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



Global Warming jumps the shark…

NY Times is walking their rhetoric on the subject back.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that
questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some
reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming. Geologists
have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with
ignoring such rhythms.
“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of
the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental
change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook
University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any
evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its
historical pattern of constant change.” In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar
points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr.
Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental
shift remotely similar to this” threatened change. Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook
told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for
the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval
warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the
warming in the past century.” Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s
assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had
corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook
told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”
Biologists, too, have gotten into
the act. In January, Paul Reiter, an active skeptic of global warming’s effects
and director of the insects and infectious diseases unit of the Pasteur
Institute in Paris, faulted Mr. Gore for his portrayal of global warming as
spreading malaria.
“For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against
the unsubstantiated claims,” Dr. Reiter wrote in The International Herald
Tribune. “We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists, but they
continue to ignore the facts.”

So like those foreign exchange students in high school sporting the acid wash jeans it appears the Europeans have again bought heavily into a fad that has likely run its course.