[Pvgreens-discussion] Global Warming Forum

[sandylemberg at juno.com]

I suggest that we host a speaker specifically to discuss not only the
issue of Global Warming but specifically WHY, in spite of the fact that, 
while the real debate among scientists is indeed settled, it is far from
settled in the public mind. We can have our speaker address the questions
of WHY large segments of the population still doubt or deny the
measurable, observable reality of global warming AND ITS HUMAN CAUSE, and
HOW this is enabled by a disinformation campaign by Exxon-Mobil and the
rest of the fossil fuel complex. 

We could host this several months from now. I believe it would be a more
straightforward and effective approach.

Sandy

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 07:40:23 +0000 ericfried at comcast.net writes:
> Here's why we should go full speed ahead with this forum. While the 
> real debate among scientists is indeed settled, it is far from 
> settled in the public mind. Large segments of the population still 
> doubt or deny the measurable, observable reality of global warming, 
> helped by a disinformation campaign by Exxon-Mobil and the rest of 
> the fossil fuel complex. Simply saying "Debate's Over - We Won!" 
> does not convince anyone - it strengthens the other side's 
> conviction that we are either bullies or cowards, unable or 
> unwilling to debate the facts. Since the case for global warming is 
> a slam dunk, why is anyone afraid to confront Dr. Gray in public and 
> make it clear to the world that he is out of his depth when he goes 
> to the broader issue of large-scale climate changes from his niche 
> of predicting hurricanes? Because he is a nice guy?? And they are 
> afraid he might be perceived as winning such a debate? That is so 
> weak... 
> 
> As far as I know, Dr. Gray has NEVER engaged in such a public 
> debate, as scientists instead prefer the back and forth volleys of 
> published articles. Some of the world's leading experts on climate 
> change are right here in Fort Collins or in Boulder, as is Gray. We 
> would not be giving him a platform - he already has a sizeable one 
> in the public view. We would be making him step off his platform. I 
> am not debating whether or not global warming is happening - I am a 
> passionate advocate for taking action to halt or at least slow the 
> climate change underway. I just think debunking one of the iconic 
> contrarians in the field, on his home turf, might be the single 
> greatest contribution our little band of greens can do to advance 
> our cause. I want to treat Dr. Gray with the civility and respect he 
> deserves (we all deserve), but tear his false arguments to shreds 
> with real science. I mean come on: the White House/executive 
> branch/science establishment is only funding pro-global warming 
> resear
> ch and shutting down the opposing view? This is the BUSH White House 
> we are discussing. Absurd. 
> 
> So, tomorrow I will be making more calls to find the best person to 
> debate against him. We decided several meetings ago to do this, and 
> that train has already left the station. It is time to make this 
> happen, not second-guess ourselves.
> 
> I would like to add that I think Sandy has conducted himself 
> honorably and transparently on this matter, and I applaud that, even 
> though we disagree on the best way forward. Per his instructions, I 
> declined to send the large pdf files to this discussion list, but 
> they are available on request from him.
> 
> -------------- Original message -------------- 
> From: sandylemberg at juno.com 
> 
> > I agreed to work on finding a speaker for the proposed Global 
> Warming 
> > Forum to present the consensus position which is opposed by Bill 
> Gray. 
> > The first person I called, who wishes to remain anonymous, 
> persuaded me 
> > that this forum is not a good idea. I am pasting below information 
> I 
> > received from that person which supports that position. 
> > 
> > Additionally, I am forwarding separately two large pdf files. 
> Those 
> > emails are likely to be blocked by the PV Greens email list 
> because of 
> > their size. I am asking that the moderator of the PV Greens list 
> allow 
> > them through, since they are essential to our discussion. 
> > 
> > I am suggesting that the PV Greens reconsider the idea and 
> consider 
> > cancelling the forum. I hope this discussion can be conducted 
> entirely by 
> > email and that we can agree to cancel the forum well before our 
> next PV 
> > Greens meeting. 
> > 
> > Because I now oppose the idea of this forum, I am abdicating. 
> effective 
> > immediately, from any efforts to put it together. 
> > 
> > Thanks for your attention, Sandy Lemberg 
> > 
> > “A debate would be giving Bill Gray's views equal time with the 
> > mainstream scientific views that are closer to my own. His views 
> do not 
> > deserve equal time, because they are representative of only a very 
> tiny 
> > fraction of scientists -- 1% at most. A debate would give the 
> impression 
> > that there is actually a scientific controversy, when the truth is 
> that 
> > there isn't. A debate plays into the hands of the skeptics. 
> > 
> > The web site 
> > 
> > http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp 
> > 
> > contains the following quote, which I agree with: 
> > 
> > “To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on 
> climate 
> > change, a recent study examined every article on climate change 
> published 
> > in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 
> 928 
> > articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them 
> disagreed 
> > with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is 
> > human-induced. 
> > 
> > These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's 
> reporting 
> > on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate 
> change 
> > in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, 
> Washington Post, 
> > LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found 
> that 
> > more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave 
> equal 
> > weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics. 
> > 
> > This discrepancy is largely due to the media’s drive for balance 
> in 
> > reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any 
> issue, 
> > and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides 
> with 
> > roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, the “balance” of the 
> different 
> > views within the media does not always correspond with the actual 
> > prevalence of each view within society, and can result in 
> unintended 
> > bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and 
> as a 
> > result, many people believe that climate change is still being 
> debated by 
> > scientists when in fact it is not.” “ 
> > _______________________________________________ 
> > Pvgreens-discussion mailing list 
> > Pvgreens-discussion at pvgreens.org 
> > http://pvgreens.org/mailman/listinfo/pvgreens-discussion