frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 47,484
- 10,517
- 2,030
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..
Trumpās EPA Chief Promises āRed Teamā Climate Debate Sometime Next Year
EPA Chief Scott Pruitt said Thursday that the agencyās much-discussed red tam vs blue team climate debate could happen as soon as January.
The agencyās 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 Pruittās argument. They believe itās ādangerousā to elevate dissenting voices, and argue an existing peer-review process works better than a āred team vs. blue teamā 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.