The Green Spot: Where’s the Debate?

Recently I was reading an article about someone who questioned some of the science behind global warming and after discussing the article with a few other people I had to admit the man had some points about some questions that aren’t being discussed. What is normal climate and do they consider normal change in their models?  How is cloud cover accounted for since it is larger affect than CO2?

Climate change is not having a debate anymore.  After years of misinformation everyone is so confused by what is a real question and what is bullshit we had lost the ability to ask and discuss questions on the science behind climate change.  That matter is consider closed to many.  But after all 2008 managed to prove economic forecasts are garbage so what makes the climate models any better?  Despite the need to discuss these questions anyone who goes against the popular opinion are often turned into villains before they can speak more than a question.

This is not to say I’m a denier or anything.  I’m merely pointing out the ability to have a logical debate on the issues is far gone that it is impossible to have today.  Climate change is now less about the science and more about a belief.  I’m more likely to say I believe in climate change and global warming rather than discuss the matter with facts.  We’ve managed to turn one of the great discussions of our time into a matter of faith and I mourn that loss.  Faith doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion in the wrong crowd.

The implications of being wrong are huge.   Should we be focusing on renewable energy and effiency to extend our exisiting fossil fuels usefulness?  Should we be focusing more on sustainable design than clean coal technology?  These questions and others should be asked but can’t be discuss now.

So what are your thoughts on the debate?  Are the deniers being ignored for good reason or do they actually have a few interesting points?

4 thoughts on “The Green Spot: Where’s the Debate?”

  1. I just want to quote some greate comments from Bill P on the Watts Up With That blog:

    I agree. A surprising number of people are uninformed and uncommitted to either side of this issue. I don’t know what the reason for this is, but I strongly hope that friendly persuasion and non-didactic education will ultimately move them.

    To see how easily this can be accomplished, I’d recommend the two Intelligence Squared (IQ2) debates on climate change. These, as far as I know, have offered the only two honest, head-to-head debates on this issue.

    Last year’s audience-polled debate, on the resolution “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”, can be viewed here at Michael Crichton’s website.

    Pitted against each other were (for the affirmative) Philip Stott, Michael Crichton and Larry Lindzen against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel (for the negative). Pre- and post-debate polling of the studio audience showed an interesting and significant shift of positions.

    For Against Undecided
    Before: 30% 57% 13%
    After: 46% 42% 12%

    This year’s debate (I believe it was held in February) , on the topic, “Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money”, yielded the following pre- and post-debate figures:

    For Against Undecided
    Before: 16% 49% 35%
    After: 42% 48% 10%

    The outcomes of these public debates suggest to me that a little information can go a long way in helping people see the light. Even now, people are still being guided by the sentiments (primarily fear and self-righteousness) generated by the mainstream media and politicians. Merely hearing some opposing views is sufficient to disabuse many of their AGW opinions.

  2. I’d also like to point out this fantastic article, also over at the Watts Up With That blog. This article points out quite well that the ‘problem’ is very different depending on where you start looking and what date range you look at.

    Also, if you look over at the surface stations project you realize that there is a huge problem with siting of temperature sensors.

  3. I saw a program recently. It was not about global warming, it had to do with theories about the extermination of larger mamuals in North America…Sabre Tooths, Mamoths etc.

    There was mention that about 20,000 years ago the northern part of NA had thick ice sheets and the ocean was a lot lower.

    My view is that anyone who predicts Global Warming, more recently sugar coated as Climate Change,should be able to explain why those “normal” climate upheavels occurred in the past. And, why any change they think they are measuring in recent years should not be viewed as part of the “normal system variation” of climate on earth.


Comments are closed.