Institute for Energy Research president, economist Rob Bradley, posts over at the Master Resource blog about a recent online encounter, between Cato’s Jerry Taylor and the always entertaining Joe Romm from Team Soros, that apparently begged for more. Bradley captures their exchange and summarizes:
Mr. Romm has all but conceded that the skeptics of climate alarmism beat the alarmists in debate, posting about it here and here. He blames it on the dishonesty of the “deniers,” but in fact they might have a much stronger intellectual and practical case. And I dare say that Romm does not feel he did particularly well against Taylor in their online debate and is not itching to debate him again, particularly in person.
But if I am wrong, I say: let’s get a big audience for it. Make the stakes high. Sell tickets. Poll the audience. It will be that entertaining!
We know that the alarmists trotted out the “debate is over!” mantra in hopes of ensuring an actual scientific debate actually never occurred (and that when debates do occur, well, the outcome suggests the alarmists were right to avoid them). Sadly, most debate is found in the context of how, not whether, one should respond through policy to the bogeyman of catastrophic man-made global warming. Well, that argument is a tougher nut to duck by again chanting that it’s over, sorry if you missed it.
Still, my money says that this call will receive as much of a positive response as my running invitation for someone — anyone — to put some meat on the bones of the alarmists’ other you ca-an’t catch me mantra that the overwhelming majority of scientists are on board with their catastrophism (a particular favorite claim of longtime domsayer and possible chief science advisor to the president John Holdren, who has the platform of a looming Senate confirmation hearing to let the world in on their secret!).
Let’s watch and wait. But I wouldn’t hold your . . . that CO2 in your lungs.