MIT sponsors rigorous scientific debate between the two opposing camps: How significant is CO2's impact on global temperature?
I have yet to see a rigorous scientific debate between the two opposing sides--on the same stage at the same time--of the issue: how significant is the impact of CO2 on global temperature? Right now, both sides remain firm in their opinions. So why not provide them to opportunity to debate?
This debate would be a great opportunity to display the full power of the Scientific Method: take data, propose many different hypotheses to explain the data, design experiments to challenge each hypothesis, and then settle on the one left standing as the most likely hypothesis. With climate science, this is naturally difficult because no real experiments can be run. But models can still be developed based on the hypotheses and then tested by their respective abilities to predict the future.
Much data and many model predictions are available to work with.
So why not now as a time to create a full scientific debate around the key issues, e.g., the data, the models, the predictions, etc, focusing solely on the science at hand and not on the politics of the situation?
Why not MIT take the lead on this?
What actions do you propose?
MIT hosts a nationally-televised science debate. All day or longer, if need be. Create a structure upholding the highest ideals of debating. Identify two teams to represent the two sides. Let them debate.