I'm not sure why they would. They've presented their theories and evidence, it would seem that the next step would be for those who disagree to present their theories and evidence, and anyone so inclined would be anxious to do so empirically. So far nobody has done so, it is a political debate...and the warmers are already in the lead. I don't really see where they would have anything to gain by public debate, or why any of them would want to lend any kind of credibility to an opposition view that isn't backed by an equivalent body of scientific data and theory.
I mean really...if you think about it, most of the argument is that climate scientists are lying because they're in it for the money or are Marxists, which goes to the foundations of contemporary debate-it is not fact that rules the day, it is undermining the credibility of your opponent. I can't think of a good reason for anyone to subject themselves to that without being on a ballot someplace. Even the question of why climate scientists WON'T debate in public goes to credibility, and at some level most of us know that it is a question primarily designed to undermine credibility.
If I were sitting where the climate scientists are right now, I'd just say look, present a theory and evidence that is more compelling than the one we are, that's how we debate in science.
EDIT: You wrote: "J.C. you cant put forward scientific proof against AGW because no one will publish it, only blogs." I understand what you are saying, Kano, but I don't think the opposition view is putting forth a scientific counter theory of what is happening with climate and weather period-there are plenty of media outlets that do and would give them a voice but people aren't buying into what they are saying well enough to turn the tide in their favor. And to make it worse, there is a contingent of addlepated old crones (at least one in evidence here responding to this question) who are poseurs and can't even address an issue at hand scientifically or accurately. A lot of people aren't going to give that sort of stuff the dignity of a reply let alone pretend that there is a 'debate' that SHOULD be held on those terms.
I think you have resurrected an interesting question and I think you know where I stand on the issue of AGW even though I am a minor player in this category-I don't think enough certainty exists to throw 14 trillion dollars at a problem when we can't even say when or how significant mankind's influence is on climate or what the outcomes will be. However, the proponents of AGW are influencing any number of policies and initiatives and the opponents are losing traction. I've put forth that as the primary reason the proponents don't want to debate in my opinion...if they're pulling ahead in the court of public opinion, I cannot see why they would take the risk-especially given the tone of the debate in political circles.
That's all I'm saying.
It is not just climate scientists. It is almost every scientist in every field of science.
The main reason is that the scientific process and the language of science do not translate well into everyday speech and, so, they are easily misunderstood and can be easily misrepresented by people who, for whatever reason, are opposed to the scientific evidence, analysis, results, and conclusions.
Most scientists have no real interests other than science and they simply lack the personality, temperament, aptitude, and ability to talk about science to anyone except other scientists. Traditionally, it was the role of science journalists to translate scientific knowledge in a way that could be understood by the general public. However, that species of journalists has all but become extinct.
You are right that it is a problem – but, I do not see it changing anytime soon.
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v8/n...
=====
edit --
>>Perhaps I should have said, refuse to debate when challenged.<<
For the same reason Deniers refuse to address the subject scientifically when challenged - they have no skill at it. Scientists don't do the political-media circus - and Deniers don't do science.
=====
>>J.C. you cant put forward scientific proof against AGW because no one will publish it, only blogs.<<
And in that one sentence, we find three reasons for scientists to avoid the activity:
1) “Proof” is not a scientific concept – and you cannot debate things that do not exist.
2) You cannot argue against imaginary conspiracy theories.
In reality, if anyone had such “proof” every major scientific journal in the world would do everything humanly possible to be the first to publish it.
3) Because claims such as (1) and (2) would certainly be used by Deniers in a debate; by definition, the debate would be political and not scientific – which means that the “(scientific) debate” you are claiming scientists avoid would be as fake, false, staged, and imaginary as the nonexistent concept and imaginary conspiracy you refer to and believe in.
All?
Nonsense.
Unfortunately many scientists have had to step away from their work to explain to the public the difference between science and media hype.
They know they would lose. They would have to come from behind their scholastic shield and expose their true knowledge of the subject.
The way it is now is just like on this site. These phonies come up with a fact and the true scientists on this site scientifically shoot it down. Then the phonies get to name call and lie even further and commit all kinds of indecent acts. (This is with the endorsement of Y!A, by the way. I have written proof from Y!A itself.)
This site is living proof that the greenies abhor open and honest debate. For specific instance, when I called Trevor a liar and proved that he lied, then attempted to cover up that lie with yet another lie, then cover up that lie with another deception, my answer was pulled. Yet when other people on this site called me a liar and I reported it, I was told I didn't have enough credibility by Y!A itself.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Proof positive that Y!A is not open to honest debate but rather is probably sponsored by Al Gore himself.
JC: Your naivitivity is showing.
Just look at your arguement.
Look, let us put this in true scientific terms. The earth has been cooling for over a decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
That is a fact that some of you won't admit to even today. That is a fact that even Phil Jones had to remotely admit to. Even James Hansen admitted to it, before he retired and became a full time communist activist. Even in the face of all that evidence some of you won't admit to the earth has actually been cooling for over a decade.
Then to top that off, when we all agree that this cooling has happened while the earth's CO2 level is increasing while the earth is cooling. This scientific fact is beyond your comprehension.
You still smugly sit there and say, "If I were sitting where the climate scientists are right now, I'd just say look, present a theory and evidence that is more compelling than the one we are, that's how we debate in science." As though we honestly haven't. I don't know what part of La La Land you live in, but it isn't anywheres near reality.
Why should we put forth an alternative theory? We aren't asking for tax dollars to prove out side. We aren't out to enact and enforce tyrannical laws. But your side is.
Why should we put forth an alternative theory when we know that everything is normal. There are top knowledgeable scientists who know this and present this everyday, yet you never hear from the because of the clamor of the green side.
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
We have presented our side publically many times over and for a cheap shot artist, such as you, to even suggest that we haven't done so repeatedly is abhorrent behaviour.
how many top scientists do you see debating that the earth is not flat?
It's beneath their dignity to engage with morons
avoid debating in public.
