Earth, how tall the giants were that lived on Earth thousands of years ago, how to go through the portal to other universes, where the main herd of unicorn are on Earth, where the 'real' birth certificate is, the conspiracy to get rid of the incandescent light bulb, the conspiracy to take everyone's guns away, the 'debate' on why the gubmint is giving people vaccinations that are making their children retarded...

THE DOMAIN OF THE IGNORANT AND THOSE THAT WOULD USE THE IGNORANT FOR THEIR PURPOSES

 

[flacaltenn]

THE DOMAIN OF THE IGNORANT AND THOSE THAT WOULD USE THE IGNORANT FOR THEIR PURPOSES

Pretty much how the exaggerated claims to the public were all about playing on the fears of the ignorant. Like the "slow" ones that can only write about "flat-earthers" and deniers and don't have a CLUE --- what the GW science actually says..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So when is this "sham" of a debate happening? How about, any uneducated denier slob against an actual scientist? You know, so we can all be reminded why the deniers live here and the scientists live at universities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The debate among scientists ended 15 years ago. There is no debate.

Correct.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Show me a CC conference proceedings with OPEN debate for all qualified participants

Every IPCC report. Every one. They team up scientists, who eke out a small consensus for their part of the report. What do you expect...that their process is televised? Please.....stupid request....I don't see you makong the same demands of quantum physicists. This is about hoping to fool people, and nothing more.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

What fucking bullshit. Yes, there are many scientists that disagree with some of the details of AGW. But the broad consensus is that we are rapidly warming, and that warming is already having major effects. If the debate is limited to the scientists that have published papers in peer reviewed journals, then it will be a slaughter of the deniers. But that is not what will happen if Pruit has his way. He will bring in frauds like Monkton and others that have no scientific bona fides and feed it to the public as if their opinions are the equal of the scientists that have spent years studying. We have had experiance with these frauds before.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Your consensus is a contrived lie.. a fantasy... Your so called settled science is nothing more than a charade.

True science is NEVER settled.

The reality is there is a total disconnect between CO2 rise and Temperature. There is no hot spot in our atmosphere. There is no hiding heat in our oceans... Empirically Observed Evidence has laid your fantasy waste.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

What fucking bullshit. Yes, there are many scientists that disagree with some of the details of AGW. But the broad consensus is that we are rapidly warming, and that warming is already having major effects. If the debate is limited to the scientists that have published papers in peer reviewed journals, then it will be a slaughter of the deniers. But that is not what will happen if Pruit has his way. He will bring in frauds like Monkton and others that have no scientific bona fides and feed it to the public as if their opinions are the equal of the scientists that have spent years studying. We have had experiance with these frauds before.

The shear ignorance and spinning is funny as hell to watch... Old Fraud has outdone himself again..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Show me a CC conference proceedings with OPEN debate for all qualified participants

Every IPCC report. Every one. They team up scientists, who eke out a small consensus for their part of the report. What do you expect...that their process is televised? Please.....stupid request....I don't see you makong the same demands of quantum physicists. This is about hoping to fool people, and nothing more.

Every single report is written by a politician and the science is bastardized to fit the agenda... THE IPCC is a sham and nothing more than an organized criminal enterprise who's goal is tearing America apart..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Is it SECRET "open" debate??? Put up or shut up... Show me a CC conference proceedings with OPEN debate for all qualified participants.

One of the FEW times there was any kind of "open comprehensive debate" -- Australian Geophys Union put up their GW statement for comment to its membership.. The fighting was so long and vigorous that they TABLED the whole idea of having a statement.

The AGU opened it up and found out there is no consensus. What they once believed and touted in their wholly political statement was not true. CAGW is a highly and hotly debated issue.

This last month alone the IPCC has now had to lower its "CO2" mans influence level to below 0.2 deg C per doubling. A massive drop from the once touted 6.0 deg C per doubling... The Current level is well with in the Margin of Error for the gas, making even it questionable as to origin and attribution.

 

[westwall]

The debate among scientists ended 15 years ago. There is no debate.

That we have a fake president that continually wants to invent fake debates and his fake demons are running around to get him only points to his and his minions mental illness. This is like all the fake 'trials' in the old Soviet Union or in North Korea. The process is a constructed lie to make it appear to be legitimate. It isn't, neither would any 'outcome' be legitimate.

The Flat Earth Society is holding a debate on whether the Earth is round or flat. There are also 'debates' on whether bigfoot is real, where aliens have landed on Earth, how tall the giants were that lived on Earth thousands of years ago, how to go through the portal to other universes, where the main herd of unicorn are on Earth, where the 'real' birth certificate is, the conspiracy to get rid of the incandescent light bulb, the conspiracy to take everyone's guns away, the 'debate' on why the gubmint is giving people vaccinations that are making their children retarded...

THE DOMAIN OF THE IGNORANT AND THOSE THAT WOULD USE THE IGNORANT FOR THEIR PURPOSES

Science is NEVER "settled". Only a blithering idiot could ever make that claim.