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.
Frankly, I see these two people who have no real knowledge of the issue argue, not debate, and do it badly as of no service to either “cause”.
The issue is that the debate has never occured in any substantive meaningful way. All that happens now is sniping such as the article above. The science is far from settled, and those who advocate for AGW act, and meaningfully, as though it is.
Folks, we have to keep up the fight, but we are way behind the eight ball.
Kerry will never debate Will. He doesn’t have the testicular fortitude.
If he did debate him, he might finally earn a real purple heart.
‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming
The new bill will spend billions to adjust data to “prove” the fallacy that humans are responsible for global warming.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stimulating-scientists-into-proving-global-warming/
Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: 28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals.
The new Wreak-America Bill will throw billions of dollars more into global warming research, a field in which data cooking has become an open scandal. Once again, the data is being adjusted to confirm the establishment theory: humans are responsible for global warming. In actual fact, satellite observations show that the Earth is now cooling, and has been cooling for about 10 years. This confirms the anti-establishment theory that the Earth warmed prior to the late 1990s due to the then-increasing number of sunspots, and is now cooling due to the now decreasing number of sunspots. The Wreak-America bill contains funds to “adjust” those pesky satellite observations, so that the data will confirm what powerful politicians wish to be true.
If there’s a debate to be had I’d love to watch George Monbiot (Moonbat as he is better known) try to defend his views and the views of those who support him. Read one of his columns here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/27/climate-change-deniers-sceptics
An extract from one of the comments is reproduced hereunder to give you some idea of the ‘flavour’ of Moonbat’s supporters:
“Climateaudit and wattsupwiththat consist of the generic mix of smear and pseudoscience offered by all disinformation efforts.
There’s an interesting division of labour between them, though.
Wattsupwiththat concentrates on smearing Hansen (and occasionally Pachauri) whereas Climateaudit concentrates on smearing Mann (and his various coworkers).”
I’d prefer Christy over Spencer, mainly because I’ve seen him debate before and he has his act together.
Jepe (08:40:33) :
Kerry:
“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…”
and later Kerry states
“…..but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.”
Kerry is already contradicting himself, and the debate has not even started.
———————————
Kerry has always been a one-man debate. Remember he was for it before he was against it – the decisiveness needed in our political leadership.
That was a pretty cheap shot. What evidence do you have that he didn’t earn his awarded medals?
Climate Heretic (08:46:43)
“Hard to believe that not only has Mass. given us Barney Frank – Primary Architect of the collapse of Freddie and Fannie costing taxpayers a measly 400 Billion to date, and Primary Figure in the Witch Hunts in Washington Read Misplaced Anger on my Blog – but also John Kerry.”
———————————————————
You are slighting Massachusetts by neglecting Senator Kennedy who “hatched” the “egg” of the immigration Albatross that now hangs around the neck of Uncle Sam.
I think I’ve got it. The World economy is melting down in an unprecedented debacle and those ultimately responsible in governance are lurking around for good cover causes.
It seems that Mr. Kerry is not as adept as Mr. Gore at the art of personal obfuscation for the personal benefit of elective office preservation…,
Be cautious in your wishes for a debate between George Will and John Kerry. The moderators in political debates have influenced the outcomes of those debates. Consider the outcome of this debate: Global Warming; a debate between Columnist George Will and Senator John Kerry; moderator NASA scientist James Hansen.
Jeff Alberts (11:59:39) :
No cheap shot.
Fact is his first purple heart was “earned” after only 24 hrs in country. There are no medical records to support his injury and the senior officer on the boat didn’t file an AAR that indicated any enemy contact. The commander of that unit never approved the purple heart nor does he recall Kerry getting one.
The other two are just as suspect.
For all three purple hearts he spent a total of 24hrs off duty.
This is why he has never released his records.
Reason I know him so familiar with him, is that he’s my senator. And while I was serving on boats in the same region (An Thoi) he served he was wearing fatiques and bring false witness on this comrades in arms in DC.
I have come to the conclusion that the global warming fight doesnt have anything to do with science anymore. It is simply a funding ploy now in the form of cap and trade. Obama has set forth his budget, dependent on the cash flow from what will become the US version of cap and trade to fund his programs over the next 10 years. Its hard to fight a major funding opportunity.
Remember to call your congressmen and women on March 2nd to counter the ‘no more coal’ marchers.
As for the debate, I would like to see Hansen, Mann and Chu against any three reputable scientists in the fields of geology, physics and astronomy. It wont happen though, because they (awg) have too much to lose and a debate might decrease the ‘disaster’ /panic quota used to get so much bad legislation passed these days.
