- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,023
- 47,212
- 2,180
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.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 !!!!
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 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.