A few weeks ago we at the John Locke Foundation formalized our offer to Environment North Carolina to debate global warming. The offer was first made publicly on this blog back in August when the group published a study making claims about future warming in North Carolina. It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the offer has been rejected (See below for the full texts of both the offer letter and the rejection letter.) Paul Chesser reports on Environment North Carolina’s decision in today’s Carolina Journal Daily Update. He notes that Environment North Carolina gave essentially what I have called “the debate is over” reason for not debating. This is the same reason being used by Al Gore not to debate his critics.

What is typical is that Environment North Carolina sites the IPCC report in its letter to the John Locke Foundation, as evidence of the “consensus” that allegedly exists among scientists. Putting aside the fact that none of the scientists that were part of the IPCC process were asked if they support the entire document–only the portion that they contributed–the fact is that the IPCC report presents such a huge range of possibilities that it includes the views of many who are considered to be skeptics. The “story lines” (IPCC language for alternative warming possibilities) that the IPCC uses to speculate on the range of warming in a hundred years predict from a little over 1 degree (c) to a little over 4 degrees. By presenting such a wide range they insure a consensus. In fact it is so wide that even well known skeptic climatologist Patrick Michaels would agree with the bottom end of the range. The IPCC also concludes that there is a 90 percent chance that “most” of the recent warming was caused by increases in green house gases. It does not define the word most. Given the typical meaning, that is anything above 50 percent, then the statement boils down to “there is a 90 percent chance that some amount above 50 percent of the recent warming…” Again, this is a statement that many skeptical climate scientists would have no problem agreeing with. Hence the so called IPCC consensus that Environment North Carolina refers to may exist, but only in a trivial sense.

Anyway, the John Locke Foundation will leave its offer open, not only to Environment North Carolina but to Environmental Defense, The Sierra Club, or any of the other groups from the environmentalist left, who want to take us up on it. If our arguments are so wrong then we should be easy to defeat in a debate setting.

Debate offer to Environment North Carolina:

September 18, 2007
Ms Elizabeth Ouzts, Director
Environment North Carolina
112 South Blount Street, Suite 102
Raleigh, NC 27601

Dear Ms Ouzts:

It is clear that the next year will be crucial one for determining the role that North Carolina state government will play in designing policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The John Locke Foundation believes that the issues related to global warming that many presume justify possible new regulations and taxes should be thoroughly vetted so that both the citizens of the state and their elected representatives have clear a view of all sides. We believe that Environment North Carolina shares this view. In light of this we would like to invite your organization to either co-sponsor a debate on the issues of global warming and carbon dioxide reduction policies for North Carolina, or to participate in a debate sponsored by the John Locke Foundation. As part of this debate, Environment North Carolina would choose whomever it thought would be most appropriate to represent its position on the issues involved and the John Locke Foundation would do the same. We propose that the event should be held in a very public setting, such as a Raleigh area museum or a college campus, and should be free of charge to the public.

Please let me know what your views are on this proposal. If you are open to such an event we would like to have further conversations to establish a date, time, venue, and other details. I can be reached by phone at 919-828-3876 or by email at rcordato@johnlocke.org.

Best regards,

Roy Cordato, Ph.D.
Vice President for research
The John Locke Foundation

Response:

Dr. Cordato,

Thanks for following up on your letter via email. While we appreciate the invitation to attend or co-host debate on the issues of global warming and carbon dioxide reduction policies, we respectfully decline it.

The overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists agrees that human-caused activity is contributing to an increase in the earth’s temperature, and that if that activity goes unchecked, the temperature will continue to rise, causing a range of potentially devastating impacts. As you know, the International Panel on Climate Change, made up of leading scientists from across the globe, has published a series of reports detailing the prevailing view of the scientific community. Certainly, there are scientists who do not ascribe to this prevailing view. But our two organizations are unlikely to shed new light on the larger disagreement between the vast majority of the world’s scientists and a small number of dissenters on the science of climate change.

We do agree that the carbon dioxide reduction policies and strategies deserve robust debate in the public sphere. Indeed, we may find common ground on some of the polices themselves (for example, we share much of your skepticism about carbon offsets). Our two groups, however, are by no means the only ones with an interest in this debate. Just last week, for example, representatives from Bank of America and RBC Centura, among other leading North Carolina corporations, stated their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and weighing in on pending public policy. Meanwhile, the state’s Legislative Study Commission on Global Climate Change, made up of representatives from across the economic and political spectrum, has been holding public meetings on policies to address climate change since its inception in 2005. And of course, the legislative process itself is open to all members of the public for discussion and debate on the merits of policies it considers.

We look forward to continued debate and discussion with the John Locke Foundation in existing public forums on the need for North Carolina and the nation to take decisive and effective action to reduce global warming pollution.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Ouzts
State Director

Environment North Carolina
112 S Blount Street, Ste. 102
Raleigh, NC 27601
(919) 833-0015 p / (919) 839-0767 f Elizabeth@EnvironmentNorthCarolina.org