[BartSimpson]

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

Mar 06, 2009

St Andrews University Debating Society

By Richard Courtney

I write to report on a debate that defeated the motion “This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis” during a meeting of the St Andrews University Debating Society. It is difficult to arrange a debate of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW) because few proponents of AGW are willing to face such debate. They know from past experience that they always lose such debates because there is no evidence that AGW exists and much evidence that it does not.

However, on Wednesday 4 March 2009, the St Andrews University Debating Society held their debate of the motion, “This House Believes Globa l Warming is a Global Crisis” in the Old Parliament Building, St Andrews. The debate was organized and presided over with exemplary efficiency and professionalism by the Speaker of the Society, Ms Jessica Siegel. It was conducted with all the pomp and ceremony that could be expected of an ancient society of so ancient and prestigious a university.

And the debate was lively, informative and entertaining. It got emotional at times. Some of the contributions from the floor were of exceptionally high quality. But, it was somewhat spoiled by the weakness of the proponents of the motion. (I have good reason to suspect this weakness is because stronger speakers could not be obtained to propose the motion. If so, then it is yet another example of leading proponents of AGW fearing to face their critics in open debate).

The proponents of the motion were Ross Finnie MSP, former Scottish Government Minister for Environment and Rural Development; Mike Robinson, Chief Executive of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society and Chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland; Gregory Norminton, Novelist ‘Serious Things’, Environmental Activist, Founder of ‘Alliance against Urban 4x4s’

The motion was opposed by myself, and Nils-Axel Morner, Leader of the Maldives International Sea-Level Project who was awarded the ‘Golden Contrite of Merits’ by Algarve University, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Former advisor to then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and now an Investigator of Scientific Frauds.

Each speaker was given a strict maximum of 7 minutes to speak. The speakers would alternate between proponents and opponents of the motion until all 6 had spoken. No speaker was allowed to speak more than once except to raise a point of information, order, or etc.

The proponents had clearly not prepared. They were not co-ordinated in their presentations, they each lacked any significant knowledge of the science of AGW, and they each assumed that AGW is a fact. None of them made a substantial presentati on of arguments supporting the motion, and they all (including the politician!) lacked adequate skills at public speaking. The opponents of the motion were a sharp contrast to that. They each have significant expertise in their subject, and they had agreed the case they were to put and how they were to put it. Also, they are all very competent public speakers and their very different styles made their presentation much better than the sum of its parts.

Finnie spoke first. He argued that AGW is a fact because the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that says the IPCC is “90% certain” that AGW exists. From this he claimed there is a “crisis” because governments are failing to give the matter sufficient importance. It is necessary for governments to de cide a treaty that would follow-on from the Kyoto Ptotocol that intends to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) but ends in 2012. The decision needs to be made at a meeting later this year.

I replied by outlining the case for the opposition. My speech is copied here. It asserts that governments do need to have policies on climate change but empirical evidence denies the existence of AGW and so there is no need to constrain fossil fuel emissions. Indeed, the harm caused by the emission constraints would be greater than any harm that AGW could induce if it were to exist.

Robinson’s response was very angry. He seemed to think attacking the opposition speakers would provide a victory for the motion. Almost his entire speech was attempted defamation of the opposition speakers. Within seconds of starting to speak he had accused them of being “like supporters of the Nazis in 1930s Germany” (my family lost everything in the blitz so I did not take kindly to that). The speakers on the opposition side “could not get anything published in peer-reviewed journals” (Morner and I each shouted out that we have and we do). And much of the same. He said people and governments must act to stop global warming (but he did not say how they should act) because - according to him - if a person had an elevated temperature of 2 degrees then he would die so we cannot let the Earth get 2 degrees hotter in case that kills the Earth.

Morner then gave a witty, entertaining and informative lecture on sea level change. The major potential threat from AGW is severe sea-level change. He interacted with the audience and selected one individual to ja pe with (his skill at this selection was later demonstrated when that individual stood and gave a speech that won the prize - of a Society neck-tie - for best speech from the floor). Morner presented data that showed sea level is not rising as a result of AGW at a detectable rate anywhere.

