I’ve said on several previous threads at LGF that I heard two climate change scientists debate the issue a little over a year ago here in NYC. They were respectful of each other, thoughtful, and argued from the data. They agreed on most of the data, but didn’t agree on what conclusions to draw from it.

They agreed, for example, that CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere. The anti scientist (from MIT) noted that temperatures are NOT rising in the temperate zones of the earth’s surface proportionate to the rise on CO2 levels. They ARE rising faster at the poles. The pro scientist agreed.

The anti scientist basically said that current modeling is inadequate to take into account that 80% of the earth’s surface is fluid. The oceans may be buffering temperature rises. No one knows for sure. He said that enough uncertainty remains that drastic action to reduce economic activity is NOT warranted. And he made it clear that there is no consensus among scientists on the appropriate political and economic responses. He made it clear that alarmism is not in order.