Do You Think It Would Be A Good Idea To Televise A Debate Of Pro And Con Global Warming Scientists ?

Question

When I say 'pro and con' I'm referring to those who believe man is responsible for global warming and those who disagree . 50 -50 .
Let them speak their views . Let them confront and challenge each other .

Let them debate . And let us decide

What do you think ?

Jasmine - Now THAT was funny !!

AJ - Dude , do you have any idea of what you're talking about ? The issue is not 'decided' and you, my young little friend are completely wrong . Honestly man , whoever told you that is a flat-out liar .

WOW MAN , some of you are completely brain-washed into thinking that there is no debate . WOW . Very revealing .

NOTE : I never planned on this , but this question reveals who is a mature thinking adult and who is not .

Answer 1

Sounds great...and we should have a snow man ask the questions too. Oh wait, that was already done. lol Can they do this during a live concert held around the world?

Answer 2

I think it would be interesting and I think those who have legitimate questions about some of the claims being made would tune in too watch. However, as you can see by several of the answers you received many have already made up their minds and any opinion which doesn't fit that mindset will be ignored, or they will attempt to discredit (i.e. claims that any opinion which doesn't accept the global warming theory must be a schill for oil companies). These are the people who claim to be interested in science, but only when it supports their view of the way things are. Talk about flat earthers, they cannot even accept the possiblity that the models and theories may be incorrect.

ducky: Are these the same scientists who have decided that once they have a concensus no further research should ever be conducted? Gimme a break. Scientists are no better than anyone else, if they are not willing to defend and explain their positions then they are hacks. Further, scientists debate each other all the time at conferences. How would this be any different other than having to do it in front of a larger and more critical audience?

Answer 3

Sure, it would be hard to find many scientists to debate the side that humans aren't responsible, but it would be a great idea because listening to the scientists would help educate the masses about the science behind global warming. As is evident from Y!A, most people don't have the first clue about the issue. For example, the fact that natural causes can't account for the acceleration of global warming:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

If people would just take a little time to research the science this wouldn't be necessary, but there's no better way to reach Americans than by going on TV.

Answer 4

You'll never convince the brainwashed Al Gore followers. They just pass off any scientist that doesn't buy into the man made global warming scare, as someone that has been paid off by the oil companies.

Then again, we could just say that all the Al Gore scientists are paid off by Al Gore, his carbon credit company, ethanol farmers and organizations like the Sierra Club!

I'd love to see a debate between top scientists!

Answer 5

I saw a thing about a month ago - scientist - discussing this very issue - 1 degree in 100 years, nothing to get excited about.

What about the ice age that was going to bury us all - think that was 30-50 years ago.

My dad "is" a scientist and he thinks this whole thing is funny. Funny meaning that people believe this by what they are being told = not by doing research.

I would challenge any body - if I set up 10 isolated rooms and had every room - but one - at 70F. The one room, the tenth one, to be set to 71F - trust me no one would be able to tell the difference of one degree, let alone one degree in 100 years. Every thermostat fluctuates by one or two degrees. .

Answer 6

I would like to see that debate. I used to be a gung-ho, humans are not responsible, but although I still feel that it is a natural cycle, and nothing we can do will stop it, I think the excess CO2 may be contributing.

However, one good idea for such a debate is for both sides to agree, before it starts, that no matter what they decide, we still need to clean up our world. Even if we are not responsible for global warming at all, we still need to clean up the pollution regardless.

Answer 7

There is a Pro! Okay, if Global warming persists and it soon causes another ice age, it would in turn kill all of the bacteria and viruses on earth, because of the extreme cold. any surviving humans wouldnt be afftected by these bacterium.

Answer 8

It would be a good debate if both sides presented facts as facts and theories as theories. Let Al Gore and Michael Moore debate their waist size.

Answer 9

Rhetorically and theoretically speaking the debate is ongoing, just not with the same moderator or on the same show. As you have asked, yes it may educate some folks which seem to be easily brainwashed by big media and the leftist liberal control syndicate called television.

The reality is that only the likes of Al Gore and Michael Moore will be permitted to show their opinions as facts without obscurities and other typical BS.

Answer 10

Yes I would think that would be very produtive towards getting to the truth of the matter.

I am actually surprised someone like Tavis Smiley or Charlie Rose hasn't already done this!

Answer 11

If they could evenly match it, I think it would be great.

A few years ago, Alan Keyes and Alan Dershowitz had an orderly debate regarding religion. I loved it. These kind of debates would be good if they could get into prime time T.V. Would anyone watch? I don't know.

Good one Jasmine!