We Need to Talk About Climate (To Each Other) – Watts Up With That?

Ned Komar

Among professionals who work on the climate issue (the “Climate Community”), there is a long-standing reluctance to engage in conversation with people who don’t consider that the climate is in crisis.

Due to this reluctance, there are exceedingly few recorded debates between members of the Community and those from the outside with an appropriate level of expertise to make for a lively and educational dialogue (but there are some, and below, I’ve listed all of the debates that I have been able to find).

I find the lack of debate to be frustrating.  In my case, I am skeptical of the idea that the earth’s climate is in crisis.  To me, the skeptical arguments seem to be more likely to be correct than the alarmist arguments.  Two important reasons for my skepticism: 1) The few actual debates I have had the pleasure to witness have been won by the skeptic(s). 2) The skeptics I speak to appear confident in their views and are eager to debate people from the Community; members of the Community, conversely, display what seems like a tribal attitude and either are hesitant, or in many cases, just unwilling to debate.

I am willing to be proven wrong regarding my skepticism.  But I can’t be bullied into changing my view.  It would take a reasoned argument, juxtaposed against arguments from the skeptic side of the debate.  And I’ve been following this issue for over 25 years.  For the average person curious about climate, but new to the issue, I would guess that it is quite hard to find arguments on both sides in order to make an informed decision for themselves.  While the question of how climate works is a question of Science, the culture that has developed around the issue is a culture of Politics.  Consequently, a search on the internet for articles on climate will return a politically curated batch.

I’ve been working on a project for the last 2-½ years to transform the situation described above.  It’s called Climate Verso.  Currently the project consists of a podcast, with only a few episodes published to date.  It can be found on any podcast platform: https://theclimateversopodcast.buzzsprout.com/

More episodes will be dropping over the next few months, and I’m totally open to help from anyone interested in getting involved.  The format of the podcast is a dialogue between two climate professionals with differing perspectives.  I am the moderator of the discussions.  Please listen to either or both of the episodes published so far. The first is Matthew Wielicki and Peter Fiekowsky debating the efficacy and risks of Ocean Fertilization.  The 2nd is a wide ranging conversation between Judith Curry and Andrew Revkin about how the climate issue became polarized over the last 40 years. 

—

As promised, here’s the list of debates that I am familiar with.  Please reply in the comments with any that I may have missed:

In 2006, The National Academy of Sciences held a 2-day symposium on PaleoClimate.  Speakers included Michael Mann, Steve McIntyre, Hans von Storch, Ross McKitrick and Macolm Hughes.  I was lucky to be in the audience, and just came across a brief report I wrote on my experience there: