I wanted to wait a bit, to see if there would be any mainstream media sources reporting on the debate between six biggies on opposite sides of the global warming crisis debate. Of course, there hasn't been any, because the alarmists lost the debate. With Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, and Phillip Stott arguing the motion that Global Warming is not a Crisis, and Gavin Schmidt, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Richard Somerville arguing that Global Warming is a crisis. Using evidence, reasoned analysis, and no emotional hand-waving arguments, the anti-crisis side shifted the opinions of the audience from 57 percent crisis to 42 percent, and 30 percent non-crisis before the debate to 46 percent afterwards. Pretty striking, but obvious as to why the Debate is Over narrative has to be repeated by the mainstream media, otherwise the anti-capitalist goals of like-minded socialists will not be met.
Gavin Schmidt, one of the main koolaid drinker modelers over at RealClimate, was comforted by other warmenists, but most notably one of the editors, who admitted that they did the best they could with presenting the science as it is known today. Ray Pierrehumbert admits that logic and science do not inform their side of the debate:
My hat is off to Gavin, Brenda and Richard, who I think did about as well as can be done playing the science straight, but the response shows that some other tactic is necessary to engage the hearts as well as minds of the audience. I’m not, of course, suggesting that one play crooked with the science the way Lindzen does, but that tactics which play more to peoples’ feelings, tactics which even extend to ridicule of opponents where they deserve ridicule, may be needed to win in fora like this one. I’m not sure what such tactics would look like, but I doubt many scientists have the requisite theatrical skills.
AGW scientists require "theatrical skills" to win scientific debates. Astonishing. I thought scientists required evidence and logic to win scientific debates, and if they lose, that means their data are wrong. I guess that does not apply in the CO2 radiative warming theory for global warming. It just is. Debate over. Sorry, no, it's not.
Nice post, Mr. Schmo,
ReplyDeleteI read the transcript of the debate. I didn’t see anything in it from the pro-proposition side that would have changed my mind if I had initially voted against their position. What would have been interesting is if the organizers had been able to get some information as to why the audience voted the way they did after the debate; what bit of information changed their minds. It would be nice to know too, how many people changed their position, from what to what, etc.
I wonder if the audience was already on the side of Crichton-Stott-Lindzen and just decided to have a little fun with the proceedings.
Somewhat related to this, I caught a little bit of Gore’s performance the other day-what a shmuck-the conquering hero returns. And little Tipper without her PMRC button on, sitting smugly behind him. If some Conservative was pushing this whole “carbon offset” snake oil scheme while living high on the hog, they would be laughed out of town for the hypocrites they are.
Sven
Heya Sven!
ReplyDeleteThis carbon offset crap really chaps my hide, especially now that info is coming out that the company that handles Gore's offset investing is one that he founded. If these celebrities and other indulgence buying people want to spend money to ease their guilt, they should actually buy emissions credits, which have an actual value. The price per tonne is real cheap right now, and keeps falling, so pretty soon they'll be as worthless as the carbon offset scam. At least you could sell them for something until that time though...
I was at a party Saturday and carbon offsets came up-I mentioned that in the spirit of offsets I bought my wife some flowers to make up for smacking her in the face earlier in the day when she burned my lunch. The woman I was talking to wasnt amused-didnt get the joke-and spent much time trying to convince me that it wasnt the same thing.
ReplyDeleteSorry Al, its the hyporcrisy, stupid.
Sven