This is from the Huffington Post. One can only hope that Kerry will follow through. For a quick primer on Kerry’s grasp of climate science, see this WUWT article: Kerry Blames Tornado Outbreak on Global Warming and a rebuttal Increasing tornadoes or better information gathering? I get a kick out of Kerry’s line “This has to stop”. Okay then, please debate Mr. Will, put a stop to it Mr. Kerry! – Anthony
John KerryFacts Are Stubborn Things: George Will and Climate Change-
To paraphrase the conservative columnist’s favorite president, “There you go again, George.”
George Will has been one of my favorite intellectual sparring partners for a long time, a favorite more recently because he had the guts to publicly recognize the disaster that was George W. Bush’s presidency.
But in his latest Washington Post column, George and I have a pretty big loud disagreement.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to see Will embracing the idea of recycling, but I’m very troubled that he is recycling errors of fact to challenge the science on global warming.
I’m even more troubled that Will used his February 15th column not only to cast doubt on sound science, but also to denigrate the work of two fine scientists.
Let’s be very clear: Stephen Chu does not make predictions to further an agenda. He does so to inform the public. He is no Cassandra. If his predictions about the effects of our climate crisis are scary, it’s because our climate is scary.
Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country. Pulling out one minor prediction that he had some unknown role in formulating nearly three decades ago, as Will did in his February 15th column, and then using that to try to undo his credibility as a scientist may be a fancy debating trick, but it’s just plain wrong when it comes to a debate we can’t afford to see dissolve into reductio ad absurdum hijinx. (A side note: The incident in question occurred in 1980, which, as I recall, was just about the time Ronald Reagan made the claim that approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation and that, consequently, we should “not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources.”)
Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. Except perhaps a bankrupt flat earth crowd. I hate to review the record and see that someone as smart as George Will has been doing exactly that as far back as 1992. And it’s especially troubling when the very sources that Will cites in his February 15th column draw the exact opposite conclusions and paint very different pictures than Will provides, as the good folks at ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America have demonstrated so thoroughly.
This has to stop. A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, but it doesn’t change the verdict: the problem is real, it’s accelerating, and we have to act. Now. Not years from now.
No matter how the evidence has mounted over two decades — the melting of the arctic ice cap, rising sea levels, extreme weather — the flat earth caucus can’t even see what is on the horizon. In the old Republican Congress they even trotted out the author of Jurassic Park as an expert witness to argue that climate change is fiction. This is Stone Age science, and now that we have the White House and the Congress real science must prevail. It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change.
This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome, but time is not on our side. We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists when we need to be debating everything from how to deal with the dirtiest forms of coal as the major provider of power in China to how to vastly increase green energy right here at home.
“Facts are stupid things,” Ronald Reagan once said. He was, of course, paraphrasing John Adams, who could have been talking about the science on global change when he said, “Facts are stubborn things.”
Stubborn or stupid — lets have a real debate and lets have it now.
I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion — but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let me echo BRING IT ON. I would happily pay 100 dollars to see this debate on PayTV. However, it is desparately important to make sure there is a level playing field. There are few organizations that are neutral on AGW.
Is that Kerry’s idea of persuasive writing? It sounds like a recitation of things he has been told by snobby liberal know-it-all friends at cocktail parties. It isn’t a scientific argument, it is a laundry list of beliefs that are to be embraced without question if one wants be accepted member of the liberal elite and not be talked about in harsh condescending tones at the aforementioned cocktail parties.
George Will should accept his challenge immediately. Bring it.
PS –
The very, very scary aspect about Dubya is that he was President.
lekowitz said, “”We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists”
How can you have an intelligent debate when you ask the opposition to concede the point they are arguing because there is just no time to debate it.”
Because scientists have been debating this for decades and there isn’t any serious debate left among legitimate scientists.
It is not up to politicians to debate whether AGW is real, because they aren’t scientists. It is up to politicians to debate about whether we are going to respond to the warnings of the scientists, how to implement them, and if we don’t act, then what the implications of that will be. This is the role of politicians.
Politicians are different from us. They can mouth off on something they know very little about with confidence and bravado. More irritatingly, when proved wrong later, they are rather blase about their mistakes. Their attitude is to move on. There is very little satisfaction from proving them wrong as that is nothing to them. The only punishment they understand is losing an election, but that is very rare. Kerry and many members of the senate have been there 20, 30, or even 40 years. Unfortunately, we deserve the politicians we elect. Urgh!
“It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change.”
LOL, the Leftys just cannot debate without resorting to absolutely unrelated name-calling and ad-homs. What is the cause of this? Is it because they don’t have enough facts on their side? Don’t they know better? Are they angry people? I dunno. But I do notice that George Will never resorts to these tactics.
This has to stop. A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time,…
This will be an excellent place to start. I can see George Will open his remarks with this quote and then immediately giving up the remainder of his time to Sen. Kerry substantiating this claim. The sputtering and stumbling on Kerry’s part would be worth the price of admission alone.
