Why are climate change skeptics calling for a debate on the issue?

That depends what kind of debate they're calling for. 'Skeptics' often call for public debates, often demanding that Al Gore participate. This is because verbal debates are won with rhetoric rather than substance - it's easy to lie in a debate, and in that kind of forum a lie is impossible to disprove. A fact that Richard Lindzen has taken advantage of:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnfDI...

And of course they call for Al Gore to debate precisely because he's not a climate scientist, but rather a politician.

Conservative gives a good example of such a debate tactic, claiming "The debate wouldn't last long. We'd just point to the cooling trend."

No denier (including Conservative) has ever provided evidence of a statistically significant cooling trend, because none exists. But in a verbal debate, they could certainly claim that one exists, and the opposition could not disprove it in that forum.

If they're calling for a real debate, as in "you present your evidence and I'll present mine", that's been happening for decades in the peer-reviewed literature, and 'skeptics' have already lost this debate. I don't know what new issue they think they can bring to the table, but if they had one, they're more than welcome to present it in a peer-reviewed paper.

I don't think they had any credibility to begin with, but the smear campaign deniers have enaged in over the past week or two has certainly destroyed whatever remained.

Global warming/climate change has just become a new religious cult based in greedy power grabbing and hopes of world domination through "climate legislation". In the past it was the religious zealots who burned the truth telling scientists at the stake today it is climate change political zealots trying to silence the truth tellers and sell the world some very expensive SNAKE OIL.

It seems global warming advocates are determined to turn logic and biology upside down. Anyone who remebers basic high school biology knows carbon dioxide is essential to plant life as oxygen is essential to human life. These two basic facts can't be separated. Only Obama-style liberals will attempt to convince us about how critical combating global warming is to the Earth's survival. As then Sen. Hillary Clinton said to Gen. David Petreaus, we must be "...willing to suspend all disbelief." I'm not willing to do so!

Global warming, or climate change, which ever they decide to call it this year, is not based on science at all. it's all based on the consensus of a few scientist who have something to gain by furthering this farce. Guess what that is? $$$$

Anyone who believes Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant should stop breathing. Since we exhale Carbon Dioxide in every breath, we are literally polluting the atmosphere. So stop breathing and reduce your carbon footprint, or say NO to cap and trade & the whole global warming hoax.

We can't project an accurate forecast a week in advance and yet we say that we're doomed in the future? I believe in eliminating waste and keeping things clean so that I, and my family, can safely enjoy the outdoors but I also know where the comforts of life come from and that is manufacturing that uses energy and supplies that are either grown or mined somehow. Follow the research grants and see what is being pushed.

I have a simple question I would like someone to answer for me, If the specific gravity (relative density) of air is 1.00 and the specific gravity (relative density) of CO2 is 1.5189, that means CO2 is heavier than air and settles on the Earth's surface where green plants need it. How then can CO2 be in the Earth's upper atmosphere and stratosphere trapping the Sun's rays and heating up the planet? Anybody? Anybody? Hello? That's what I thought.

I have much more important questions. When did any scientist cease to be a skeptics? When did consensus serve as proof of anything? Was it not the case that at one time in history, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat?

None of your questions should matter at all. All that is supposed to matter is the truth. Proven, tested, repeatable proof. You can wipe the floor with consensus.

Now to answer your questions:

A) New issues? How about false claims and doctored data for a start.

B) They were excluded from any prior debate (see email dump)

C) No, the behavior of the skeptics has been consistent; prove it!

D) They would hope to find what any scientist should always seek, reality.

E) They should debate with those who still claim Man Made Global Warming is a proven reality to find out if they are lying.

*

"What new issues do that have that they wish to bring to the debating table?"

How about the small warming rate during the past ten years!

"Has their conduct these last two weeks destroyed their credibility?"

No. But yours is with questions like these.

"Why are climate change skeptics calling for a debate on the issue?"

To expose the genocidal fraud of Al Gore, David Rockefeller, Prince Philip, and their acolytes.

--

"Why did they elect not to participate in the debate in the past?"

Skeptics were not allowed to do so, as the Warmist charlatans controlled the terms of the debate.

--

"Has their conduct these last two weeks destroyed their credibility?"

No, but the criminal conduct of Warmists over the last two decades and more most definitely has destroyed theirs.

--

"What would they hope to achieve by having a debate?"

Again, to expose this quackery for what it is: a genocidal fraud and massive criminal conspiracy.

--

"What would they debate about"

About the AGW fraud, obviously.

--

"and with whom?"

Good question. Most of the top Warmist fraudsters are unwilling to debate skeptics for obvious reasons, so who knows?

Scientific discussion has been suppressed by the so-called scientists. Skeptics call that into question.

You can deflect by saying "deniers" will keep the debate political/economic, but it merely points to the inability of those making the claims to produce their case in a scientific capacity. These new e-mails further remove your definition of real "science" from the discussion.

Your sources have challenged their own credibility in e-mails that were supposed to remain in their tight-knit circle. The ball has remained in your court and given light to this new information which you so readily disregard, it looks like it's staying there for a while -- the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those making the claims.

I don't think anyone wants a debate with Al Gore. Again, deflection is moot at this point. We'll settle for Mann/Jones/IPCC/CRU folks. Bring the best you have and present your case. Don't forget to the bring the raw data and the methods used to reach your conclusions so they may be tested by the rest of the scientific community.

Until then, the AGW cult will continue to deflect pretending as though it's the skeptics who are holding up the show.

New issue:

The world is not experiencing a rise in temperatures but rather is cooling.

As demonstrated by the exposed emails, those who do not share the faith of the "warmers" are excluded from the debate. When someone does not allow you to participate that is a pretty good reason for not participating.

Conduct these last two weeks:

Email: There is no global warming so we are going to lie about the temperatures to make it look like there is

Skeptics: We agree with you that there is no global warming and it is wrong to lie and make up stuff about science stuff

I don't see any problem with that behavior

They hope to achieve enjoying the freedom to own the property they have worked and saved to purchase without having it confiscated by governmental authorities on the pretense of "stopping global warming"

They would present the overwhelming evidence that there is no global warming to whomever was not one of the few chosen persons that will benefit from property and monetary confiscation.

That depends what kind of debate they're calling for. 'Alarmists' often hide from public debates, often demanding that they only be allowed to speak. This is because public debates are not won with rhetoric but with substance - it's harder to lie in a debate, and in that kind of forum a lie is impossible to hide. A fact that algore has taken advantage of.

And of course they don't want Al Gore to debate because he's not a climate scientist, but he is their foremost leader.

Conservative gives a good example of how such a debate would play out "The debate wouldn't last long. We'd just point to the cooling trend."

No alarmist (including dana) has ever provided evidence of a warming trend, because none exists. And in a verbal debate, they could certainly claim that one exists, and the opposition could disprove it in that forum.

If they're calling for a real debate, as in "you present your evidence and I'll present mine", that's been avoided and shunned for decades in the peer-reviewed literature, and 'alarmists' have already lost this debate. I know what new issue's they can bring to the table, and since they have many, alarmists will not allow them to present any of them in a peer-reviewed paper.

I don't think alarmists had any credibility to begin with, but the smear campaign alarmists have engaged in over the past week or two has certainly destroyed whatever remained.

Only alarmists have the fantasy that there is no climate change except for what people cause. They think that because the mythology of significant human caused warming is based on leftist political activists that call themselves scientists who manipulated the data to remove the little ice age and the medeival warm period. There really isn't anything to debate because the rug has been pulled out from under their silly scam. Only deluded or ignorant individuals still support the hockey stick or algores nonsense about the CO2 causing the warming in his deceptive graph. The nature of the science of the leftists is so pathetic, it is hard to believe that the standards of science graduates has deteriorated so much that many would buy that nonsense. You have to be completely gullible to accept their computer models that are proven beyond doubt that they don't predict the present or the future. How much failure of their theory do we need or proof of the lying to conclude they aren't at all credible.

I'll just ask the same thing you did on another question. Were are your links and sources that show climate change skeptics are calling for a debate.

The same reason creationists always demand a debate. A debate makes the public think the ideas are equal, giving them credibility.

Asking for a debate also just displays an ignorance of how science works. The data decide, not rhetoric.