Heartland Debate Challenge Update, May 3, 2007

Thu, 2007-05-03 17:00Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Heartland Debate Challenge Update, May 3, 2007

DeSmog Debate Challenge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the Heartland Institute being such passionate defenders of smokers' rights I thought for sure they would be interested in a debate on the subject.

After what we thought was some constructive dialogue towards making this event happen, the Heartland seems to now be playing a bit of duck and cover.

In the meantime, please enjoy some past posts we have done on the Heartland Institute or the entry for Heartland over at Sourcewatch.

Comments



Of course all this is a sideshow by you to distract attention from the fact that GORE STILL REFUSES TO ENGAGE IN AN HONEST DEBATE.

I am making a point. Tell me what a debate between Gore and Monckton would accomplish. Debate over issues of science belong in the peer-reviewed journals amongst scientists.

Hypothesis — conclusion — peer review — publish, repeat as necessary.  

Agreed, that is the nature of any scientific debate and discussion. Media debates are best left to politicians where public debates on policy are their arena. Science isnt supposed to be reduced to soundbites and public sway, thats not how it works, it requires careful critical examination. If anything the only debate Gore should conduct would be a policy debate and let scientists continue to debate out the specifics of global warming climate change as they have been currently, which has denialists on the fridge unable to publish their garbage.


“I am making a point.”

Really? Sorry, I didn’t notice for some reason.

“Tell me what a debate between Gore and Monckton would accomplish.”

Why not have one and find out? Or is there something you’d rather not find out?

“Debate over issues of science belong in the peer-reviewed journals amongst scientists.”

The debate to which Gore has been challenged, and seems to be afraid to participate is: Is Global Warming a Crisis?.

That is not a scientific debate. That is a political debate. Gore is a politician, and should therefore be fully qualified to defend his position – Assuming he can.

“Hypothesis — conclusion — peer review — publish, repeat as necessary.”

Interestingly, you have omitted a tiny detail which generally comes before “conclusion” – that would be evidence.

Gore refuses to engage in a "debate" featuring mudslinging and ad hominems against the top climate scientists on the planet.

Eco-H*****, face it. There is no debate. You are wrong.

“Gore refuses to engage in a “debate” featuring mudslinging and ad hominems against the top climate scientists on the planet.”

Of course not. That’s where Desmogblog.com comes in.
I am curious why DeSmog keeps attacking the Heartland Institute. Why do they keep trying to divert the debate on global warming to smoking. Heartland has a very staunch position on Smoking. They never deny that it is bad for you. They ask that people realize how unfairly smokers are taxed and that people have rights even if they are smokers. That is one position of many that Heartland takes up. Why are you attacking them on that instead of attacking them on their position on global warming? The science is sound by the critics of mand-made global warming. They urge people to look at the many other distinct and powerful possiblites other than just man-made CO2. In fact many don’t disagree that CO2 is increasing and that this is not a good sign. They however, argue that there are many other factors that play in and to take this and turn it political and use tax schemes against individuals and business is not appropriate. You can’t tax the sun so lets tax big business or so they line of thought goes. Its time people stopped being emotional and using their disdain for business and progress in an effort to tax and and strike fear into the hearts of citizens. This is a new and developing science that will continue to uncover something new each year. People need to stop the panic mode and think rationally about this. Also, the attack on Joe Bast are pretty petty guys. Aren’t you any better thant that? Personal attacks make your position look weak. I know you don’t need to go there so why? Finally, Bast has responded on their blog. www.fromtheheartland.org. Why hasn’t anyone argued it point by point. Is it that you don’t have an answer! LETS ALL GROW UP!

The DeSmogBlog is attacking the Heartland Institute because they do not engage in sound scientific investigation. They simply engage in public relations campaigns which are intended to create confusion and to prevent the general public from seeing, hearing, and reading the truth, let alone understanding it.

What the Heartland Institute has done in the past (i.e. the 1970s and 1980s) in trying to portray smoking as a safe activity was repulsive. The same applies with climate change. They try to deflect public attention from the real culprit which warms the planet (i.e. CO2 and other greenhouse gases which we are emitting into the atmosphere through industry, transportation, etc.) to things which are having a minimal effect on global temperature fluctuations at best (i.e. solar cycles, volcanism, etc.).

Jeff, the DeSmogBlog is not attacking Joe personally. That is, they are not calling him names like "bastard", etc. They are attacking his motives, agenda, tactics, and lack of objectivity relating to the science of climate change and his apparent ideological blindness.

[x]

DIE you maggot,” reads one of the hundreds of emails from climate science deniers that have dropped into philosopher Lawrence Torcello’s inbox in recent days.

“Fortunately, your kind will be marched to the wall with all the other leftist detritus,” says another.

Others accuse Torcello, an assistant professor at Rochester Institute of Technology’s Department of...

read more