On Wednesday March 14th a debate was held by the organization Intelligence Squared on the motion “Global Warming is Not a Crisis.”
Before the debate began, a poll was taken of the members of audience as to whether or not they agreed with the motion being debated: Global warming is not a crisis.
The results were as follows:
Those for the motion: 29.88%
Those against the motion: 57.32%
Those undecided: 12.80%
Obviously, going in, the audience was inclined to believe that we were facing some sort of crisis when it came to climate change.
Following the panelists’ presentations and debate and after the Q&A session, the audience was again polled on the same motion. This time the numbers were:
Those for the motion: 46.22%
Those against the motion: 42.22%
Those undecided: 11.56%
Clearly, the panelists speaking for the motion (i.e. global warming is not a crisis) carried the day, picking up a full 16 percentage points and the wresting a plurality from the majority.
We really should debate this topic more often, and next post Al Gore, kinda well, umm, doesnt
8 comments:
The Nay sayers can only win debates with a lay public. Darwin lost all debates in front of lay public too. :)
In the peer reviewed literature, climate science cxonferences etc. the climate skeptics are nowhere to be seen.
In the peer reviewed literature, climate science cxonferences etc. the climate skeptics are nowhere to be seen.
Straight out of the Marxist playbook. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
"Straight out of the Marxist playbook. Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."
It is the truth. Out of the thousands of peer reviewed articles published in journals like Science and Nature every year, wou will not find a single article making claims that the Global Warming skeptics are making.
There are only a few skeptical articles that appear per year in obscure journals that no climate scientist takes serious.
Compare this to physics. There are more peer reviewed articles about cold fusion and other crackpot subjects every year. However, such articles don't appear in journals like "Physical Review Letters", but instead in crackpot journals like "Infinite Energy" or "Physics Essays".
I am sorry you are wrong there Count. As en example, the World Climate Report reports on journal articles that you would classify as "skeptical" with new journal articles every week.
You have to wonder why the two leading journals, Nature and Science, have not published a single article skeptical on the theory that CO_2 emissions are main the driving force for the observed warming trend.
Unless skeptical articles are unfairly rejected (highly unlikely), one has to conclude that the skeptics don't have any valid arguments.
The Skeptics publish their work in journals that don't specialize in climate science, e.g. geology journals, statistic journals, economics journals, et. to escape any meaningful peer review.
Then, because no one reads these articles, they email the "World Climate Report", to say that their article has been accepted in, e.g. the highly reputable "American journal of Statistics".
Again, one can compare this to crackpots who publish about Relativity theory being proved wrong in e.g. engineering journals on GPS.
Interesting count iblis. If we dismissed all the scientific studies that don't appear in Science or Nature, where would be be now? Probably still trying to work out if light refracts or not
If you read leading journals like Science, Nature or Physical Rview, you'll find plenty of speculative ideas and theories.
The scientific establishement is not very conservative, they don't censor new ideas like they did hundreds of years ago.
If people still can't get their articles published in the appropriate journals then that can only be because their articles are flawed. Some people then complain in the mdia about censorship or go to other journals that don't specialize in the subject of the paper.
This is exactly what the climate skeptics are doing.
count iblis the context was 'Is Global Warming a Crisis?'
Many people, including respected scientists say it isn't. The article was about people when presented with pro and con arguments, mostly agreed with the con, i.e. it's not a crisis.
You then disengenously try to twist this into people disputing that scientists generally agree that that the climate is warming and anthopogenic factors (and note I don't say CO2 emissions) play a role, which no one would seriously dispute.
Post a Comment