National Geographic "The War On Science"

If your definition were the case,AGW Believers would be willing to debate.
NONE of the AGW scientists will debate, because they know their science is full of lies.
Whereas any and all skeptics will debate all comers.
Rational analysis and examining data are not in the realm of climate science.
Climate science is about hiding declines and destroying data and emails .

 

There certainly are climate-change debates, and this quite long, actively updated wikipedia page might serve as an introduction

Global warming controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether more debates of the type mojo desires would advance understanding of climate science is itself, perhaps debatable. There have been some and I believe that transcripts are available. So, read those and see whether it looks like a useful activity to you. If nothing else you will become familiar with "Gish Gallop" and other debating strategies.

I'd wish for something different. That climate skeptics would bet that the next decade's air T will not be higher than the present. Or the next one after that.... This would be a personal confidence that air T will go down. I find such to be vanishingly rare.

 

That's funny...I do not recall that cooling thought ever getting too much main-stream play. Maybe I remember a little some people mentioning cooling, but seems to me warming was the bigger concern. My recollection would be global warming public concern grew into the mid- late 80's. Cyclic though, around 1990-2 the public forgot about it, because I was fighting coal plants in NJ, and by then we could not effectively use the AGW argument anymore. Now we have the recent up-swing in AGW concern. I feel the pendulum could swing back to less concern (cyclic).

PS- I guess that vindicates Cruz but I do not recall the AGW experts calling off the AGW concerns with Mauna Loa's CO2 numbers climbing each year

 

Yep, a wiki-page on this as well:

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I seem to recall drawing your attention to ref. 2 in the past.

 

There is nothing I can find in your link addressing climate scientists debating skeptics.
Im beginning to think that you are a bot.

 

The wikipedia page describes many aspects of the climate-change debate. It includes about 270 references. The notion that this debate does not exist seems...um...peculiar.

We even debate the subject here - a lot. If that mostly occurs between us two bots, it must be a source of amusement for meat-based PC readers.

If bots we are, then I can continue to push back against mojo's ... um... peculiarities, without concern that he might have a meat-based reaction and abandon us. Because that abandonment would not be good. PC needs mojo!

Tocha-bot, on the other hand, might be dispensable. Other PC posters pay (at least superficial) attention to the 'evidence' side of the (obviously extant) climate-change debate. Are also concerned that a shortage of climate caution now might bite meat-based butts in the future.

Actually the notion that I am not human never occurred to me before . It is 'very existential'. Will require many CPU cycles to consider...

 

Sentient Meat?
Yes all humans are meat based.
We humans enjoy debate unless we are wrong or are unwilling to be proven to be liars.
I dont see in the Wiki link any reference to a physical face to face debate between AGW scientists and skeptics.

 

The sensu stricto debates that mojo may be referring to (he hasn't said) do occur, from time to time. They are far removed from how science advances itself. Yet we can see one example here:

Lord Monckton wins National Press Club debate on climate | Watts Up With That?

Unknown to mojo? that would also seem peculiar. There are not many instances of me-bot linking to WUWT. Nor will there be in the future. My programming is contrary

 

The sensu stricto debates that mojo may be referring to (he hasn't said) do occur, from time to time. They are far removed from how science advances itself. Yet we can see one example here:

Lord Monckton wins National Press Club debate on climate | Watts Up With That?

Unknown to mojo? that would also seem peculiar. There are not many instances of me-bot linking to WUWT. Nor will there be in the future. My programming is contrary

 

This debate you linked to is not a AGW scientist.
Tochatihu,Are you scented meat?I know you are scented, but are you meat?

 

Now we have more info, with mojo making clear that his only hope that climate change can be better understood is by two people arguing briefly with each other, in front of an audience that may have read little about the subject. That audience, being human, might be swayed by style instead of substance.

So, while they may provide entertainment, they are far from the disputation that underpins scientific advancement. While I cherish mojo's involvement here, I am in no mood to accept his assertion that such simple debates surpass the actual workings of science.

