"Global Warming Debate"

[Mirza]

Along with Richard Somerville (UC San Diego) and Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists), I'll be appearing at a debate on Wednesday (March 14th) about whether Global Warming is a crisis (or not). That might have gone without notice (like most of my public talks), except that our opponents are Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott. The preliminary position statements (from me and from Philip Stott) are available on the ABCnews site. It's sold out, but the proceedings will be broadcast on NPR (for instance, WNYC 820 AM on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 2PM) and there will be a podcast (though I don't know if it will stream live). There's an online poll as well for what that's worth.

I'm quite looking forward to this, but I have to admit to conflicting thoughts. Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? Can this be entertaining and educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging?

I'd be interested in any thoughts people might have.[/b]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...warming-debate/

[malorn]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Mar 12 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]404565[/snapback]</div>

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...warming-debate/
[/b]

Do you know if that will be braodcast live anywhere?

[Mirza]

Don't know about a live broadcast, but the author... in the actual website rather than the quote..... has posted a link to a podcast.