Norminton then spoke to conclude the case for the proponents of the motion. Like Finnie he seemed to be extremely nervous: both were shaking during their presentations. Norminton’s hand was shaking so much he put it into his pocket. (I know others interpret this to be nervousness, but I think it was extreme anger: Norminton had not expected any opposition to the motion, and the assertion of clear evidence that AGW does not exist was - to him - an outrage too hard to accept.) Also, like Finnie, he did not address the motion. He said he was not a scientist so he had to accept the word of scientists about global warming and scientists agree that gl obal warming is real and man-made. He said, the speakers on the opposition side were “not scientists”. Lord Monckton interjected that “Courtney and Morner are”. And Norminton replied, “So was Mengele.” Monckton raised a Point of Order demanding withdrawal of the remark. Norminton lacked the wit to withdraw and move on, so he refused to withdraw. Monckton persisted pressing the Point of Order and Norminton continued to refuse to withdraw. Only moments before Morner had made himself the lecturer the students would most like to have, and support for Norminton drained away as he insisted that Morner was akin to a murderer operating in a Nazi concentration camp. Norminton continued by saying the threat of global warming was real, and it was killing polar bears, but it is not clear that anybody was listening to him.

Monckton then summated the case for the opposition. He had not prepared a speech but took notes of the proponents’ speeches with a view to refuting arguments of the proponents that Morner and myself had not covered, and by defending the opposition case against rebuttals of its arguments. This was a deliberate use by our side of Monckton’s debating skills. But he had a problem because the proponents of the motion had not made a case and they had not addressed any of our arguments. Instead, they had made personal attacks on the opposition speakers, and they had asserted - with no evidence or argument - that the IPCC is right. So, Monckton’s summarizing speech consisted of evidence that the proponents of the motion had merely provided errors of logic and fact but they had not a case. He pointed out that polar bears had quadrupled their number in recent decades and this was not a sign that their species is threatened. And he cited and named each of the logical fallacies utilized by the proponents of the motion.

The debate then opened to the floor. Four persons each spoke well. One gave a balanced pr esentation and the other three spoke in favour of the motion. But by then the debate had been settled. Prior to the debate the opponents of the motion had expected to lose the vote because the students have been exposed to a lifetime (i.e. their short lifetime) of pro-AGW propaganda. We consoled ourselves with the certainty that we would win the arguments because opponents of AGW have all the facts on our side. But in the event we won both. The motion was defeated when put to the vote.

The Members of the debating Society know the Rules of the House say a motion falls (i.e. is not carried) unless the motion obtains a majority of the votes cast. And the Speaker and Secretary of the Society say the Members use this knowledge to vote tactically: people who want a motion defeated but do not want it said they voted against the motion can - and do - register a vote that acts against the motion by abstaining.

On Wednesday the votes cast were For the motion 57, Against for the motion 42, Abstaining 18. Thus the motion fell bec ause the 57 votes for the motion were less than the total of other votes cast (i.e. 42 against + 18 abstaining = 60 not for the motion).

Additionally, the room holds 197 people and there were very few empty seats, so there must have been at least 180 people present. Assuming an attendance of 180, then 63 people chose not to vote. So, it seems that fewer people were willing to support either side in the debate than were not willing to support either side.

After the debate several people said they changed their view from support of the motion as a result of the debate. It would have been interesting to know how those present would have voted prior to the debate.

[hurley_108]

You're a jerk, Bart; a real kneebiter!

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 wrote:

You're a jerk, Bart; a real kneebiter!

Thanks, Hurley!

[N_Fiddledog]

I'd pay money to have seen that debate. I so hope somebody caught it on video. I want to see it on YouTube.

[Zipperfish]

Not the St. Andrew's University Debating Society!!!

Unfortunately, the debate is pretty much over in the sceintific community, so the so-called skeptics are reduced voicing their opinions in debating halls and not in the peer-reviewed journals.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish wrote:

Not the St. Andrew's University Debating Society!!!

Unfortunately, the debate is pretty much over in the sceintific community, so the so-called skeptics are reduced voicing their opinions in debating halls and not in the peer-reviewed journals.

Nonsense. The peer-reviewed literature challenging aspects of Warmism dogma is increasing despite all the efforts to suppress it, and outside of peer-review more actual scientists are voicing their skepticism every month.

As far as this St. Andrew's debate goes, your side lost. They always lose organized debates, because as somebody, somewhere said, "Mother Nature bats last", and if you look at the current evidence she doesn't believe in human-caused, crisis-level, global warming. As long as climate realists can point that out, your side will always lose any organized debate on the subject. Live with it.

