Friday
Mar182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill No opposition
Mar 18, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Peter Gill emailed me a couple of days ago. Some of you may remember Peter as the man who famously didn't write the Institute of Physics submission to the House of Commons inquiry into Climategate. Peter wanted to tell me about a recent invitation he'd had to take part in a global warming debate at one of the bits of the University of London. After several months of to-ing and fro-ing, the who event has now been cancelled because nobody was willing stand up to represent the other side of the argument.
This is a rather familiar story, isn't it?
(I had a similar experience a few weeks back, although the reason given was lack of ticket sales).
Reader Comments (23)
Maybe they should have tried to get Donna's expert, Sari Kovats, from the IPCC, in to help!
<sarc
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-strange-case-of-sari-kovats/
Nobody wants to debate. In my latest missive from the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture at Devon County Council, I have been told that I am contesting the reputations of "all earth, environmental and climate scientists as well as the IPCC". He will continue to
waste moneycommit resources to deal with an "increasing rate of sea level rise", to reduce carbon emissions and for climate change adaptation. He is "unable to debate further with your point" because he cannot commit resources to a debate.@Pete H
You are just a commenter on a blog, part of a loose association of blogs that have no scientific credentials. You are not allowed to comment. You are worthless.
On the other hand, Sari Kovats (apparent IPCC Super Author) is much more credible, since she started on the IPCC at 24 with very little knowledge of anything, and only got her PhD last year. And she now appears to be an expert on everything outside of her "field".
You are not worthy.
I live in China and last year I challenged a friend to a debate on global warming. After a lot of discussion she pulled out at the last moment. Another friend said he would do it but only agreed to the debate if we had a maximum of 12 minutes each and did not take a vote either at the beginning or the end
I am having a similar debate again next month - probably 15 minutes this time. Any suggestions as to structure/form most welcome
Is this the re-emergence of the "debate is settled" thing again so "they" won't.
Think its more to do with the facts are not supporting the theory anymore, only stratergy they are left with is to shout louder and turn the hearing aids off.
All the alarmist's ammunition is old, decaying and 'wet'.
There is nothing to argue or debate, realists have defenestrated the supposed science of AGW, what is there to debate?
Positive feedback? Rubbish.
Hot spots? Rubbish.
That is it and oh yeah; "the computer models predict that if...........?!" Predict!? and IF?!?
Computer models, give me strength, OK - CO2 is a blanket gas and very useful as food [plants love it]. But then, other atmospheric gases act as IR loss inhibitors and man's puny input [of CO2] is neither here nor there, it's the sun and the oceans - stupid.
Of course then, alarmists will twist the debate into some side track, along the lines of; "yes but we must seek alternatives to fossil fuels."
((Caroline Lucas, on QT, waffling on about renewables providing 30 or 50% [or summat] of Britain's power needs...........I don't think so luv.))
No, we don't need useless palliatives to combat a scientific fiction - because there is, plenty of coal, gas and oil and shale gas is a whole 'new' resource, we could [and should] build Thorium reactors for power, which would provide a safe almost unlimited resource and of course nuclear too.
We will eventually crack the fusion conundrum and that would solve the energy question at a stroke, man's ability to innovate and find new sources of power, is our final trump card.
What is there to debate? The shills of the alarmist camp know this only too well, so, they fire vacuous broadsides from their armchairs about; biodiversity, Climate change and ocean acidification but when asked to appear publicly, feign excuse after excuse.
Eventually - and gradually the noise [the AGW Chicken Little's] abates, their cries growing ever more shrill and distant as the public 'cocks a deaf un'. Further, as the public grows ever more disinterested, the 'debate' will die.
Eventually even the numpties in the MSM and the beeb will get it [or maybe not] and then last of all.... the brain-dead, lumpen idiots in the Village of Westminster maybe........though, don't hold your breath - lots of vested interests there and fingers in too many pies..... .
And of course, big brother in Brussels tells 'em what to think and do anyway but as the Germans start to build more coal fired power stations..........how ironic is that?
The AGW debate?
No! and No again! Let us talk about political power, corruption, bad science - it's manipulation of science and scientific results and corporate vested interests - robbing the taxpayers to fund and feather their nests - that's what we should be debating.
@ breath of fresh air
"........ only stratergy they are left with is to shout louder and turn the hearing aids off."
- alternately, they can look in a mirror and see that there is somebody who agrees with them. Science settled!
