Debate? or Entertainment?

This week I  was asked to be a guest on a local morning radio show, which I’ve done twice in the past, to talk global warming science. On this occasion the producer stated, “We are also inviting another guest who is convinced that man does not directly effect global climate change, to produce a lively debate.” My response is copied below:

Thank you for this invitation. I have enjoyed being a guest on [the] show twice in the past, and would be happy to do so again. However, I cannot accept this invitation under its present conditions.
A one-on-one debate regarding the science serves to confuse the issue in the public sphere. In the scientific community there is no debate about the basic facts of global warming. It has been shown through observations, theory and modeling that the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of the present global warming, and continued emissions will accelerate the warming through the 21st century and beyond. Every major scientific body on the planet has written a statement to this effect , and more than 97 out of 100 scientists who are active in research on the topic agree on the facts.  See for example, the scientific consensus.

If a debate format is what you are looking for then a balanced view would require a minimum of 32 scientists arguing for the science for each person arguing the anti-science point of view.
John Oliver did a piece on this very topic in his new show [Last Week Tonight]. You can view the 4 minute video here:

If you’d like to do a discussion/debate on what actions should be taken to address global warming, [i.e., The Conversation We Need to Have] I’d be happy to participate, and can recommend a few others who would be appropriate guests on that topic.

This is a repost from Anji Seth <>.