- Inhofe
=================================================
By Steve Milloy JunkScience.com
So the debate’s not over after all. We’d pay for ringside seats.
From Politico:
Ralph Nader put on his Don King hat Monday with the hope of inspiring a made-for-TV showdown between two Capitol Hill stalwarts on global warming.
The consumer activist and former presidential candidate pitched the idea of Republican Sen. Jim Inhofe meeting Democratic Rep. Ed Markey in a 90-minute televised debate on the ins and outs of climate change science and policy.
“Clearly you are a man of your convictions on this subject,” Nader wrote in a letter to Inhofe, of Oklahoma, who is the most outspoken climate skeptic on Capitol Hill. “Just as clearly, Rep. Ed Markey is a man of his convictions on this topic.”
“People I know in Oklahoma say that you do not run away from challenges and challengers to your beliefs,” Nader added. “But the Senate floor is not exactly the place for an extended debate; it is more a place for parallel soliloquies.”
Nader suggested a debate “with [a] mutually agreed upon moderator and rules at a mutually convenient time and place, preferably on Capitol Hill.” The debate should appear on cable television, “certainly over C-SPAN”…
Gotta love Markey’s response to the invitation. Itz a “the science is settled, glad you asked” response.
“Congressman Markey would gladly discuss with Sen. Inhofe the over 100 years of science that proves carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are raising the temperature of the Earth and changing the chemistry of the oceans,” said Markey spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder.”
Inhofe will carbonize Markey.
This could be good.
Mano a mano, cage match to the death, no quarter given, winner take all, to the victor go the climate change spoils.
Yeah. Could be good. 🙂
Usually these things tend to get canceled by the “consensifiers.” I hope it isn’t in this case since I get the impression that Inhofe is a pretty bright guy while Markey…..
Not too late, maybe, hopefully.
I for one would love to see change in the policy of my Nation in regards to Climate change.The fact is that there is no money to be made by making change…Or is there?I believe that the one sided opinions against or for are both causing more harm than good in the middle or better yet an outside perspective that challenges both sides is one that may bring about an acceptable solution and perhaps considering the other sides perception may have some truth may do so as well. I look forward to watching the debate and hope both will walk away more enlightened and show more care in the future of our planet! I know we all count on our leaders to care for our Earth!
Start popping the popcorn ! ( . .ok it isn’t set yet, just hoping . . )
And how about allowing each man to have extra person in their corner to help them if needed . . I can see it now, Moncton vs. Gore . . . !
. . . better triple that amount of popcorn . . !
Debates regarding scientific issues, particularly between politicians, are meaningless other than for entertainment value.
Mark
Edit:
Your front page link to JunkScience no longer shows any path to the article. Here’s the correct link: http://junkscience.com/2011/12/12/nader-markey-inhofe-should-debate-climate/
At 9:14 PM on 12 December, Zorro asserts:
I wouldn’t repose that much trust in any of these Red Faction wheelhorses.
In the words of libertarian writer L. Neil Smith:
Understanding, of course, that the great exception to this rule is Dr. Ron Paul.
I’m guessing Markey will pull a James Cameron and chicken out at the last minute.
But I sure hope he doesn’t! Markey is a poster idiot for the AGW Project.
Markey’s not a senator.
Politicians debating science … ought to be carried on Comedy Central.
These guys might be able to talk policy but having them give a sense of the science at a time when real climate scientists can’t even agree if clouds warm or cool the planet. I foresee 90 minutes of two elected representative talking past one another to their bases, who don’t need any convincing to begin with. I would prefer a real scientific debate between scientists that are passionate in their positions.
Just explain one thing:
Why was the warming from 1910 to 1940 not “catastrophic” or anthropogenic but a warming period 60 years later of exactly the same rate and duration is “catastrophic”. And if the 1970-2000 warming (which has now apparently ceased just as it did in 1940) was caused by CO2, what caused the nearly identical earlier period? And finally, if CO2 emission rates have increased even more since 2000, why has there been to rising trend in temperatures and in fact a cooling trend since 2005?
Markey is not a Senator. He might be one if he had tried to run for Ted Kennedy’s seat.
I think Markey might win this debate. Inhofe’s statements are not the strongest scientifically. Like when he took on those protesters who thought they’d ambush him on camera.
And I would point to this chart as a reference for my questions:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2004/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1975/to:2004/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1942/to:1975/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1942/to:1975/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1911/to:1942/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1911/to:1942/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1879/to:1911/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1879/to:1911/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1879/plot/hadcrut3gl/from/to:1879/trend
Well, they’d both get 3nd chairs wouldn’t they?
Markey would of course get Al Gore, who negotiated and signed Kyoto and has a Nobel Prize plus a major movie and a recent television series complete with a “science” experiment.
Inhofe could recruit…Willis?
The fact it is being discussed by two POLITICIANS settles the issue.
Science should be debated by scientists (in every case – not politicians).
Inhofe should mop the floor with Markey, but he’d better be sure about the setting and terms of the debate. Leftists are good at setting up sham events that make it difficult to have rational, balanced discussions. I’ve heard and read enough of Markey to know he’ll be a ranting imbecile unless he is really well coached and resolves to behave himself.
I guess intellectual luminaries such as Barbara Boxer and Henry Waxman were unavailable on the far-left California side of the aisle.
In other news, if you have “missing heat” or “missing money” and need an explanation, the guy for the job is Jon Corzine.
I really wish republican politicians in the US would get the heck out of the climate business. That is because they are completely insane. Their advocacy therefore harms the issues they support.
For example consider this . Note how the article cleverly attacks NZ Prime Minster John Key by associating him with republicans on the issue of climate change. Nasty.
Personally I can live with being called a `denier’. But if people start calling me a republican, I’ll probably have to shoot myself.
At 10:15 PM on 12 December, Cynical scientist laments:
Now, now. Never attribute to clinical psychopathology what is better explained by corruption and stupidity.
Consider, Cynical scientist, that were they subject to criminal prosecution (as at the very least the preponderance of them should be), would any of these “republican politicians in the US” be able to essay a diminished capacity defense?
===
“In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”
— H.L. Mencken
Martin Clauss says:
December 12, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Start popping the popcorn ! ( . .ok it isn’t set yet, just hoping . . )
And how about allowing each man to have extra person in their corner to help them if needed . . I can see it now, Moncton vs. Gore . . . !
. . . better triple that amount of popcorn . . !
Why Gore would have to tap out after 30 sec, light out, go home early.
davidmhoffer says:
December 12, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Inhofe could recruit…Willis?
Nah, Inhofe doesn’t inhale, while Willis, I believe, wouldn’t work for a heartless snob who doesn’t pick up young and healthy hitchhikers unwilling to earn enough money to buy a used car.
What is the scientific/mathematical backgrounds for these political debators. Have any of them done graduate level work? If so, they may have at least taken a statistics course. Really, I think one reason why there are as many gullible AGWers as there are, is that after JFK’s push for the U.S. to reach the moon, there was a slow-down if not a backlash against STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in our educational system. Hopefully the eventual demise of the AGW paradigm will awaken John Q. Public to the importance of STEM in the education of the general public. It can help save your pocket book, folks!
At 9:47 PM on 12 December, Leon Brozyna had written:
Well, they couldn’t put it on Sprout, could they?
PBS’ leftie-luser bigotries notwithstanding, my least grandkid is six years old, and to the extent that she’s representative of first-graders and pre-schoolers generally, that’s much too tough a “room” for anything Ed Markey is ever going to bloviate.