The arrogance of dismissing opposite views because they knew they were right, is being replaced with the fear of the possibility that they may be wrong,
I don't think the warmists ever used debate as a tool. They organised meetings, presentations, all variety of getting a message over. A debate assumes an intent to discuss, to explore and examine a topic, that was never intended so it's a tool never used. They did of course use the line I've heard a few times during such presentations ".. we asked sceptics to debate with us but couldn't find anyone to take us up on it...".
I would say the best policy now is not to arrange debates, but presentations. The issue is now to get the message over, not to treat the warmists as equals. In essence, use their own methods against them. I would say get your local councillors and church groups together using a topic akin to 'The science of climate - the real impact on our lives' or some such ambiguous title. Then a well prepared exposition of the HSI, the real data records (slow warming, MWP etc) using rigorous first hand data (UAE satellite, Proudman sea level record etc) showing how the real data bears no reality to what people 'believe'. Tie that in with the economic impact of the subsidies and taxes on their personal pockets, and you have a good chance at turning the tide of opinion.
Philip Bratby @ 7:16am
Your correspondent at Devon CC is ignoring the physical mechanisms of CO2 forcing.
The UK produces 1.84% of global annual CO2 emissions*. How could reducing this figure (even to zero) have any measurable effect on GATA going forward?
There is no physical mechanism by which emissions reduction policy in the UK can mitigate future climate change. To deny this is to deny the entire body of climate science.
You should ask him to explain – with supporting calculations – how the actions of DCC (or the UK as a whole) will have any effect on rising sea levels or any other indicator of increasing GATA.
The truth of course is that spend as he might and protest as he does, this little bureaucrat is living in a fantasy world of empty gesture politics. Like the rest of them.
*Source: US Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC) http://cdiac.ornl.gov ; year shown 2007. This data set became available in July 2010 and is the current standard reference.
View all national data here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_coun.html
View UK-specific data here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_uki.html
View as a complete table here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Cumbrian Lad said,
Yes. Just as you don't go to a church or mosque to debate the fundamental beliefs of those religions, either.
The Americans have the Church of Latter-Day Saints, so perhaps we could have a Church of Post-Normal Scientists? Well, East Anglia could...
@ James P
"The Americans have the Church of Latter-Day Saints, so perhaps we could have a Church of Post-Normal Scientists? Well, East Anglia could..."
"Church of the poisoned mind" - as the song goes, would be more apt.
@BBD
Evidently the Executive Director of Environment, Economy and Culture at Devon County Council is a proponent of the futile gesture, maybe he's been reading too many Victorian adventure stories. But what a job title - a fine example of the pompous status inflation that's to be seen everywhere these days.
Yes. Just as you don't go to a church or mosque to debate the fundamental beliefs of those religions, either.
Mar 18, 2011 at 12:22 PM | Peter B
Yes, and you don't go to university to discuss physics, you don't go to the bus terminal to discuss the time table. Another troll like piece of stupidity. Debates are the norm for the resolution of scientific disagreements. See the history of Quantum mechanics, string theory, Rutherford's theories etc, etc.
"The Americans have the Church of Latter-Day Saints, so perhaps we could have a Church of Post-Normal Scientists? Well, East Anglia could..."
1) Mormons
2) Morons
3) Menteurs
DaveS
Perhaps there in an inverse relation between the length and pomposity of the job title and the actual achievements of the incumbent.
The self-aggrandisement of tin-pot dictators springs to mind...
stephen richards
I think you may have misunderstood Peter B above.
stephen richards
"The Americans have the Church of Latter-Day Saints, so perhaps we could have a Church of Post-Normal Scientists? Well, East Anglia could..."
The Church of Post-Normal Mendacities?
stephen richards,
If you think that what usually happens when you go to a Christian church is to actually debate the fundamentals of Chistian beliefs - or to debate the fundamentals of Islam, when you go to a mosque - then, the only one here writing "troll-like pieces of stupiidty" is yourself. Especially so if you're not able to grasp the meaning of my previous comment, which obviously went above your head.
Bishop - snip away if you find it appropriate; I am not replying further in any case.
BH:
(I had a similar experience a few weeks back, although the reason given was lack of ticket sales)
I think this might be the real reason. The interest in climate change is waning. People are sick and tired of hearing about it. And the opposition realises that they have reached the point of diminishing returns. There is less trust in climate science now, and each further debate will make the matters worse for the CAGW cult.
Yes - nobody is interested in discussing climate science anymore.
My friends turn away and change the subject when I try.
The problem is that while no discussion occurs in the public, the politicians and the public servants continue to knobble the economy in many very stupid, green ways.