BTW, you no doubt remember the alarmist side had their asses handed to them in that famous old IQ2 debate. Did you know they had a chance at a rematch with different participants. This time it was more on the political rather than the science, or more aptly the non-science of the warming alarm scam? This time it was on the motion Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money They lost again. This time more shamefully than the first.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Not the St. Andrew's University Debating Society!!!

Unfortunately, the debate is pretty much over in the sceintific community, so the so-called skeptics are reduced voicing their opinions in debating halls and not in the peer-reviewed journals.

Nonsense. The peer-reviewed literature challenging aspects of Warmism dogma is increasing despite all the efforts to suppress it, and outside of peer-review more actual scientists are voicing their skepticism every month.

As far as this St. Andrew's debate goes, your side lost. They always lose organized debates, because as somebody, somewhere said, "Mother Nature bats last", and if you look at the current evidence she doesn't believe in human-caused, crisis-level, global warming. As long as climate realists can point that out, your side will always lose any organized debate on the subject. Live with it.

BTW, you no doubt remember the alarmist side had their asses handed to them in that famous old IQ2 debate. Did you know they had a chance at a rematch with different participants. This time it was more on the political rather than the science, or more aptly the non-science of the warming alarm scam? This time it was on the motion Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money They lost again. This time more shamefully than the first.

Well, you raise some good points, but I think the cirtical point here is that I'm right and you're wrong.

The opponents of global warming theory include many professional pundits and rhetoricians. I think I could put together a pretty good case together to support AGW theory, but I am absolutely sure I would get savaged by the likes of a radio talk show hosts in a debate format where no calulators are allowed. A scientific argument simply can't compete with those types of weapons. besides, that's not where the argument will be won or lost. Ultimately it will be the science.

Note in the article that Bart presents there is precious little science. Rather it is a not-so-subtle attempt to present supporters of AGW theory as irrational and emotional. A persuausive argument, perhaps, but not a rational one. That's not to say the AGW proponents don't use the same tack; they most certainly do. The difference is that the majority of research scientists working in relevant fields agree that human emissions of greenhouse gases have contributed to a warming trend over the last 150 years or so.

But you're right--Mother Nature bats last. By 2030 we should know for certain, I figure.

[Thanos]

Zipperfish wrote:

N_Fiddledog wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Not the St. Andrew's University Debating Society!!!

Unfortunately, the debate is pretty much over in the sceintific community, so the so-called skeptics are reduced voicing their opinions in debating halls and not in the peer-reviewed journals.

Nonsense. The peer-reviewed literature challenging aspects of Warmism dogma is increasing despite all the efforts to suppress it, and outside of peer-review more actual scientists are voicing their skepticism every month.

As far as this St. Andrew's debate goes, your side lost. They always lose organized debates, because as somebody, somewhere said, "Mother Nature bats last", and if you look at the current evidence she doesn't believe in human-caused, crisis-level, global warming. As long as climate realists can point that out, your side will always lose any organized debate on the subject. Live with it.

BTW, you no doubt remember the alarmist side had their asses handed to them in that famous old IQ2 debate. Did you know they had a chance at a rematch with different participants. This time it was more on the political rather than the science, or more aptly the non-science of the warming alarm scam? This time it was on the motion Major reductions in carbon emissions are not worth the money They lost again. This time more shamefully than the first.

Well, you raise some good points, but I think the cirtical point here is that I'm right and you're wrong.

The opponents of global warming theory include many professional pundits and rhetoricians. I think I could put together a pretty good case together to support AGW theory, but I am absolutely sure I would get savaged by the likes of a radio talk show hosts in a debate format where no calulators are allowed. A scientific argument simply can't compete with those types of weapons. besides, that's not where the argument will be won or lost. Ultimately it will be the science.

Note in the article that Bart presents there is precious little science. Rather it is a not-so-subtle attempt to present supporters of AGW theory as irrational and emotional. A persuausive argument, perhaps, but not a rational one. That's not to say the AGW proponents don't use the same tack; they most certainly do. The difference is that the majority of research scientists working in relevant fields agree that human emissions of greenhouse gases have contributed to a warming trend over the last 150 years or so.

But you're right--Mother Nature bats last. By 2030 we should know for certain, I figure.

