The Debate is Over and the Alarmists Know It

Ducking Debate: Warmist Dan Weiss Pulls Out of TV Debate With Morano at Last Minute! Warmits refuse to debate global warming ‘skeptics’ in the media        

This commenter over at WUWT captured the situation about the ‘debate ducks’ among the alarmaholics perfectly.

They are like a soccer team playing an imaginary opponent, while losing horribly.

As early as 2007 ,the year of the Oscar for Gore’s AIT, the cracks in the CAGW case began to widen and the so sure of themselves alarmists began to feel the heat from skeptics who were unafraid to hold warmist feet to the fire. Warmists have retreated behind the ‘science is settled, let’s not give skeptics a forum for their views through public debate’ excuse to avoid on air confrontations with man made global warming skeptics.

They like to reserve the pitch to themselves and agree among themselves that they are the victor without actually playing the game. They believe they are so invincible that they couldn’t possibly lose so why engage an opponent. Graciously, they are saving the opponent from embarrassment.

The reality is, of course, that they are saving themselves from embarrassment and they know it while pretending the opposite. The models and consensus on which their predictions rely are bogus and they know they will be called on it. People paying the bills may not like to be informed of this truth and the alarmists know it. They will not sign their own pink slips though perhaps they feel the end is near but wish to ride the gravy train to the last molecule of innocent CO2.

If your case is strong would you not want to confront those who disagree to demonstrate both to them and the public that your view is correct? If your case is strong should that not be a walk in the park? If the public perceives your case to be suspect you will be seen as scared and weak not as the defender of science but as the defender of authority.

The practice of avoiding debate so as not to give skeptics a public forum began with some prominent defenders of evolution who denigrate the creationists among us. Correctly, evolution has nothing to fear from its detractors, so why avoid a public discussion with those who present a different look at the world. Point out the flaws in their arguments and be done with it.

Whenever skeptics and GW alarmists meet it becomes obvious who has the facts and who doesn’t. Alarmaholics fear the exposure of their cherished theory to the light of skeptical inquiry. Other alarmists talk a good game but then refuse to back it up. This does not enhance their case but presents the picture of people who are afraid to be challenged. The avoidance weakens their case but they don’t care because then at least they can continue to hide behind the ‘science is settled, there is a consensus, the debate is over’ tri-chimera. This is better than being exposed for the impostors that they are. Should they be arrested for impersonating a scientist?

It is open season on debate ducks and the skeptics wait patiently in the blind.