Comments on: The Green Spot: Where’s the Debate? http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2009/04/10/the-green-spot-wheres-the-debate/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:31:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Canadian Dream: Free at 45 » Blog Archives » Green Spot: Emails and Climate Change http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2009/04/10/the-green-spot-wheres-the-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-36848 Canadian Dream: Free at 45 » Blog Archives » Green Spot: Emails and Climate Change Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:49:26 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=667#comment-36848 [...] of them have been.  I’ve mentioned before to various people that even if people have some good questions about climate change, it’s been near to impossible to have a rationally conversation on the topic with [...] [...] of them have been.  I’ve mentioned before to various people that even if people have some good questions about climate change, it’s been near to impossible to have a rationally conversation on the topic with [...]

]]> By: Canadian Money http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2009/04/10/the-green-spot-wheres-the-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-23276 Canadian Money Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:55:12 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=667#comment-23276 I saw a program recently. It was not about global warming, it had to do with theories about the extermination of larger mamuals in North America...Sabre Tooths, Mamoths etc. There was mention that about 20,000 years ago the northern part of NA had thick ice sheets and the ocean was a lot lower. My view is that anyone who predicts Global Warming, more recently sugar coated as Climate Change,should be able to explain why those "normal" climate upheavels occurred in the past. And, why any change they think they are measuring in recent years should not be viewed as part of the "normal system variation" of climate on earth. CM I saw a program recently. It was not about global warming, it had to do with theories about the extermination of larger mamuals in North America…Sabre Tooths, Mamoths etc.

There was mention that about 20,000 years ago the northern part of NA had thick ice sheets and the ocean was a lot lower.

My view is that anyone who predicts Global Warming, more recently sugar coated as Climate Change,should be able to explain why those “normal” climate upheavels occurred in the past. And, why any change they think they are measuring in recent years should not be viewed as part of the “normal system variation” of climate on earth.

CM

]]> By: Traciatim http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2009/04/10/the-green-spot-wheres-the-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-23144 Traciatim Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:12:30 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=667#comment-23144 I'd also like to point out this fantastic article, also over at the Watts Up With That blog. This article points out quite well that the 'problem' is very different depending on where you start looking and what date range you look at. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/ Also, if you look over at the surface stations project you realize that there is a huge problem with siting of temperature sensors. http://surfacestations.org/ I’d also like to point out this fantastic article, also over at the Watts Up With That blog. This article points out quite well that the ‘problem’ is very different depending on where you start looking and what date range you look at.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/

Also, if you look over at the surface stations project you realize that there is a huge problem with siting of temperature sensors.

http://surfacestations.org/

]]> By: Traciatim http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/2009/04/10/the-green-spot-wheres-the-debate/comment-page-1/#comment-23068 Traciatim Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:26:07 +0000 http://blog.canadian-dream-free-at-45.com/?p=667#comment-23068 I just want to quote some greate comments from Bill P on the Watts Up With That blog: --- I agree. A surprising number of people are uninformed and uncommitted to either side of this issue. I don’t know what the reason for this is, but I strongly hope that friendly persuasion and non-didactic education will ultimately move them. To see how easily this can be accomplished, I’d recommend the two Intelligence Squared (IQ2) debates on climate change. These, as far as I know, have offered the only two honest, head-to-head debates on this issue. Last year’s audience-polled debate, on the resolution “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”, can be viewed here at Michael Crichton’s website. http://crichton-official.com/video-iq2debate-part8.html Pitted against each other were (for the affirmative) Philip Stott, Michael Crichton and Larry Lindzen against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel (for the negative). Pre- and post-debate polling of the studio audience showed an interesting and significant shift of positions. For Against Undecided Before: 30% 57% 13% After: 46% 42% 12% This year’s debate (I believe it was held in February) , on the topic, “Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money”, yielded the following pre- and post-debate figures: For Against Undecided Before: 16% 49% 35% After: 42% 48% 10% http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wru8-OFw4&feature=related The outcomes of these public debates suggest to me that a little information can go a long way in helping people see the light. Even now, people are still being guided by the sentiments (primarily fear and self-righteousness) generated by the mainstream media and politicians. Merely hearing some opposing views is sufficient to disabuse many of their AGW opinions. I just want to quote some greate comments from Bill P on the Watts Up With That blog:

—

I agree. A surprising number of people are uninformed and uncommitted to either side of this issue. I don’t know what the reason for this is, but I strongly hope that friendly persuasion and non-didactic education will ultimately move them.

To see how easily this can be accomplished, I’d recommend the two Intelligence Squared (IQ2) debates on climate change. These, as far as I know, have offered the only two honest, head-to-head debates on this issue.

Last year’s audience-polled debate, on the resolution “Global Warming is Not a Crisis”, can be viewed here at Michael Crichton’s website.

http://crichton-official.com/video-iq2debate-part8.html

Pitted against each other were (for the affirmative) Philip Stott, Michael Crichton and Larry Lindzen against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel (for the negative). Pre- and post-debate polling of the studio audience showed an interesting and significant shift of positions.

For Against Undecided
Before: 30% 57% 13%
After: 46% 42% 12%

This year’s debate (I believe it was held in February) , on the topic, “Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money”, yielded the following pre- and post-debate figures:

For Against Undecided
Before: 16% 49% 35%
After: 42% 48% 10%

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6wru8-OFw4&feature=related

The outcomes of these public debates suggest to me that a little information can go a long way in helping people see the light. Even now, people are still being guided by the sentiments (primarily fear and self-righteousness) generated by the mainstream media and politicians. Merely hearing some opposing views is sufficient to disabuse many of their AGW opinions.

]]>