Randomly tossing out "Hitler" and comparing PhD's who oppose accepted warming theory to Josef Mengele usually comes from the side that's scared of losing the argument and any fiscal/political power that they've managed to accrue. As with Ann Coulter saying all non-"conservatives" are worse than Stalin, then so too with warming proponent who use the same tactic.

[sandorski]

Fail. To Debate GW at this point is akin to debating 2+2=4. A complete waste of time with those who are Right on one side and Lunatics on the other. The debate about GW is over, the debate on how best to deal with it is what's important now.

Excuse the Scientific community while it goes about dealing with Reality and ignores the Nutters.

[Tricks]

Question, there is someone at my school who wants to bring in proponents of both sides of the argument. Who here thinks this is a bad idea? And why?

[mtbr]

sandorski wrote:

Fail. To Debate GW at this point is akin to debating 2+2=4. A complete waste of time with those who are Right on one side and Lunatics on the other. The debate about GW is over, the debate on how best to deal with it is what's important now.

Excuse the Scientific community while it goes about dealing with Reality and ignores the Nutters.

"A complete list of things caused by global warming

Acne, agricultural land increase, Afghan poppies destroyed, Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost, aggressive weeds, air pressure changes, airport malaria, Agulhas current, Alaska reshaped, moves, allergy season longer, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, animals shrink, Antarctic grass flourishes, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic ice free, Arctic ice melt faster, Arctic lakes disappear, Arctic tundra to burn, Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, Bahrain under water, bananas grow, barbarisation, beer shortage, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billion homeless, billions face risk, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird loss accelerating, bird strikes, bird visitors drop, birds confused, birds decline (Wales), birds driven north, birds return early, bittern boom ends, blackbirds stop singing, blackbirds threatened, Black Hawk down, blood contaminated, blue mussels return, bluetongue, brain eating amoebae, brains shrink, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, brothels struggle, brown Ireland, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, coast beauty spots lost, cockroach migration, coffee threatened, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), cold wave (India), computer models, conferences, conflict, conflict with Russia, consumers foot the bill, coral bleaching, coral fish suffer, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened, creatures move uphill, crime increase, crocodile sex, crops devastated, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, curriculum change, cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, desert advance, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, disappearance of coastal cities, disasters, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, dozen deadly diseases, drought, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, earthquakes, earthquakes redux, El Niño intensification, end of the world as we know it, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrophication, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas, polar bears, possums, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches, salamanders, tropical insects) experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, fainting, famine, farmers benefit, farmers go under, farm output boost, fashion disaster, fever, figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish bigger, fish catches drop, fish downsize, fish catches rise, fish deaf, fish get lost, fish head north, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flames stoked, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, flood of migrants, flood preparation for crisis, Florida economic decline, flowers in peril, food poisoning, food prices rise, food prices soar, food security threat (SA), football team migration, footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frog with extra heads, frostbite, frost damage increased, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, giant oysters invade, giant pythons invade, giant squid migrate, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier grows (California), glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, golf course to drown, golf Masters wrecked, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, great tits cope, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, haggis threatened, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harmful algae, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, health affected, health of children harmed, health risks, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation affected, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, HIV epidemic, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health risk, human race oblivion, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hurricanes fewer, hurricanes not, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice age, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, icebergs, illness and death, inclement weather, India drowning, infrastructure failure (Canada), industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insect explosion, insurance premium rises, Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, invasion of cats, invasion of crabgrass, invasion of herons, invasion of jellyfish, invasion of king crabs, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, jets fall from sky, jet stream drifts north, Kew Gardens taxed, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, killing us, kitten boom, koalas under threat, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake empties, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lawyers want more, legionnaires' surge, lives saved, Loch Ness monster dead, locust plagues suppressed, lush growth in rain forests, Malaria, mammoth dung melt, mango harvest fails, Maple production advanced, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, Meaching (end of the world), Mediterranean rises, megacryometeors, Melanoma, Melanoma decline, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, methane runaway, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), migratory birds huge losses, microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, minorities hit, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, moose dying, more bad air days, more research needed, mortality increased, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountaineers fears, mountains break up, mountains green and flowering, mountains taller, mortality lower, Myanmar cyclone, narwhals at risk, National security implications, native wildlife overwhelmed, natural disasters quadruple, new islands, next ice age, NFL threatened, Nile delta damaged, noctilucent clouds, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks dying, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean acidification faster, ocean dead zones unleashed, ocean deserts expand, ocean waves speed up, oceans noisier, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, penguin chicks frozen, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plants lose protein, plants march north, plants move uphill, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears deaf, polar bears drowning, polar tours scrapped, popcorn rise, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychiatric illness, puffin decline, radars taken out, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rape wave, refugees, reindeer endangered, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, robins rampant, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, rooftop bars, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, Russia under pressure, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, severe thunderstorms, sex change, sexual promiscuity, shark attacks, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, short-nosed dogs endangered, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, skin cancer, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, soaring food prices, societal collapse, soil change, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spectacular orchids, spiders invade Scotland, squid aggressive giants, squid population explosion, squid tamed, squirrels reproduce earlier, stingray invasion, storms wetter, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, subsidence, suicide, swordfish in the Baltic, Tabasco tragedy, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tigers eat people, tomatoes rot, tornado outbreak, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, traffic jams, transportation threatened, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, truffle shortage, truffles down, turtles crash, turtle feminised, turtles lay earlier, UFO sightings, UK coastal impact, UK Katrina, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus pups orphaned, walrus stampede, war, war between US and Canada, wars over water, wars sparked, wars threaten billions, wasps, water bills double, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales lose weight, whales move north, whales wiped out, wheat yields crushed in Australia, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine - England too hot, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , wine passé (Napa), wine stronger, winters in Britain colder, winter in Britain dead, witchcraft executions, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World at war, World War 4, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

