Posted on March 16th, 2007 by Pali Gap
For those who are naive about the consensus on global warming it should come as a big surprise that three of the top hitters for the climate change orthodoxy could be taken on – and beaten – in a public debate. Yet this happened just recently in a ticket-only event hosted by the Rosenkranz Foundation (March 14 2007)
The Motion: “Global warming is not a crisis”
Prior to the debate the motion had only 30% support from the audience.
After the debate – 46% of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a crisis, while just 42 percent continued to believe it was a crisis.
For the orthodoxy there were some big hitters:
- Gavin Schmidt ~ a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space. Gavin is chief guru-in-residence at realclimate.org (the prime resource for those seeking to stock up on anti-contrarian weaponry)
- Brenda Ekwurzel ~ works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
- Richard Somerville ~ University of California, San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Who could the so-called ‘contrarians’ field to match this fearsome firepower?
- Richard Lindzen ~ Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Philip Stott ~ Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
- Michael Crichton ~ MD Harvard Medical School & Postdoctoral Fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. (Also a writer and filmmaker…)
If you favour an epistemology that respects argument & reason, then the result of this debate is interesting and thought-provoking. But of course not ultimately especially conclusive.
On the other hand if you hold to an epistemology that offers no better than ‘knowledge by authority‘ you will see the debate as quite insignificant and indeed ill-advised: only the “priesthood” should make up the audience, and presumably only certain “approved priests” should be permitted to conduct the argument in any case. Attitudes such as this can be found on show at the inquest that followed the debate held at realclimate.org here as in this kind of comment:
“Our experience and that of all the scientists we know is that public debates with sceptics or denialists are not useful at all“
By “useful” one supposes this contributor means: “convenient to our authority“.
Or take this counsel against public debate:
“You’re guaranteed a hostile audience and a rhetorical ambush of some sort, your mere presence legitimates the proceedings, and they can always count it as a win with some justification afterward“
I would have thought that advocates of sound scientific theories (Boyle’s law, Archimedes’ Principle, Relativity) have no fear of public debate. On the contrary how could a public airing be other than entirely welcome and quite “un-threatening“?
So why plead a “special case” for AGW (anthropogenic global warming)?
I have a transcript of the debate in PDF (255KB) here.
Leave a Reply
- little planet/big sky
- lo! The waters will rise…
- odds 'n' ends
- March 2013
- February 2013
- December 2009
- November 2008
- October 2008
- May 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006