An Honest Debate Sounds Good In Theory

A senior meteorologist with AccuWeather.com has posted an open letter to the 2008 presidential candidates challenging them to conduct an honest debate over climate change.

 In his open letter to the presidential candidates, meteorologist Joe Bastardi challenges whoever is elected in November to get five top scientists from both sides of the climate change issue "in front of you in the Oval Office and let them argue it out." He goes on to say that the press should not be involved, and the politics left out.
 
Bastardi says he is skeptical about "scientists" who predict climate future based on computer models. "People are trying to play God by say[ing], 'Oh, this computer model told me 50 years from now that this is going to happen.' That's an arguable point," says Bastardi, "[and] I think we should debate it. But to say that someone has absolute knowledge of the future seems to me to be playing something more than a mortal, and I'm in the business of forecasting the weather."
 
The seasoned meteorologist says there is a difference between thinking something is going to happen and deducing something is going to happen. "[But] saying, 'No, I know it; the debate is over' -- that seems to me to be almost messianic in nature when you know something's going to happen 50 years from now."
 
Bastardi says this issue is not a matter of politics or feelings, but of science and facts and "educated men squaring off and displaying their knowledge." He also questions the recent listing of polar bears on the threatened species list, asserting that "the polar bear situation should push Americans over the edge."
 
"Well, I know that the polar bear population goes up and down much like other things," he admits. "But I think that one thing we are misunderstanding here is the adaptability of any species to climate change and climate variation."
 
Bastardi writes in his open letter that the recent cold winter may be a preview of what is coming. And he argues that making it illegal to obtain oil from an area that could wean America from foreign oil because of a "problem that may not exist" should show people that this position is not driven by science, but what may be "an almost fanatical madness."