Gavin Schmidt, one of the more odious advocates for radical political and economic solutions to the “Global Warming Crisis” before a recent debate on the subject:

I'm quite looking forward to this, but I have to admit to conflicting thoughts. Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? Can this be entertaining and educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging?

It certainly appeared like quite the opportunity to preach to the choir: NPR hosted the event and produced an audience that agreed with his position nearly 2-1 (57-30%).

Except that by night’s end the previously friendly audience didn’t seem to find the Gavin’s arguments all that convincing with only 42% still agreeing (46% disagreeing) with his apocalyptic assessment.

Naturally the reaction to his poor showing has been to criticize the intelligence of the audience and lament that “Science isn’t a popularity contest”. However when considering that Gavin and his “scientific consensus” have the news media, Hollywood and the EU on their side one must begin to question if salesmanship is really the problem and conclude that they’re just peddling crap.

Update: Science isn't a popularity contest

No comments: