{"id":415,"date":"2007-03-12T19:28:36","date_gmt":"2007-03-13T00:28:36","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=415"},"modified":"2007-04-12T22:18:28","modified_gmt":"2007-04-13T03:18:28","slug":"global-warming-debate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/03\/global-warming-debate\/","title":{"rendered":"Global Warming debate K\u00fcresel Is\u0131nma M\u00fczakeresi<\/lang_tk>"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

<\/a>Along with Richard Somerville (UC San Diego) and Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists), I’ll be appearing at a debate<\/a> on Wednesday (March 14th) about whether Global Warming is a crisis (or not). That might have gone without notice (like most of my public talks), except that our opponents are Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott. The preliminary position statements (from me and from Philip Stott) are available on the ABCnews site<\/a>. It’s sold out, but the proceedings will be broadcast on NPR (for instance<\/a>, WNYC 820 AM on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 2PM) and there will be a podcast<\/a> (though I don’t know if it will stream live). There’s an online poll as well for what that’s worth.<\/p>\n

I’m quite looking forward to this, but I have to admit to conflicting thoughts. Does participating help perpetuate the idea that global warming per se is still up for debate? Is this kind of rhetorical jousting useful for clarifying issues of science that most people there will only superficially grasp? Can this be entertaining and<\/em> educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging? ;) <\/p>\n

I’d be interested in any thoughts people might have. <\/p>\n


\nK\u00fcresel Is\u0131nma M\u00fczakeresi<\/p>\n

Ingilizce\u2019den \u00e7eviren Figen Mekik<\/small><\/p>\n

Richard Sommerville (UC San Diego) ve Brenda Ekwurzel e\u015fli\u011finde (Union of Concerned Scientists-Endi\u015feli Bilim Insanlar\u0131 Birli\u011fi), 14 Mart \u00c7ar\u015famba g\u00fcn\u00fc k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nman\u0131n kriz olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tart\u0131\u015faca\u011f\u0131m\u0131z bir m\u00fczakereye<\/a> kat\u0131laca\u011f\u0131m. Bu pek fark\u0131na var\u0131lmadan ge\u00e7ip gidebilirdi (benim pek \u00e7ok halka a\u00e7\u0131k konu\u015fmam gibi) ama bu sefer kar\u015f\u0131 tarafta Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen ve Phillip Stott var. Iki taraf\u0131n da tezini savunan ayr\u0131 birer yaz\u0131 (ben ve Stott yazd\u0131k) ABC news<\/a> sitesinde var. M\u00fczakere\u2019ye biletler \u00e7oktan sat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, bitmi\u015f. Ama m\u00fczakere hem radyoda (NPR, mesela<\/a> WNYC de Cuma-23 Mart- sabah\u0131 8:20de) yay\u0131nlanacak hem de bir podcast<\/a> haz\u0131rlan\u0131yor (ama canl\u0131 olmayacak san\u0131r\u0131m). Internet sitelerinde bir de anket var. <\/p>\n

Ben buna pek hevesliyim, ama baz\u0131 \u00e7eli\u015fkili d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerim de var. B\u00f6yle bir m\u00fczakereye kat\u0131lmak, k\u00fcresel \u0131s\u0131nman\u0131n olup olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n hala tart\u0131\u015fmaya a\u00e7\u0131k oldu\u011funu savunmak m\u0131 oluyor? Bu tip \u00e7eki\u015fmeler, oradaki insanlar\u0131 bilimsel konularda e\u011fitmeye yarar m\u0131? Bu hem e\u011flenceli hem de e\u011fitici olabilir mi? Ya da ciddi bir muhalefeti ge\u00e7erli k\u0131lmaya m\u0131 yar\u0131yor? Yoksa bloglarla u\u011fra\u015fmaya ay\u0131raca\u011f\u0131m zaman\u0131 buraya giderek bo\u015fa m\u0131 harcam\u0131\u015f olaca\u011f\u0131m? ;)<\/p>\n

T\u00fcm fikirlerinize a\u00e7\u0131\u011f\u0131m. <\/lang_tk><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Along with Richard Somerville (UC San Diego) and Brenda Ekwurzel (Union of Concerned Scientists), I’ll be appearing at a debate on Wednesday (March 14th) about whether Global Warming is a crisis (or not). That might have gone without notice (like most of my public talks), except that our opponents are Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,24],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-415","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-reporting-on-climate","8":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=415"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/415\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}