A debate would be good entertainment but it wouldn’t solve anything.
You have the true believers who will never accept any other possibility and the rest of us who question their conclusions along with a few living in total denial.
If however they could truly make their case they would instead of belittling those of us who keep poking holes in their theories.
thousands upon thousands of polar bears washed up on shore after drowning in the water made from melted icebergs…
wait…
You’re privy to the scientific community?
What do you mean by “solve” anything?
It might educate people against some of the global warming myths. Many people just don’t really know anything about it. They are just led around by their politicians. If promoted right, it could be a huge ratings bonanza for the network as well.
Define the scientific community. 
Not the point. This is what politicians told us. The debate would be free of pundits and politicians. Would you watch?
if they presented the details and code of the computer programs that produce this “irrefutable” data of global warming, maybe… but they would never expose themselves …
anyone who knows how to program can make a computer say anything…
There is not a 50-50 split in what qualified scientists think with respect to climate change. There is an overwhelming majority of qualified scientists who support climate change as factual.
Martha McCallum? Why not Shepard Smith?
Sadly I doubt it would do much at all.
Kids today are so aggrandized by the public schools they won’t realize until they are in their forties just how badly they’ve been lied to.
What do you mean “Why not Shepard Smith?” Did I say I would rule out Shepard Smith? You expect me to mention EVERYBODY whom I would approve of?
Who told you that an over whelming number of scientists agree with global warming? Greta? Bill Nye? Allyssa Milano? ALgore? I would like to see a real debate. With real scientists. Wouldn’t you?
Not so long ago there were thousands of scientists and national rulers who also believed that all other races were subservient and inferior to white, northern Europeans too.
The majority isn’t always right, often they are just herd animals bleating as they march along playing follow the leader.
Parents need to tell them that our educational system abhors free thought. The thought gestapo is everywhere.
The Trouble is, the parents of the current generation were largely schooled in the same “thinking” in the 90’s.
You suggested one name; I suggested another one. By the way how would the moderator be selected?
What do you mean by real scientists? How long would the debate be?
Marahosey’s work has been repudiated. She even made a math error and missed the warming of the last 30 years.
The whole point of publishing papers is for others to review them and find any errors.
Making an error doesn’t mean the source is invalid or lacks credentials.
People who do research and write papers in global warming and climatology. Are you listening to them?
“What qualified scientists think” is not the same thing as “support climate change as factual.” Ask those “qualified scientists” what the extent, the cause, and the prediction of climate change are and 50-50 agreement on the responses is probably an optimistic estimate.
I don’t understand why it would not be appropriate for qualified scientists to think. It seems to me to be a fundamental.
Reread my post. You obviously did not get what I said the first time.