Notice that Sen. Kerry used “global climate change.” That’s going to be a sticking point as I don’t know of anyone funded or otherwise who denies there are climatic changes occurring.
Kerry:
“This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome…..”
Typical Liberal politician……The conceit and arrogance thinking that he has the ability to control…….the weather, err, uh…..”climate”.
For his next trick, he’ll blot out the Sun!
He’ll be here all week folks.
Kerry should be commended for being willing to debate.
The even greater practitioner of fear-mongering, Mr. Gore, will likely never agree to do so, for, as we all know, “The Great Oz has spoken!”
“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”
etc.
Yea, like Mann is going to stick his head out of his burrow…
“This has to stop.”
I find it troubling that a person who says that scientific debate has to stop is in a position to pass laws to stop it.
Not sure what “Sound Science” he is referring to.
The “Science” was settled but now the truth is out and spreading fast.
AGW is about to fade into history, but not without a fight I’m sure
Agree with Bernie, I can’t imagine that Kerry even wrote this piece.
George Will as an “intellectual sparring partner?” Kerry was the only C student in the 04 election who had a lower GPA than President Bush. He’s a talker and has a wealthy wife, he is not exactly a thinker.
I can’t wait for the debate.
I wouldnt mind seeing Kerry debate if he was required to give citations to his arguments, rather than just making sweeping unsupported generalizations and hyperbole.
…. ad nauseam, ooops, and perhaps I should also learn how to work the italics function !
a scientist-to-scientist debate, while enjoyable to folks here who are educated about the matter (or, like me, gaining an education from the posts and cross-talk), would miss a lot of the target audience. Although Will and Kerry as standard bearers would not have the intimate details, they are more accustomed to speaking to a populist audience. I’m unsure about which method would get better ratings.
Ha! He’ll never show up!
Most of these alarmists have especially big mouths. But hightail it when challenged to debate.
Cowards like Kerry open their traps only when they know they’ll get cover from the media.
For Obama worshippers, thank Bush for defeating that idiot Kerry.
Reflecting on this post I am truely scared. For a Senator like John Kerry to come out so strongly on this issue indicates that he feels the issue is settled and more importantly that goverment will act to control global warming.
What I most appreciate is that Anthony has categorized this peace as “ridiculae”. How true.
Mac,
Debating is an art in itself. Not only must you have an impeccable grasp of the subject, you also need to be a master in debating.
The latter actually decides whether you win or not. One slip-up, and you can blow the whole thing. I don’t know how good Anthony is in a debating forum.
Lindzen, Crichton and Stott performed superbly against Schmidt and Co in the NPR debate in 2007.
In case no one as been watching over the past years, the term ‘debate’ has drifted the way of ‘marrage’, ‘rights’, and ‘SCIENCE’. Where would this ‘debate’ be held? Network TV? Good luck with that. Who would the moderator be? Bill Moyers? Again, good luck. There has not been a substantial debate of any political issue since the taverns of the pre-revolution 18th century. And rest assured, this is NOT and scientific debate, it is pure politics.
We no longer live in an age of ‘Reason’. Debate is no more than and exchange of sound bites followed by a parade of spin-meisters. I year or so ago I participated in a ‘Community Discussion’ sponsored by our local newspaper. The topic, “What are your thoughts on Global Warming?”, moderated by a local ‘Conflict Resolution organization’. ‘Deniers’ were representeed by myself (Sorry, no degrees) and a local ‘La Rouchey”. AGW was represented by 3 PhDs in climate associated fields, a handful of researchers (including a local nemesis of mine), and a political hack.
The rules were fair and we managed to hold our own, no minds were changed, that I know. During the event my nemesis pointed out that he had attended a public ‘Scientific Debate’ between two champions (sorry, I forget the names, but you would recognize them). He expressed the concern that the public was too ill-informed and lazy to be capable of rendering a rational decision on the topic. Why? because his side lost in measured public opinion (fewer ‘believers’ after than before the debate), even though they had obviously (in his opinion) decimated the logic of the denier.
There has been no such debate since, that I am aware of, nor is there likely to be. This cause is no longer working in the court of public opinion. They have taken it upon themselves to save us from our dillusion. God help us.
In a battle of wits, aren’t both parties supposed to be armed?
John F. Kerry debating the science is a joke in itself.
Other than a few polemic soundbites, what knowledge does he posess of the science? He’s nothing more than a blowhard politician on the subject.
This issue is best debated among scientists. Politicians ought to stay out of this as they’ve messed things up enough already.
Its good to see these arguments going on in the media. The debate still raises lots of interest and therefore it is in the media’s interest to keep a spotlight on it.
Given that conversions are happening almost entirely in one directions, alarmist sympathizers converting to skeptics once they understand all the issues involved, then the more exposure this gets the better.