After challenging skeptics of global warming to a shoot-out only five months ago, director James Cameron is now running for cover, Climate Depot reports:
[Cameron] challenged three high profile global warming skeptics to a public debate at a global warming and energy conference. But Cameron backed out of the debate at the last minute after environmentalists ‘came out of the woodwork’ to warn him not to engage in a debate with skeptics because it was not in his best interest.
UPDATE: Cameron calls his jilted rivals “swine.”
UPDATE II: A spokesman explains Cameron’s sudden bout of stage fright: “Morano is not at James Cameron’s level to debate, and that’s why that didn’t happen. . . . Cameron should be debating someone who is similar to his stature in our society.”
Of course. "Don't debate the skeptics because it will only give them attention and make it seem like they might actually have a point. Best to just ignore their arguments and impugn their motives from a distance."
Which belies the notion that the Green crowd believes in "science" -- I always thought "real scientists" were supposed to be skeptical and welcome debate!!
(It's also a stitch that Cameron thinks he knows enough to debate on scientific/economic/political topics and win. After all he got rich making hoaky movies, he must know what he's talking about. Hollywood's hubris is always good for a laugh.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is just that his original challenge was taken out of context. He meant, not someone actually competent in the field and capable of rational thought, but high profile in the sense of a Vegas showgirl (some of them have very high profiles). Bambi, though she might prove a tough challenge, is at least at his level.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess the younger generation is pretty far gone if they saw the movie "Avatar" as a case for greenism. What I saw was a race of people living like animals, without even rudimentary shelter from the rain -- a metereological event which must have been very frequent to be able to support the lush forest the Na'vi lived in. I kept thinking of the hundreds of species of parasites that must be swarming all over the Na'vi, of their inability to treat disease, of their constant discomfort and short life expectancies. Then there was the unelected tribal hierarchy they had to live under, made all the more destructive of the spirit by the fact that each subject of the tribal ruler came equipped with plug-in hardware for forced invasions of their private thoughts. Then there was the scientific fact that a moon of Pandora's size would necessarily be tidally locked to its host planet, meaning just one day-night cycle per orbit. Then there was the fact that, each time that Pandora traveled through the shadow of its gas giant host, its surface temperatures would plunge to three figures below zero. But I guess I was just a Liberal Arts major, not a man of science like Cameron.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe trouble is that most people have set their views, it's a very old debate at this point. It's similar to discussing soft science topics like "developments in mental health". You're never going to get to a math proof or even causation models or experiments. So the public isn't going to engage or be engaged on the science end.
AGW is all about politcal motives which often define the two camps. Those who tend to fault people and promote statist controls and those who oppose government. In as much as debates expose the politcal motives of AGW as a tool to increase the state they are useful. The digression is sinking into abstract climate science which is far closer to "Economics" than say "Physics, Math or Chemistry". That isn't to say unprovable abstrations don't haunt those areas as well.
What's really sad as the basic part of "science" was far more closely linked to "proof" in the not so recent past. Perhaps due to the technology revolution itself science experts were raised to a point that they could abuse their political bias on various "green" beliefs. AGW being one of the most abusive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Cameron should be debating someone who is similar to his stature in our society.” Well, excuse the heck out me! Such enlightened persons as Cameron are our betters of course.
I did not know that dung had stature. Insufferable hubris.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIsn't the point of a debate to "beat" the opposing view (or debater)? If this is true, then Cameron should be eager to debate someone he believes isn't as capable as he is. This would seem to be a "guaranteed" win for those who believe in AGW.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse