Why has there been no open debate in regards to global warming?

You could debate how to mitigate global warming, but debating "science" is not the way it is done. Scientific "debate" takes place in the observations, laboratories, computer models and ultimately in the scientific literature. Have you ever seen Fred Singer speak? He is very persuasive, if you're unfamiliar with the material. Then if someone asks a question he doesn't want to answer he just pretends not to hear it. There have been debates before anyway, I heard one with people like Michael Crichton and Richard Somerville going at it. It meant nothing.

The reason much of the US population believes AGW is fake is because of an effective propaganda machine of denial (just like they did with tobacco) and because most of the population is scientifically ignorant. If you don't know what blackbody radiation is, you don't know what the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is, you don't know what albedo means, you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, or of fluid dynamics, etc., then what position are you to judge who "won" or "lost" a scientific debate?

Debates are for entertainment, not for enlightenment.

For once, I agree with Et. If AGW really is happening? What does that mean. Does that mean we may be causing 0.1 degree of the warming from the 0.8 in the last century? Nobody really knows what our contribution actually is. There are some who pretend to know but since they don't, they should be the last people you want to trust. Americans will go green to the extent practical. I conserve on gas, electricity and water because I pay the bills. I don't have to be a socialist to want to be efficient.

Debates are not "won". Debates are held to give the views of both sides. Whoever "wins" the debate is the side that you most favor their viewpoints. This leaves us back at square one and no minds have been changed. There will always be the cry for another debate or for another 50 years of research.

they are "real Believers" who're very the vast majority of a Leftist approach. they are in denial of the possibility that they might properly be incorrect. They mindlessly help "Doing something" with out having the slightest theory of what its impact will be. To them anybody who disagrees with them must be stupid, because they comprehend they are proper. to achieve the aims they suspect in they are prepared to modify the information, lie, libel, slander and denigrate the competition. seem on the temperature archives from the top of the Ice Age in the previous, the Holocene era, those the GW supporters have not doctored to make their theories artwork. seem at photo voltaic activity archives they have not suppressed. we were warming up from the medieval Little Ice Age which extremely ended about 1815. seem on the in the previous warmth era at the same time as the Vikings grew wheat in Greenland. easily calculate the tiny quantity of CO2 human activity produces and ask your self if lowering that, destroying technological civilisation, is properly worth slowing climate change by potential of an infinitesimal quantity. undergo in ideas that one tremendous volcanic eruption cam positioned extra greenhouse gasses into the air than all of human activity throughout the time of historic previous. they're going to call you a "denier" a label meaning you oppose the reality. A Zealot is merely someone who fiercely believes in something. regrettably the GW human beings refuse to pay interest in a spirit of provide and take, because their personalities are incapable of that. a real Leftist has a similar type of personality, do not attempt to confuse them with information, because their tiny minds are already made up.

Because America doesn't want to change( for the most part). The reason is because some republicans think that global warming is BS and think going green will ruin the American dream. Some people just don't want to go green because it costs a lot of money. Let's face it until a major disaster hits united states related to global warming, the goverment won't enforce green technologies

I'm old enough to remember the 70's when the term was "global cooling" and the big worry was another iceage. As for those who use the terms "denier", "skeptic" or "alarmist" it's a waste of time to converse with them. Anyone who has to use insult rather then logic is not worth talking to. As for going green all you have to do is set it up so people could save money by going green.I bought CFL's to replace my incandescent bulbs because I could see in the long run it would save me about 75% of the electricity used for lighting. Not to "go green". You have to understand why people do things to get them to do what you want. You can't force people to do something you have to set it up in such a way that they want to do it.

Read Weart, Discovery of Global Warming. Scientists ALREADY HAD an open debate for almost a hundred years of research and analysis before thousands of them specializing in climate eventually concluded that global warming caused by human burning of fossil fuels is real and probably has serious consequences for our economic future. All of this was long before the crop of deniers infesting this website got out of diapers, and started bullying other kids, sassing teachers, and flunking science and math. Most of them are far too ignorant to have any even halfway flimsy lie to cover the real history of climate science, so they simply deny it to high hell. That's why they are known as deniers. (For some reason these bullies who love to deny get weepy and feel "insulted" when they get called out and feel compelled to deny their denying). Meanwhile, do you, by chance, have an actual factual question about global warming? If so, don't ask it here, go to a science website run by scientists. Weart is one. PS to QT: Thanks for excellent answer below! (just try please to go easy on the technical lingo -quite okay here, except for "forcings", but for future reference :) )

There have been several debates. They have taken place in the columns of scientific journals and at conferences where scientists meet to discuss their findings. They don't happen on CNN.

Sadly there are *very few* scientists who don't agree with anthropogenic global warming theory.

I'm sure you can find an abundance of non-scientists to debate the denier side, but they're motivated solely by politics.

as long as americans are entertained by 'reality' shows and believe FOX news any debate is useless. The vast majority will not like what they have to do, just like the credit problems.