Let’s Have the Debate on Global Warming

The Global Warming debate has hit an impasse. Those who believe that there is irreversible catastrophic man-made warming turn a deaf ear to any skepticism, while those who are not convinced are becoming increasingly skeptical. The recent leaking, global warming advocates call it ‘stealing,’ of email communications from the climate study group on which all of the scientific conclusions are based, reveal a pattern of unscientific behavior.

It is obvious that the scientists charged with studying global were personally, and financially, dedicating to proving that man is causing a global train wreck, and that reducing CO2 emissions is the only way to avoid a disaster of massive proportions. Enough is enough. We are talking about science here.

Those who believe in the theory are anxious to declare the debate to be over, and label anyone who questions how they arrived at their conclusion to be a ‘denier,’ or worse. Science is never “settled,” as they are now trying to assert. A few facts are in order, then a proposal that will end the debate, or at least put it on a more logical and scientifically sound track.

First fact, it is completely unacceptable that one institution, rather obscure until the global warming issue, has the only set of keys to the study of climate kingdom. The email leaks show that, in their fervor to prove the global warming theory, head scientists fought the release of raw data, and deliberately deleted data rather than letting it out of their control.

Second, it is not in step with normal scientific protocol for all the data and analysis to be done in one place, by one group of people, as is the case with the global warming theory. There are claims that other study groups have reached the same conclusion independently, but when closely examined, it inevitably turns out that the data they relied on was not independently acquired, but based on the single source of data, which has now been destroyed.

Third, for a scientific conclusion, or at least, a consensus of opinion to be reached, there has to be a vigorous, no holds barred, open debate at which theories are laid out, attacked and defended. That has not happened with the global warming debate, despite the fact it is being used to turn the structure of the entire world on its ear.

How to resolve this? Here is a proposal that could change the way the global warming debate is being conducted and take the politics out of the center of the debate. Let’s allocate US$1 Billion and one calendar year to get the job done the right way. Considering what the cost estimates are for avoiding a sea change in the world’s economy, a billion does not even rise to the level of chump change. And, given the fact that we are nowhere near doing anything about it, one year is a hiccup.

We take the billion and cut it in half. One half goes to the pro global warming camp and the other half goes to the skeptics. Since any scientific debate is based on advocacy of a theory, the pro side has to put forth its theory in scientific terms. The anti side then gets to attack the theory in an attempt to prove it incorrect. Each month, there will be a debate between the two sides, broadcast live to the world, and published in print. After the 12 monthly debates, there should be a clearer understanding of the issue by everyone.

There are a lot of details to be worked out, but instead of holding a pep rally for global warming, like Copenhagen, a world wide conference to implement this scientific debate should be held.