It’s fairly unusual to find a balanced presentation of both sides in the global warming debate in any publication, so I’m glad to be able to recommend one. Our good friend Will Happer, whom we interviewed for our documentary video Where the Grass Is Greener: Biblical Stewardship vs. Climate Alarmism, was interviewed by TheBestSchools.org, and the full interview is here. Presenting the opposite perspective was Dr. David Karoly, whose interview is here. At some future time they’re supposed to engage in dialogue, and that should be fascinating and rewarding.

It should surprise no one that I find Dr. Happer’s arguments generally more persuasive than Dr. Karoly’s. In particular, Will makes it clear that although human-induced increased atmospheric CO2 concentration almost certainly has contributed to the warming of the last century or so, the magnitude of its contribution must almost equally certainly be exaggerated by the IPCC, since the 3C “climate sensitivity” (warming at equilibrium in response to doubled CO2) it asserts would have resulted in twice to three times the warming actually observed over the relevant period (as Will illustrates with the graph below). Dr. Karoly appears to depend far more on modeling than on empirical observation, but in the end it’s empirical observation that must stand in judgment of models, not vice versa.

Will also makes a strong point from the benefits of rising CO2 to plant growth around the world, something Karoly addresses only tangentially and not very satisfactorily.

Both were asked about the wisdom of efforts to suppress dissent through legal action, e.g., prosecuting skeptics (like Will) under RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), something the US Justice Department is considering. Will made his opposition to that clear on classic grounds regarding freedom of speech and the importance of free and robust inquiry to scientific progress. Karoly’s response was troubling:

I strongly support the freedom of speech of scientists and of all people. However, freedom of speech should not be used as an argument to support the dissemination of misinformation.

The second sentence effectively retracts the first.

I look forward to seeing the actual dialogue when and if it ever gets published.