Finally -- Open, publicized debate on Climate.

[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.

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.

Yes, they need to hear a debate.

The UK went to debate Brexit. And for months all the public heard was bullshit. Then they voted. Then they found out the whole debate had been bullshit. They were lying left right and center and they didn't care as long as they got what they wanted.

If the debate were carried out properly, it might be educational. However people wouldn't want it. They want to be ENTERTAINED. People who voted for Trump didn't do so to end up with the best guy in the White House, they wanted the MOST ENTERTAINING in the White House and it hasn't disappointed them.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Yes, they need to hear a debate.

The UK went to debate Brexit. And for months all the public heard was bullshit. Then they voted. Then they found out the whole debate had been bullshit. They were lying left right and center and they didn't care as long as they got what they wanted.

If the debate were carried out properly, it might be educational. However people wouldn't want it. They want to be ENTERTAINED. People who voted for Trump didn't do so to end up with the best guy in the White House, they wanted the MOST ENTERTAINING in the White House and it hasn't disappointed them.

At least they debated over it and not shoved it down are throats like Obama care
.

The AGW cult wouldn't want a public debate , they would get their butts handed to them.

 

[mamooth]

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

Those awful round-earthers are also biased, for not considering the possibility of the flat earth.

The point? Common sense is not bias, and only those who lack common sense say it is.

Well WTF do you think has been happening for 30 years of scaring the public with frightening and exaggerated interpretations of the science?

There's an easy solution to that problem. Just stop doing that. But then, your unsupported scare tactics about the fraud scientists and evil socialists are all you've ever had, so I don't expect you to change.

So, back to the topic you don't want to address. What happened to your red team? Why have Pruitt and team red gone silent on the topic?

I just told you. It's because they realized they'd have to back up their conspiracy yammering if they formed the red team. TheParty would demand they make a politically correct prediction, and they know that PC prediction would fail, just as all denier PC predictions have failed. Party dogma makes for poor science.

Deniers don't want to do actual science, to take a firm stand, to make concrete predictions and stand by them. They want to sit back, snipe, toss out conspiracy theories, take no firm stand on anything, and pretend how that makes them brilliant and independent. You know, your staple tactic.

What's more, those denier leaders currently get cushy income streams from pushing political propaganda. They can do that because they're under the radar now. If they go public and prominent, their finances get scrutinized, and they say bye-bye to the sweet fossil fuel cash. Deniers have nothing to gain and much to lose from being on a red team, so none of them want the job.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Every single report is written by a politician and the s

No it isn't, you idiot. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to know less about this than you do about the science, which is quite a feat of ignorance and stupidity that one might think impossible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science is NEVER "settled"

Inasmuch that certain ideas are accepted as fact and scientiats proceed from them as fact, it sometimes is "settled". Of course scientists are open to new evidence , but there are some theories that are, indeed, accepted as fact. For instance, evolution.


Another example: global warming caused by adding carbon to the carbon cycle.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Haha....could you try any harder to spin the IPCC mission in a deliberately idiotic way?

To assess mankind's contribution is to put limits on it, which most certainly does include looking at any and all other drivers of climate change. Give me a fucking break, dude...that was ridiculous....definitely the most hilariously goofy nugget of rhetoric i've seen on the IPCC yet...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well WTF do you think has been happening for 30 years of scaring the public with frightening and exaggerated interpretations of the science?

While, at the same time, the energy industry has spent 30 years spreading misinformation. I'e seen you regurgitate some of it. So if you are going to lump all scientists into your little boogeyman basket, then it's only fair that I lump you with all of the lying deniers paying people to lie to gullible people who put superstition and politics before reason on this topic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the debate were carried out properly

It already is, in universities, science journals, scientific societies, IPCC workgroups, etc.

Putting two politicians against one another is not "proper" debate of a scientific topic.

 

[sartre play]

Climate science maybe above my pay grade, protecting the nations natural resources for our future use, not polluting them in the grab for using these resources to in crease the wealth of the wealthy. Ryan Zinke main goal how fast can he sell off & open up our national park lands & costal waters to coal, oil, other industry's. if you don't care about climate change, please care about pollution .

 

[Wyatt earp]

If the debate were carried out properly

It already is, in universities, science journals, scientific societies, IPCC workgroups, etc.

Putting two politicians against one another is not "proper" debate of a scientific topic.

A bunch of paid monkeys agreeing with each other to get more government funds????

 

[westwall]

Science is NEVER "settled"

Inasmuch that certain ideas are accepted as fact and scientiats proceed from them as fact, it sometimes is "settled". Of course scientists are open to new evidence , but there are some theories that are, indeed, accepted as fact. For instance, evolution.


Another example: global warming caused by adding carbon to the carbon cycle.

Bullcrap. Questions are always being asked of even well established theories. Case in point, gravity. We sort of know what it does, but we have no idea how it does it or why. Same go's for quantum mechanics. It is the most tested theory on the planet yet we make new discoveries every month it seems that raise new questions. Only in the "field" of climatology do they have the gall to claim all is known when they don't even understand the basics.

 

[westwall]

If the debate were carried out properly

It already is, in universities, science journals, scientific societies, IPCC workgroups, etc.

Putting two politicians against one another is not "proper" debate of a scientific topic.

Far from it. The corruption of the peer review process is well documented. Your claim is laughable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well WTF do you think has been happening for 30 years of scaring the public with frightening and exaggerated interpretations of the science?

While, at the same time, the energy industry has spent 30 years spreading misinformation. I'e seen you regurgitate some of it. So if you are going to lump all scientists into your little boogeyman basket, then it's only fair that I lump you with all of the lying deniers paying people to lie to gullible people who put superstition and politics before reason on this topic.

Shows how little you actually know about IPCC reports. There are actually 3 working groups. Only ONE is the "hired guns" for the science section.. YET -- All THREE have editorial control and role in CHOOSING participants. The other 2 works are strictly policy wonk, social scientists, and economists. THEY --- run the show. Not the science group.. They are the window dressing for the reports.

It's not an accident that the Mission Statement is written that way.. IPCC was NEVER about furthering the knowledge of Climate Science. It was ALWAYS about addressing a THEORY that the ANSWER is mankind. Otherwise, the policy wonks, social scientists, and economists wouldn't have the DOMINANT membership on the fucking panel...

 

[Billy_Bob]

The left wing appeals to authorities are total bull shit... Your Authorities couldn't withstand an open debate where their lies would be put in the spot light...

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the debate were carried out properly

It already is, in universities, science journals, scientific societies, IPCC workgroups, etc.

Putting two politicians against one another is not "proper" debate of a scientific topic.

Well, that's the point that was being made.

 

[SSDD]

Bullcrap. Questions are always being asked of even well established theories. Case in point, gravity. We sort of know what it does, but we have no idea how it does it or why. Same go's for quantum mechanics. It is the most tested theory on the planet yet we make new discoveries every month it seems that raise new questions. Only in the "field" of climatology do they have the gall to claim all is known when they don't even understand the basics.

As soon as someone starts claiming that science which is based on a hypothesis is settled, you know you are talking to someone who has deified science into some sort of all knowing, all seeing god, and they bow down and worship at the altar of that omniscient fount of all knowledge.

I am amazed every time I sit down at one of these boards by the sheer number of people who accept unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models as reality and speak about them as if they were talking about something that is actually known, and provable.

There is a psychological term for people who can't differentiate between reality (what is known and demonstrable) and fiction (stories put in place to tentatively, and temporarily explain things that we are not capable of understanding)