http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...
Here is Gavin Schmidt%26#039;s post-debate assessment:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
I%26#039;ll be listening to the debate on my way to work tomorrow. After you%26#039;ve listened, let%26#039;s hear your opinions - who do you think won?
No providing opinions without listening first - that%26#039;s cheating. The %26#039;skeptics%26#039; are always complaining that nobody will debate them, so here you have it.
Additional Details
3 months ago
The problem with this question is in how you define winning a debate. If you define it as swaying the audience%26#039;s opinion, the %26#039;skeptics%26#039; won. If you define it as making the more valid arguments, the %26#039;proponents%26#039; crushed the %26#039;skeptics%26#039;.Stott and Crichton were worthless, spending most of the time talking about poverty - a completely seperate issue. I didn%26#039;t hear Crichton make one single valid point. Lindzen mostly presented misinformation. For example: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Crichton even made the Al Gore argument without mentioning Gore%26#039;s name. It was really pathetic. Gavin pretty much nailed it, pointing out that the opposition was trying to sound scientific, and the public doesn%26#039;t know the difference, but their arguments were complete bunk. Anyone with scientific knowledge on the subject (even me) could see right through them. Unfortunately the audience didn%26#039;t.
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (7)
-
That is an old debate, and the skeptics won.
%26quot;In this debate, the proposition was: %26quot;Global Warming Is Not a Crisis.%26quot; In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.%26quot;
That is why the doom sayers do not want to engage in debates. -
I read the transcript of the debate a while ago. In my opinion, the skeptics came out looking better simply because their arguments were flashier and attention-grabbier (if I can say that) in comparison to the other side%26#039;s somewhat dry fare. In public debates it%26#039;s important not only to make factually correct arguments, but to make arguments that lay people without much technical understanding will find convincing. I thought Lindzen and his buddies did much better in that regard, although it was clear that Gavin et al. had the facts on their side.
Also, I did laugh when Lindzen berated his cohorts for using a stupid argument. -
The skeptics won, however that doesn%26#039;t mean that much to me, though I am a skeptic about the affects of global warming. I don%26#039;t want science settled on a debate which seemed to be more about entertainment, I want it settled on the facts. Global warming should not be a left wing verses right wing issue which it clearly is, it needs to get back in the the arena of science where it belongs.
-
The true irony in all this, is that when mother nature finally demonstrates what she%26#039;s going to do, the believers will never find the naysayers, hoax whiners and Al Gore fanatics, to say, %26quot;TOLD YOU SO................%26quot;
-
i think that if u believe with your heart you can overcome this!
-
Skeptics won, you lost.
-
The real question should not be about who won or lost a debate.
The truth is this, there will be not %26#039;conclusive%26#039; answer probably in our life time. What is not a matter of debate, is that fuel is now a major issue in everyone%26#039;s life. The cost of fuel is breaking the lowest paid workers, it is ending the %26#039;middle class%26#039; and now we can see the cost of food rising to the point where in all honesty riots are not that far fetched. Regardless of who is right or wrong on this issue, we need alternatives that we can use TODAY.
The promise of hybrids in 3-5 years won%26#039;t do it. The hope of hydrogen in 5 years won%26#039;t do it. To raise the cafe standards that will not help for years to come wont do it.
What we must have is a Government driven program of innovation. NOT REGULATION but a push with tax dollars to overcome this attack on our nation, our way of life our future. Once our nation with the right leaders and the right %26#039;can do %26#039; attitude built railroads across the impossible. Once we did the impossible and split the atom. Once we did the impossible and put man on the moon. Only by working together, hand in hand, not hand at the throat stifling innovation can we survive. Not due to what might or might not warm as the years go by, but by simple economics.