and all on 0.006 deg C per year!


Nutters

[ridenrain]

sandorski wrote:

Fail. To Debate GW at this point is akin to debating 2+2=4. A complete waste of time with those who are Right on one side and Lunatics on the other. The debate about GW is over, the debate on how best to deal with it is what's important now.

Excuse the Scientific community while it goes about dealing with Reality and ignores the Nutters.

As resolved to the new green church just as the earth was the center of the universe to the catholic church.
I guess that makes folks like you the new Spanish Inquisition.

Attachment:

3mackay.jpg [ 65.83 KiB | Viewed 81 times ]

[commanderkai]

sandorski wrote:

Fail. To Debate GW at this point is akin to debating 2+2=4.

Wow. Basically I'm getting here is "Don't question authority, we're always right. Hail Big Brother!"

[Zipperfish]

Thanos wrote:

Randomly tossing out "Hitler" and comparing PhD's who oppose accepted warming theory to Josef Mengele usually comes from the side that's scared of losing the argument and any fiscal/political power that they've managed to accrue. As with Ann Coulter saying all non-"conservatives" are worse than Stalin, then so too with warming proponent who use the same tactic.

No disagreement from me on that account. It's not even an effective argument. The old comparison to Hitler is tired. It's not even offensive anymore--although the Mengele angle was a nasty little twist. I think you're right that certain personalities have accrued power or finanical gain, and get emotionally invested in their arguments. They are probably not used to being challneged either.

AS a scientist, I don't think you should get too emotionally attached to any theory. It sucks when something you've believed is wrong, but the very essence of science is the necessity that you dispose of theories that no longer adequately model or predict observed behaviour.

Finally, you should decide if you are arguing the science or the policy response. It should be one or the other.

[Zipperfish]

Tricks wrote:

Question, there is someone at my school who wants to bring in proponents of both sides of the argument. Who here thinks this is a bad idea? And why?

Nothing wrong with that, with a couple of caveats. First of all, you can define two sides to any argument, but that doesn't mean both sides are of equal worth. Proponents of intelligent design argued that they on;y wanted "both sides" to be presented, but it implies that both side have equal validity from a scietnific perspective, when they don't.

The other caveat is that there are more than two sides. There are those who think that man-made global warming is cataclysmic. There are others who think that humans have been a significant driver of climate over the last century or so, but that there is still a large uncertainty as to its effects (that would be my point of view). Another point of view is that humans may be impacting the climate, but the policy responses tabled will have a more detrimental effect (the cure is worse than the disease). Another point of view is that, yes, it is warming but humans have not been a significant contributor. Another is that it isn't warming at all. And another thinks that we can't know either way because the data are so corrupted.