Finally -- Open, publicized debate on Climate.

[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 Problem with the internet is --- all those bogus "panic the herd" predictions that have been withdrawn and modified are STILL OUT THERE.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.

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.

What difference does it make if they have any "scientific bona fides?" Truth is truth. It doesn't matter if the guy who speaks is a PHD from MIT or a highschool dropout. The fact that you think it matters shows that you don't know jack shit about science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Hide the Decline is not science

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

 

[Old Rocks]

"Alternative facts" in hideous amounts. LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.


If it's not "human-induced" --- they don't need to consider any analysis or opinions..

 

[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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

You have obviously never debated professional scientists. Facts and process are what is debated.

 

[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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

Basically, without a change of the system, there will continue to intense fear mongering and distortion of the facts on every topic. Do you not care about that?

 

[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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

We as a society have been lead to believe that models are facts and many scientists have deluded themselves in this same manner. Now they refuse to allow their models to be verified by empirical review and when they are subjected to empirical review they find them massive failures having no predictive powers. What they were using as facts was pure fantasy.

An open debate will expose this fantasy for what it is and that is a good thing....

 

[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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

Basically, without a change of the system, there will continue to intense fear mongering and distortion of the facts on every topic. Do you not care about that?

99% of the fear mongering and fast/loose facts have been in the alarmist camp for very long time.

 

[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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

Basically, without a change of the system, there will continue to intense fear mongering and distortion of the facts on every topic. Do you not care about that?

Don't have a clue about what "system" you're talking about..

CBS TV news showed a graphic of the Ocean boiling with the graphic overlay saying 212 degrees over it.

They got that shit from James Hansen.. Are we supposed to sit back and just shut up whilst a handful of activists in labcoats feeds the media with doom and gloom NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ACTUAL SCIENCE????

THAT'S why the leftist don't want open debate. They want an ECHO CHAMBER to propagandize the public.

 

[BULLDOG]

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..

Goal of tearing America apart? To what end? Why do you think the scientific community is trying to tear America apart?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

Basically, without a change of the system, there will continue to intense fear mongering and distortion of the facts on every topic. Do you not care about that?

Don't have a clue about what "system" you're talking about..

CBS TV news showed a graphic of the Ocean boiling with the graphic overlay saying 212 degrees over it.

They got that shit from James Hansen.. Are we supposed to sit back and just shut up whilst a handful of activists in labcoats feeds the media with doom and gloom NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ACTUAL SCIENCE????

THAT'S why the leftist don't want open debate. They want an ECHO CHAMBER to propagandize the public.

Well then keep up. We're talking about the US POLITICAL SYSTEM. FPTP the way people get elected.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

What difference does it make if they have any "scientific bona fides?" Truth is truth. It doesn't matter if the guy who speaks is a PHD from MIT or a highschool dropout. The fact that you think it matters shows that you don't know jack shit about science.

Exactly. That's why most people go to a high school dropout for scientific judgments like medical diagnosis and such.

 

[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..

Goal of tearing America apart? To what end? Why do you think the scientific community is trying to tear America apart?

You really should educate yourself.. UN Agenda 21 has been around a long time and is the basis for the IPCC and the whole CAGW sham..

 

[BULLDOG]

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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

Yes it can. You seem to think that most observers of such a debate would be reasonably educated people who could tell the difference between a well documented fact and rhetoric. There is no need for a debate for those people. All this would do would be to give the anti-science neanderthals a platform.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

What difference does it make if they have any "scientific bona fides?" Truth is truth. It doesn't matter if the guy who speaks is a PHD from MIT or a highschool dropout. The fact that you think it matters shows that you don't know jack shit about science.

Exactly. That's why most people go to a high school dropout for judgments like medical diagnosis and such.

Just because a person drops out of school does not make them stupid.. It is estimated that of those who drop out, 40% are bored and unchallenged and have IQ's well above average. These people understand what most college level kids cant even grasp after 4 years. In fact, two of the PhD's I study under are drop outs who went back and smoked the teachers who labeled them "worthless". Careful who you call stupid and stereo type, they may be people who know a hell of a lot more than you..

 

[BULLDOG]

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..

Goal of tearing America apart? To what end? Why do you think the scientific community is trying to tear America apart?

You really should educate yourself.. UN Agenda 21 has been around a long time and is the basis for the IPCC and the whole CAGW sham..

Still didn't answer the question. Are you now saying the UN is trying to tear America apart? Why?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

What difference does it make if they have any "scientific bona fides?" Truth is truth. It doesn't matter if the guy who speaks is a PHD from MIT or a highschool dropout. The fact that you think it matters shows that you don't know jack shit about science.

Exactly. That's why most people go to a high school dropout for judgments like medical diagnosis and such.

Just because a person drops out of school does not make them stupid.. It is estimated that of those who drop out, 40% are bored and unchallenged and have IQ's well above average. These people understand what most college level kids cant even grasp after 4 years. In fact, two of the PhD's I study under are drop outs who went back and smoked the teachers who labeled them "worthless". Careful who you call stupid and stereo type, they may be people who know a hell of a lot more than you..

Never said they were stupid. Just said they don't have the knowledge needed.

 

[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 !!!!

Yes, it sounds like it will be a case of people using "debate tactics" rather than actually coming to a sensible answer. Lots of shouting people down, distorting facts, ignoring facts going on the whole time.

Not if there is adequate organization of the agenda and time available. What are you afraid of? Thought this was a slam-dunk... The PUBLIC has been subject to intense fear mongering and distortion of facts and analysis for three decades. You concerned about any of that?

This can not HURT public awareness of the state of the ACTUAL science on CC.

Yes it can. You seem to think that most observers of such a debate would be reasonably educated people who could tell the difference between a well documented fact and rhetoric. There is no need for a debate for those people. All this would do would be to give the anti-science neanderthals a platform.

Well WTF do you think has been happening for 30 years of scaring the public with frightening and exaggerated interpretations of the science? Is the public "reasonably educated"?? LOL..

Same debate. The public -- who you think are all detached stupid fuckers --- is the audience. Needs to step up or tune out. Can we make it so stupid people can't comment on GW? Can't cover it as journalists? Can't VOTE on it as Legislators? No we can't.

So they NEED to hear a debate.. Many 20 of them. Until -- all the folks playing on people's fears are exposed.

It's not difficult. You START by finding a SINGLE scientist that claims "the science is settled".. THAT person is lying. So you detail what parts of the science said lying ass scientist says is settled and you show why it isn't.

Don't need differential equations or advance statistics to do that.