So, read about such debates if you seek entertainment, or read scientific publications to see the real debate developing. Tochatihu recommends hard (you must think), mojo recommends easy (somebody else has already thought for you). Dang. I chose the wrong side

As you may recall, mojo identifies himself as a gemologist. Separating diamonds from fakes involves measurements of density, index of refraction, and thermal conductivity. It's science. I suggest that none of those techniques arose from one-on-one public debates. Peculiar (it seems) to embrace science in area A and toss it in the bin in area B. This inconsistency might argue against mojo's bot-ness.

 

...

 

Unfortunately I need to tend to other matters now. If any others reading have the time, they might provide links to transcripts of debates between climate scientists and however we might choose to describe the disputants.

I can't make this your highest priority either, having already called 'debates' poor substitutes for scientific advance. But mojo is curious, and has declared himself unable to find them. So, do the guy a favor. Not that such will advance understanding of climate science, but that is not the main goal of PriusChat. Here we just chat, with no pretense of accomplishment.

 

Look, the media has propelled AGW as news due to a few key AGW scientists spewing propaganda.
Hanson ,Gavin Schmidt,Trenberth ,Mann, Rahmstorf,Stephen Schneider.
The key players will never debate .
tochatihu are you scented meat or not?

 

Gavin Schmidt refusing to debate.

 

Thank goodness. I would hate to think that G Schmidt is wasting any of his time confronting denialist idiots.

 

​

Ah we have katrina, which is more of a failed public policy event than a climate story. Mainly because of the levees New Orleans has sunk around 3' in the last 100 years, while protective wetlands deteriorated. The corps of Engineers asked for money to maintain and improve the levee system and congress cut their budget. This inspite of the large chance of a storm breaking the levees and congressional appoval of low priced insurance that encouraged all the building in harms way. I remember calling one of my friends fathers to help talk him into leaving which he finally did. When the levees broke everything but his roof was under water.

That by itself though would not have left so many to die. The city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana failed to create an emergency plan, and FEMA did not check and publicize that this at risk place had no plan if a likely emergency took place. The governor didn't even accept texas's offer to help early on when it could have saved lives. This left at risk people to fend for themselves and they did a poor job of that as expected. They had too much trust in the government that failed them.

What lessons can we learn from this for climate change's rising sea levels and predicted bigger storm surges?
1) Listen to the corps of engineers, and let them build things to mitigate disasters
2) Stop subsidizing insurance and encouraging people to build in harms way.
3) Better Federal oversight of emergency plans, and perhaps make sure the head of FEMA actually knows what he/she is doing ("brownie you're doing a heck of a job") instead of some political appointee.
4) Perhaps fund an organization like the red cross to do some of this emergency relief and planning as they seemed to do a better job than fema.

 

I think this hypothesis that the best science is settled by debate and not data seems to be in conflict with history.
Galileo affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The famous debate, Galileo vs Aristotle's point of view, went to Aristotle. You know if you refuse to look through a telescope, you can make a good case for Aristotle.

350 years later, other better debaters finally got the church to agree with galileo's theories.
For The First Time (or the last time): 1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642

I don't remember einstein or bohr being great debaters either. The Kansas School board still has members that reject Darwin's descent with modification and seem to win the debate against science. No doubt if they can ignore all the science there, why not ignore all the climate change data too?

When the koch brothers or Steyer want debaters for their view of climate change they give money to politicians, they don't try to understand the science.

Hey why not do a rap battle instead of a debate? Warning there are some adult words.

 

Yes, 'debate' is a subset of Debate. Former based on rhetorical tricks, later with emphasis on data evidence and mechanisms.

One of those rhetorical tricks is to deflect the discussion into unrelated, irrelevant areas. I hope that I am not the only one to notice its occurrence in this thread. See? it is a type of cleverness. Lacks emphasis on data evidence and mechanisms, but cleverness just the same.

So, shall we 'debate', or build from understanding to conflict resolution?