Please debate on CNN, so I can laugh here in Portugal.
Ecotretas
philincalifornia (09:10:27) :
Fred from Canuckistan . . . (08:49:40) :
The very, very scary aspect of Kerry is that he came so close to being President.
———————————-
Yep, possibly even more scary than Al Gore being President.
——————-
Yes, but neither as scary as Obama being President.
Actually, I would love to see the power shut off to Washington, DC.
It is a shame that they didn’t make Kerry’s BCD public.
So this is “the debate is over” phase of AGW? In that case, I can hardly wait for the debate to re-start.
We are witnessing an historic event: The Internet blogs are destroying the greatest scientific scam ever seen. Meanwhile, the MSM are in their death-throes. There will be metaphorical blood – and it won’t be the sceptics’.
This just goes to prove that Al Gore is indeed smarter than John Kerry. Gore is smart enough never to debate because not only might he *sigh* his way to losing, he knows he would appear something less than the Goreacle if he should come down to a shared stage to defend himself.
Kerry isn’t smart enough to realize that by even agreeing to debate he concedes the “there is no debate” high ground his side clings to.
Which is the same reason you’ll never see a Mann vs. McIntyre debate or any of the others that have been suggested. The AGW scaremongers have the media on their side. Debating — and losing — would force the media (eventually) into reporting what both sides say, rather than just reporting the AGW scaremongers side and launching ad hominems against the skeptics.
stephen richards (10:44:30) :
Fred
The real scary thing is that a guy from the wilds of Kenya has become president. Lets hope he has forgotten most of how they manage dissenters.
“a guy from the wilds of Kenya”? Be careful, you’re ethnocentric ignorance is showing.
Reply: I have to agree here. I was hesitant to let the first comment through, but I had to deal with over 100 comments at the time and was a bit rushed. ~ charles the moderator
ew-3 (12:33:04) :
Kerry’s own records are irrelevant. The Navy’s records would be what you need to look at.
I received a Good Conduct medal, and an Army Achievement medal during my very brief 3-year stint in the early 80s. The only “records” I have are the certificates and the medals. Neither indicate what was done to achieve them apart from some vague wording.
If the Navy awarded Kerry three Purple Hearts, then your issue is with the Navy, not Kerry.
As to his shenanigans at home while in uniform, those are certainly something to be concerned about.
Jeff Alberts
Kerry’s permission is required for the Navy to release his medical records. That is the issue of debate.
Since this is the same guy who helps fund James Hansen, I find hilarious that AGW proponents claim that so much as looking at anyone who has ever been involved with the fossil fuel industry, save for giving them the evil eye, would make a scientist so biased as to never be credible again for the rest of their lives. Regardless of what the “sound science” is, it certainly does not automatically dictate any particular policy, as they would so like to make it sound, especially when it seems so obvious that those policies will simply generate a lot of new
tax“climate” revenue while doing little, or, most likely, even nothing to actually reduce CO2 emissions.“I would prefer the debate between Monckton and Gore.”
I’m afraid that Albert vs. the Viscount would be too much like Bambi meets Godzilla. 😉
This quote is from a mathematical physicist at Tulane:
“Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: 28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals.”
Anyone know of a reference for these admissions that Prof Tipler cites here?
Mark (09:30:35) said:
“Because scientists have been debating this for decades and there isn’t any serious debate left among legitimate scientists.”
The only way for this statement to be true is to automatically define any scientist who questions the AGW hypothesis as not “legitimate.” Which, of course, is exactly what people on the AGW side do.
This is the typical tactic of a lot of people on the left of the political spectrum. People who doe not agree with their positions are “illegitimate” or “wignuts” or a “fascist” or take your pick of any of the pejorative adjectives in common use by the left today.
Telling people to listen to their “betters,” weather they be politicians or AGW “scientists,” and not think for themselves is a dangerous path to travel as anybody who knows history will tell you.
So I am sorry Mr Kerry (and Mark), but I have looked at both sides of the debate and found the AGW argument lacking in many ways. And I refuse to change the positions I have come to in a logically and rational manner just because you tell me to.
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.
If you visit the web site of that Jurassic Park author, http://www.crichton-official.com/ you will find a videoed debate in 10 parts in front of a live audience. Two of the participants are Michael Crichton and Gavin Schmidt, the outcome is interesting. This to my knowledge is the ONLY live debate on global warming any of the big guns of AGW have dared to take part. If you view this video you know the reason why these AGW fanatics dare not take part in another debate with audience participation on the same subject.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”
– Michael Palin