Climate debate

Last Tuesday I went along to the “Supper club” event, where the topic was why some environmentalists seem to enjoy pessimism, and the similarities between some AGW-alarmists and religious fanatics. As was the intention for the Supper club, there was not agreement, and we all had a good time telling each other how wrong we all were.

The presentation was given by Paul Comrie-Thomsons (from ABC’s counterpoint) and afterwards he mentioned to me a website that would be of interest to people who want to follow the climate debate — Climate Debate Daily.

I quickly followed a random link, and found the website of Climate Skeptic. In one of the discussions, and AGW-proponent asked a few questions which sparked a less-than-friendly response from another commentator. The author (Stevo) then politely responded to the original questions and asked the other commentator to be more polite. Bravo! There is so little reasoned and polite debate about this issue that it’s nice to find a place for friendly discussion.

The consequence was that the questioner ended up taking the skeptical argument more seriously.

6 thoughts on “Climate debate

  1. Climate Skeptic seems like a reasonable site.

    I really liked this article:-

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html

    What it does is looks at predictions made by a prominant climate model from 20 years ago and examines how accurate or inaccurate that model has proven to be. Not very accurate according to the article. Now of course we could argue that climatology has learnt a lot in 20 years and our models today are far more accurate. However only time can allow us to validate that claim. I’ll respect a model when I see it consistently predict the future with a high degree of fidelity, not when I see it successfully model past data. If it can do the latter then it is worth a look but no more than that. Only when a model makes successful predictions of the future, the future that comes after the formulation of the model, can we say it is representative of reality. And even then representative is qualify by the old adage that “the map is not the terrain”.

  2. Wow Temujin –

    Frank Furedi is no small beans as a challenging speaker.

    I think you are telling us this get together happens in Sydney, but not sure if this is an open or closed event ? The piccies suggest a squeezy table at least ??

    And delighted to see your report that a ‘turn the other cheek’ response turned down some potential heat in a climate debate ( any site ) blogwar. No pun intended.

    I harbour grave personal concerns abut the lack of civility shown by some in the blogosphere.

    Any more clues about ‘Supper Club’ ?

    Thanks
    Kev

  3. What it does is looks at predictions made by a prominant climate model from 20 years ago and examines how accurate or inaccurate that model has proven to be. Not very accurate according to the article. Now of course we could argue that climatology has learnt a lot in 20 years and our models today are far more accurate. However only time can allow us to validate that claim.

    Another interpretation would be that the author is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

    The climate model is predicting global surface temperatures, whereas the red lines are from tropospheric temperatures. Apples and oranges.

    Climate skeptic or dishonest pseudoscientist?

  4. What’s your interpretation, Ken? And why do you immediately assume someone is pulling the wool over our eyes.

    Not for nothing, but you really show the intolerance exhibited by religious freakouts over this issue. Don’t be sacred, Ken. .7 degrees of warming over 100 years is not the end of times.

    The cooling since 2002 out make you break out in a rhapsodical Gregorian chant of some sort…. er well maybe a rap in this day and age.

  5. Kev —

    The Supper Club’s not a closed event at all. We’re more than happy to welcome new people into the argument – and the more argumentative they are, the better.

    We try to keep each individual event relatively small and casual to facilitate real interactions and conversation, but the Furedi event isn’t at capacity yet, so if you’d like to come along, you can email us at thoughtbroker@gmail.com.

    Look forward to hearing from you,

    Parnell

Comments are closed.