However, I don't see that as a way to "settle" the science. Pegminer is right but there are two issues (at least). The first is what is the current state of the science and the second is what the politicians are doing in the name of Climate Change.
The politicians in the UK are seemingly united in wanting to increase my fuel bills and trying to increase the chances of blackouts this winter. I would like the debates to ask the question: "Why?"
Questions about the benefits of low-energy light bulbs could be asked. For instance, if I change any remaining incandescent bulbs to low energy how much longer will the planet last before it melts. When the scientists reply: "About 0.75 seconds" then we can ask the politicians if it is worth it.
Currently, we have a major disconnect between your average climate scientist, the alarmist climate scientists (e.g. Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Jones etc), the sceptical scientists (Singer, Lindzen, Ball, Morner, Christy, Spencer, Salby, etc), the IPCC and the politicians. I feel that some common ground could usefully be established.
EDIT: Rich people spreading dis-information? Check out Jeremy Grantham, Maurice Strong, George Soros, Al Gore and assorted Hollywood stars, plus the Hewlett Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Tides Foundation, Goldman-Sachs, the World Bank, ...
Hello Kano ― and really Thank You for such an excellent intro on the subject:
"Climate scientists are having problems convincing the public?".
Absolutely YES, yeS. And did I forgot to say Yes? If I did, here it is again: yes.
(I'm just accelerating to reach the climax, coming soon):
It agrees, too, with James (I think):
I would be inclined to stand beside James in James' opinion, because the present situation of EXPLANATIONS FROM ESTABLISHED SCIENCE really is in a dark adventure. T h a t is alarming.
IF this same unable-to-explain spectacle continues, the global warming issue itself will obviously be harmed, loosing trustworthiness, no matter the IPCC expert assertions.
The point is, though, that there SEEMS TO BE a (very) satisfactory explanation. We can study its aspects in this original (academic rebellic) web source (it claims to contain links to a thorough deduction, including references and comparisons with already familiar IPCC-model results ― and a least 98% matching table of carbon dioxide concentrations up to 2030):
http://www.universumshistoria.se/zStatNa...
The source (in internal links) seems to give a complete, extremely simple and plain, easy to understand resolution by components of
1. a natural sea variation 20-60yr and
2. a driving industrial fossil-carbon emission (same as the industrial statistical type, also shown) forming the central, actually and steadily raising global warming curve: The source shows how these two simple components together form ― simply defines by equal components ― our already familiar NASA-CRU-temperature curve,
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/
that is, the actually measured amount of global warming. The only real proof we have.
That was my climax (trying to break a deadlock with new, fresh viewpoints). AND Only by that credit:
― Profoundly, the match up to now from 1860 certifies the rest of the history with the same type of validity, at least up to around 2070:
― We are facing a seemingly standstill in global temperature, roughly the period 2000-2040, where absolutely no ― none ― significant temperature change will show. God help the alarmists.
That is:
― One Whole Generation Mothers and Fathers, just (and a little more) having become Grandies. Taking that hint:
― Unless the trend is realized now, the global standstill temperature plateau up to 2040, in light of todays lack of explaining power in the academic society, will obviously destroy the present idea of an ongoing global warming. Also meaning that any DEBATE in favour of the bare idea of an ongoing global warming practically, now, is born ― doomed ― dead.
I will hope that will NOT be our fate. We need EVIDENCE. And its time is running out.
From the standpoint of climate science, I certainly wouldn't think so. The primary thing is that at best, skeptics are slowly losing right now with the evidence presented by Climate Scientists in the public eye. So from the standpoint of Climate Science, a debate would be a losing proposition, just like the politician who is leading avoids debating his opponent.
As an individual, I'm not particularly interested in watching a debate, either. I would rather scientists who disagree conduct research about their theories and publish the results. I'm not really interested in a public circus...in some ways that ties in with your question of the other day about rhetoric. I really don't care to see a couple of drama queens duke it out at the podium. Publish valid research that supports the theory and let the drama queens in politics and the media battle it out in terms of policy and legislation.
I think a debate would feed into the same mindset that rhetoric does, and we need to educate, not entertain, that mindset both in science AND politics.
No, science is not settled with dog and pony shows, it's decided on the mass of evidence. If a "skeptical" scientist is a better debater than climate scientist, that does nothing to change the scientific evidence.
Scientists seem to have little trouble convincing people that are educated in science--it's the people that get their science from blogs or the popular media that are difficult to convince.
Having a debate does not make people more educated. If you want to be educated, start by looking at science textbooks, take classes, do something other than reading blogs and watching TV.
EDIT: No, you can look at ALL the papers by ALL the scientists, it's public debates that are a bad idea--science is not done with debate.
You're always wanting pablum, instead of challenging yourself with real study.
Another EDIT: Great then, read papers--don't ask for public spectacles.
The problem is that climate scientists are trying to convince the public of things that would not matter, according to the science of climate scientists. Cap and trade, carbon tax, renewables mandates, subsidies, do not reduce global warming, but they make people pay more.
As several people commented, science controversies are settled by evidence, and the general public would not know who to believe as any debate would have a tremendous amount of technical data. It is unlikely that such a debate would ever happen, and here is a humorous article about why:
.
The only way to claim the science as settled without dispute is to close off all debate and shut down any opposition by any means necessary including but not limited to intimidation, bullying, threats, belittling personal character, even threatening permanent physical injury and imprisonment. Basically the AGW proponents have done all that. One would believe that if their "science" had any validity to it none of the above would be necessary.
Science is settled by evidence, not debates. And the general public do not necessarily know how to judge who is "winning" a debate and are often convinced by ad homs and Gish Gallops.
Considering that you continue to repeat that "CO2's influence is logarithmic, and it is now saturated", a statement you've been shown is nonsensical, I doubt that debating with your ilk would settle anything.
Yes - untold MILLIONS are spent on right wing lies by the Billionaires to convince morons that it's "All A Myth". And the lies just roll off their tongues so easily.
what with blogs from skeptics undermining their theories.
Do you not think that a series of debates between top climate scientists and top skeptical scientists, aired on national television, would settle the matter once and for all.
The same way political parties debate before an election.
Skeptical scientist you mean paid off Denialists like Not a Lord Monkton?, their credibility is shot.
