4 ms·

A debate between the leading voices for each position would help clarify matters. The side that is closer to the truth has the most to gain from this debate & t

A debate between the leading voices for each position would help clarify matters. The side that is closer to the truth has the most to gain from this debate & the side that is more deceptive has the most to lose. For example, Michael E Mann, inventor of the hockey stick graph, should debate Tony Heller, one of the more well known skeptics.

AlexandrB 7y ago
Suppose I become a well-known skeptic of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. I write lots of blog posts, show up on contrarian TV segments and attract a large following. Should an astronomer or astrophysicist come and debate me? Would they have anything to gain by doing so? Would I have anything to lose?
- Canada 7y ago
  I'm not so sure that analogy holds. The problem is that it presumes the skeptic of the heliocentric model has significant followers and that there is any point in changing their minds. There is no point in the astronomer debating that skeptic because convincing his followers won't change anything. The astronomer has nothing to win. A significant segment of the public does not believe AGW is actually happening so there's benefit to be had in having the debate: The skeptics followers will watch it. Refusing to do it just allows the skeptics followers to remain within that bubble completely unchecked.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    Sadly, winning a debate has more to do with charisma than sound logic and evidences. Trump had multiple debates on TV, he "won" them well enough to be elected, and he thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax. Scientists, being scientists, are fundamentally trained to communicate to fellow scientists with basic scientific competency and no desire to twist every word out of context. They aren't the best TV debators. You wouldn't give members of the Manhattan project gladiator swords and march them into Colosseum - what would you expect?
octonion 7y ago
Scientists have no obligation to debate cranks.
- briantakita 7y ago
  Michael E Man has plenty of tweets maligning his critics. He even sued his critics for defamation & lost the lawsuit, owing legal fees to the defendants. Why? He did not produce the data supporting his hockey stick graph to the court after several years (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_cr...)... We have been told by the media that there is a 97% consensus (which has been debunked, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-di...) & the debate is over. Now we are hearing that APW critics are bots?
hokkos 7y ago
There is no reason to waste the time of climate scientist against climate negationist, youtuber can do it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw
- briantakita 7y ago
  Public debates about these matters are a good thing. It's not a waste of time to challenge claims & to help people understand the claims. Think of this as crowd sourcing the peer review process to the broader interdisciplinary public. Here's Heller's response to the video you posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjdT-NdSoWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjdT-NdSoWM Cheers!
imtringued 7y ago
>The side that is closer to the truth has the most to gain from this debate & the side that is more deceptive has the most to lose. I'm not sure how that follows. Climate change has a global impact but the real impact varies by region. Therefore it is possible for someone to be in a region that benefits from climate change and advocate for burning more fossil fuels at the expense of the majority of regions that will suffer because of climate change. Gaining/losing is completely disconnected from finding the truth.
- briantakita 7y ago
  > Gaining/losing is completely disconnected from finding the truth. Please allow me to expand on what I'm communicating... An open, interdisciplinary public debate about the science is beneficial for the pursuit of truth. There are a few aspects to science including observation, measurement, experimentation, models, etc. Communicating how conclusions were inferred & engaging in good-faith discussion is important in the pursuit of truth.

AlexandrB 7y ago

Suppose I become a well-known skeptic of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. I write lots of blog posts, show up on contrarian TV segments and attract a large following. Should an astronomer or astrophysicist come and debate me? Would they have anything to gain by doing so? Would I have anything to lose?

Canada 7y ago
I'm not so sure that analogy holds. The problem is that it presumes the skeptic of the heliocentric model has significant followers and that there is any point in changing their minds. There is no point in the astronomer debating that skeptic because convincing his followers won't change anything. The astronomer has nothing to win. A significant segment of the public does not believe AGW is actually happening so there's benefit to be had in having the debate: The skeptics followers will watch it. Refusing to do it just allows the skeptics followers to remain within that bubble completely unchecked.
- yongjik 7y ago
  Sadly, winning a debate has more to do with charisma than sound logic and evidences. Trump had multiple debates on TV, he "won" them well enough to be elected, and he thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax. Scientists, being scientists, are fundamentally trained to communicate to fellow scientists with basic scientific competency and no desire to twist every word out of context. They aren't the best TV debators. You wouldn't give members of the Manhattan project gladiator swords and march them into Colosseum - what would you expect?

octonion 7y ago

Scientists have no obligation to debate cranks.

briantakita 7y ago
Michael E Man has plenty of tweets maligning his critics. He even sued his critics for defamation & lost the lawsuit, owing legal fees to the defendants. Why? He did not produce the data supporting his hockey stick graph to the court after several years (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_cr...)... We have been told by the media that there is a 97% consensus (which has been debunked, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-di...) & the debate is over. Now we are hearing that APW critics are bots?

hokkos 7y ago

There is no reason to waste the time of climate scientist against climate negationist, youtuber can do it : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLjkLPnIPPw

briantakita 7y ago
Public debates about these matters are a good thing. It's not a waste of time to challenge claims & to help people understand the claims. Think of this as crowd sourcing the peer review process to the broader interdisciplinary public. Here's Heller's response to the video you posted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjdT-NdSoWM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjdT-NdSoWM Cheers!

imtringued 7y ago

>The side that is closer to the truth has the most to gain from this debate & the side that is more deceptive has the most to lose. I'm not sure how that follows. Climate change has a global impact but the real impact varies by region. Therefore it is possible for someone to be in a region that benefits from climate change and advocate for burning more fossil fuels at the expense of the majority of regions that will suffer because of climate change. Gaining/losing is completely disconnected from finding the truth.

briantakita 7y ago
> Gaining/losing is completely disconnected from finding the truth. Please allow me to expand on what I'm communicating... An open, interdisciplinary public debate about the science is beneficial for the pursuit of truth. There are a few aspects to science including observation, measurement, experimentation, models, etc. Communicating how conclusions were inferred & engaging in good-faith discussion is important in the pursuit of truth.