I recently suggested the public deserves an open transparent debate – similar to the Presidential debates – on climate change. The idea prompted some interesting responses, but the vast majority thought the idea has merit. Folks who know me know that I’ve long lamented the paucity of credible scientific brokers on this highly politicized topic, and the fact the majority of the public doesn’t know what or who to believe.
Let’s cut through the myths, spin, and untruths and get to the facts. That is, what we know, what we don’t know, and implications for acting or not acting . HT to Douglas William Domenech for bringing this recorded event to my attention. For those interested in the topic, this presentation by prominent scientists with divergent views is worth viewing.
Some of my friends responded that a “debate” was not appropriate for such scientific inquiries, but more so for policy decision-making. I would ordinarily agree, but we are in fact dealing with an extraordinary scientific question, and one that has been woefully mismanaged by many.
For those who don’t have time to view this debate, two areas of agreement emerged: (1) more greenhouse gas emissions will make the world warmer and (2) reducing GHG emissions would be a prudent thing to do. Two areas of strong disagreement: (1) whether global warming is a crisis and (2) what policy choices to follow to reduce GHGs.
The Motion that was open for debate: “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”.
Perhaps another forum in the future should focus more on the science as a good primer for the lay audience.