The Debate Canard

Bradford Plumer of The New Republic is upset with the state of the climate change debate:

Is this what the climate-change debate has come to? Just two years ago, after Barack Obama’s victory, environmental groups were ecstatic at the prospect that the United States might finally do something serious about climate change. But now, after the cap-and-trade bill failed in the Senate and Republicans won big at the midterms, it’s the skeptics who are riding high in Congress—so high, in fact, that they barely feel the need to argue their case.

Since the alarmists' plans would cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year, isn't the burden on them to make their case? Have they?

Plumer laments the Republican plan to block EPA regulation of carbon emissions:

If you don’t believe climate change is a problem (or real), then of course most of these new carbon rules are pointlessly pricey. And, within the Republican Party, the belief that global warming is a made-up non-problem has become thoroughly ingrained—so much so that it’s no longer even worth justifying or debating.

I love a good debate. If you go on You Tube, you can find people debating all sorts of issues: from abortion to zoology. Christopher Hitchens, alone, has had dozens of debates about the existence of God.

However, the number of climate change debates is miniscule. There is a simple reason for this: alarmists get creamed.

Intelligence Squared US hosted a global warming debate in 2007. For 100 minutes, two panels argued over the following motion: Global Warming Is Not a Crisis. The audience was polled before and after the event. The pre-debate numbers were: 30% for the motion, 57% against, and 13% undecided. After the debate, the numbers were 46% for the motion, 42% against, and 12% undecided. In less than two hours, the alarmists had lost more than a quarter of their supporters!

The same organization hosted a second debate in 2009. This time the motion was: Major Reductions In Carbon Emissions Are Not Worth the Money. Pre-debate, the audience voted 16% for the motion, 50% against, and 35% undecided. After the debate, the undecideds had moved toward the skeptics. It was now 42% for the motion, 48% against, and 10% undecided.

In a focused debate, global warming alarmism withers under the scrutiny. It's easy to make a 90 minute film presenting the alarmist argument. But, it's much more difficult to answer questions from the opposition. That's why Al Gore will not debate the issue. But, I'm not just picking on the former vice president. Few alarmists of any background will debate global warming. Last August, filmmaker James Cameron (Titanic, Avatar) backed out of a global warming debate the day before it was to occur. Why the sudden cold feet? If the case for alarm is undeniable, what was he worried about?

Again, the two debates I've linked to are rarities. Alarmists loathe getting on the stage with skeptics, which shows that they are conscious of the weaknesses in their arguments. They need to spend less time demonizing the Republicans and more time improving their case. The fact that they don't is reason to suspect their motives.