Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 6:30 PM ET, 05/19/2008

Oval Office Debate on Global Warming?

By Capital Weather Gang

AccuWeather senior meteorologist Joe Bastardi has some advice for the President-elect to be:

Within the first 100 days of office, get the top five SCIENTISTS on both sides of the issue in front of you in the oval office and let them argue it out. No cameras, no press, just you, your closest advisors, and the people that are qualified to do this.

What do you think of this idea?

By Capital Weather Gang  | May 19, 2008; 6:30 PM ET
Categories:  Climate Change  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CommuteCast: Calm Before the (Next) Storm
Next: Forecast: Rain Drain

Comments

Seems like a dumb idea.

Posted by: Period | May 19, 2008 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I would honestly want to the president of the united states and other governments around the world to come together in a meeting sharing ideas and opinions as to what they can do in saving our planet.

Posted by: Tyrone hewitt (jamaica) | May 19, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

The vast majority of reputable scientists - those untainted by corporate sponsorship - agree that global warming is an evidence based fact and almost certainly attributable (90%) to a significant degree by human activities. Any group of scientists must therefore be composed of a mostly "believers", not 5/5. Anything otherwise is the same as giving equal credence to those who ague the earth is flat in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Fortunately, each of the prospective presidential candidates are in touch with reality and recognize the fallacy of the meeting as proposed!

Posted by: Steve Tracton | May 19, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

"No press"? If the arguments/conclusions of the meeting were never published, there would be no point. And if they were, what the scientists would say would certainly be influenced by politics.
I say that, like Tyrone, the world leaders should come together, but also with the world's top scientists in this field.

In the end, though, we need action, not speech. Regardless of whether or not there is global warming, we need to stop negatively affecting the Earth.

Posted by: Model Monkey | May 19, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather the top five scientists come together and stop global warming.

Posted by: mcleaNed | May 19, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

Neither of the soon-to-be nominees (Obama and McCain) are qualified to determine who is right. That is why they have advisers.

Swing and a miss, Mr. Bastardi.

Posted by: jtf | May 19, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

I'd rather the top 5 scientist come to the agreement that global warming is a farce, like acid rain in the 80's.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Good idea. While they're at it they should take on evolution and gravity too.

Posted by: mtr | May 20, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

What if the top 5 scientists had a rave? At least it would get the media coverage...

Posted by: mcleaNed | May 20, 2008 2:24 AM | Report abuse

There is no such thing as a "scientist" who denies it. "Schill" maybe.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 6:30 AM | Report abuse

I would much rather the top 5 scientist's come together from each country than those country's leaders.

@Model Monkey,
"What's the point?" Mr Bastardi is hoping that the nominee would have an open mind on the subject, and lead from the position established at this political "summit." Influencing the president is the point.

@jtf:
I think Bastardi's point was to get the argument in front of the president, as opposed to the heated and biased media and capital hill exchanges we see now. If we have a change in our policies, it is going to come from the WH, not the Hill imo. And for that to happen, it is going to have to be led by Scientific community, not the oil companies or greenpeace.

@Skeptic's Sketpics:
As Steve Tracton said, most all scientists believe and agree that the earth is warming. Where the disagreement lies is in the effects of this warming and the portion that can be attributed to (and controlled) by man.

There is a conversation to be had here, and I would personally applaud the future president if he (or she) went out and actually listened to what the different sides had to say, and took action. The worst thing that can happen is if we do nothing (no matter right or wrong)

Posted by: Jamie Jones | May 20, 2008 7:09 AM | Report abuse

I believe a critical point is that for the last eight years politics has trumped science; It seems that whichever side wins the presidential election, there's hope this will change. But, it's rarely possible to equate hope with expectation whenever politics is involved.

Posted by: Steve Tracton | May 20, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

If a group of scientists to consult are "believers" and not then having 90% believers only counts if we are "voting" on the science. Having experts from both sides represented is crucial to determining truth, difficult to find even in science these days.

Posted by: missy | May 20, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

According to this article -
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009552
--begin quote--
Al Gore is on a mission. If he has his way, we could end up choosing a future, based on dubious claims, that could cost us, according to a U.N. estimate, $553 trillion over this century. Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously.
--end quote--

553 TRILLION DOLLARS

Even if the U.S. only bears one third of that cost, that would be $184 trillion dollars.

Let's put that in perspective -
In 2007, the Federal government took in 2.5 trillion dollars in revenue.
The Iraq war will cost us, depending upon the source you reference, approximately 2 trillion dollars.

So the U.S.'s burden of this endeavor will be approximately 73 years worth of the entire Federal budget. Or, approximately 91 Iraq wars.

Hmmmm... so should we have a debate about it before spending the money?

Let me think?

Is this a trick question??????

Heck yes we should have a debate! And it needs to be completely, 100% transparent! It should be held in a public forum, open to the public, and broadcast live on every channel.

I am flabbergasted that anyone would argue otherwise.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr. Q. | May 20, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not. Could be. Although findings like those recently published in Nature make me say. "Wait a minute" before we wreck our economy over something that might not br true.

But the AlGore looney types have made this very political, advocating the dismissla of meteorologists who disagree with their orthodoxy or referring to people with that very loaded term "deniers". Sounds more like a religion than scientific inquiry.

Whether a scientist is a shill for corporations or for a particular political cause, I think this whole thing has been bad for science.

Posted by: skywatcher | May 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Re WSJ:
Items by guest writers which appear on editorial pages are generally known as "guest editorials" or "op-ed pieces". Articles generally contain news.
"Mr. Rose is culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in Copenhagen. Mr. Lomborg is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School."

Posted by: Steve, Capital Weather Gang | May 20, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company