The Great Climate Debate of 2025

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
— Richard Feynman

What begins in educational institutions often ends up in society.

— Thomas D. Zweifel

Bad science begets bad policy.

— Roger Pielke, Jr.

Introduction

Today, humans are spending more than $2 trillion each year on decarbonization and renewables. A recent McKinsey study claims we’ll need to spend 9.2 trillion per year for the next 30 years to meet a politically chosen CO2 “target” that can easily be defeated by one good volcano each year. Governments are spending hundreds of billions on “research.” This is all based on “settled science” promoted by the United Nations and World Economic Forum without proper scientific scrutiny. No university president today can express skepticism about the climate “crisis.” All undergraduates at UC San Diego — a public school — are forced to complete a basic “climate curriculum” to graduate.

Most large foundations are heavily invested in decarbonization. The climate scare is such a good fundraising tool that the average salary for an executive director who’s a member of climateofficers.org is $173,000.

Most large consulting companies consider climate and “sustainability” such a moneymaker that Deloitte invested $1 billion to be at the forefront of this emerging moneygrab. The decarbonization market is expected to grow at over 11 percent CAGR.

Over half of large-company CEOs say ESG and climate issues are a rising priority. This is because activist shareholders like Blackrock will penalize them if they don’t make such statements.

All big-tech companies have pledged to be carbon-neutral or claim they already are, but it’s just through the use of accounting tricks, not decarbonization.

All of this is based on settled science.

Is the science really settled?

Or is this signaling, PR, groupthink, and peer pressure? Could it be more about money and politics than climate?

Is, as the New York Times claims, $3.2 trillion a pittance? Should we maybe double-check the assumptions before we throw billions of people into energy poverty? Is money an influencing factor? Can humans really impact the climate?

My name is David Siegel. I teach an advanced climate class online. I propose a proper debate between the best scientists behind the common narrative of human-caused climate change and the skeptical scientists who do not agree. This debate will inform future research and investment, future policy, court cases, wealth transfers, taxing, spending, and elections. If it is worth the expense, this debate will help justify those expenses. If it is not worth the expense, this debate will help channel funds to where they are actually needed.

Background

The science of climate change is not settled, as evidenced by the many books, blogs, videos, and papers on the topic. I assume the reader gets most information from the popular press. To counter that, this website provides hundreds of valuable scientific resources that do not support the “consensus” narrative that humans are changing the climate. Many of the authors I feature here are former IPCC lead authors and committee members, or were department heads and high-profile academics until they were targeted, attacked, and fired from their academic jobs. Most of us have been deplatformed from social media.

One highlight is the book Unsettled, by Steve Koonin, who was Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy for the Obama administration and is now director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.

Another telling tale is the UN secretary general Antonio Gutteres lying about sea-level rise, fully documented in this short video:

We live in a time of scientocracy. Peer-review is not what we think it is. Governments have corrupted scientific research. There are many more credible scientific resources at Climatecurious.com and at the CO2 Coalition website. To-date, there have been almost no debates. The only debates I know of are:

• Karolly vs Happer. Dr Will Happer, professor of physics emeritus at Princeton, debated with Dr David Karoly, professor of atmospheric sciences at University of Melbourne. In the middle of the debate, Karolly dropped out and refused to continue.

• Then there is Mann vs Curry and Moore — you can decide who won that for yourself.

• Alex Epstein vs Robert F Kennedy, Jr and Alex Epstein vs Andrew Dessler — these are not scientific, but they are worth watching.

• Steve Koonin has had several debates.

In general, the debates do not go well for those promoting alarm.

On the other hand, many courts have decided in favor of plaintiffs who claim that CO2 is pollution and is harming the environment. Courts rely on experts. Experts come from universities. Universities are all in on the “climate crisis,” because that’s where the money is. There is no money for expert climate skeptics.

Proposal

I’m looking for a fair debate on the merits, the data, critical thinking, and cost/benefit calculations, not on grandstanding, hyperbole, repetition, data manipulation, and institutional name recognition. I propose an online debate between anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmists and AGW skeptics. It would take place over two months along the following loose guidelines:

Several prominent magazines would agree to dedicate an entire issue to climate (Economist, Scientific American, New York Times Magazine, National Geographic) and would have their journalists follow the debate.

The debate would be made available as a set of videos on its own website.

It would be conducted in-person or on Zoom.

It would be chaired and moderated by someone independent and media-savvy. For example:

• Russ Roberts, an economist, podcaster, and independent thinker.

• Chris Wallace, a journalist who has worked both for Fox News and CNN and moderated presidential debates.

• Kristen Welker, a journalist who moderated one of the 2020 presidential debates.

Or another equally qualified moderator who is neutral and has at least some background in statistics and the scientific method. Possibly someone from ScienceDebate.com. Possibly someone from the Pew Charitable Trusts. Maybe we need a panel of moderators.

There would be a panel of paid judges who are trained in decision science, statistics, and critical thinking. These judges would go through a qualification process, and those who qualify would become the jury. They would be paid and sworn to render a neutral opinion without previous biases. In all, there should be about ten or twelve judges — an even number — with the same number biased toward vs against AGW and the remainder neutral. They should all have statistical training. I would work with the moderator to put this panel together. 

A list of potential judges:

• Doug Hubbard, CEO of Hubbard Decision Research — he is biased toward alarm.

• Scott Alexander, host of Astral Codex Ten, an evidence-based blog. He is biased toward alarm.

• Steven Novella, a popular neuroscience blogger. He is biased toward alarm.

• Anyone from the board of directors of the Decision Sciences Institute.

• Anyone from SmartOrg.

• Anyone from Stanford’s Meta research innovation center.

• Anyone from this list of distinguished women decision/data scientists.

• Kevin Dick, a decision and data scientist who is a partner in a venture fund. He is biased toward skepticism.

• Bryan Caplan, an economist, author, and critical thinker. He is biased toward skepticism.

• Alex Tabarrok, an economist, author, and critical thinker. He is slightly biased toward alarm.

• Eliezer Yudkowsky, founder of Less Wrong, teacher of decision science.

• Julia Galef, a disciple of Yudkowsky and expert on Bayesian reasoning.

• Lex Fridman, a popular interviewer and YouTube influencer.

• Joe Rogan, a popular interviewer and YouTube influencer. Biased toward skepticism.

• I would also add a few young people in their 20s. Two come to mind: 1) Maxwell Tabarrok, and Maarten Van Doorn. There are others.

On the debate side, there would be two committees of three people chosen to head up and organize the debate: one committee on each side. Those six people will be responsible for organization, choosing people to present, managing documentation, schedule, etc. They would also be paid for their work.

The format would be two days per week for ten weeks, where each day is dedicated to about 2-4 hours of weekly debate on these topics (subject to change):

1. Paleo temperatures and climate eras before 20,000 years ago

2. Temperatures and climate 20,000 years ago to 1750

3. Temperatures and climate 1750 to 1980: the thermometer era

4. Temperatures and climate 1980 to today: the satellite era

5. Atmospheric radiative transfer and thermalization, including the five most important greenhouse gases — an overview

6. Human-emitted CO2 in influencing climate — origin, greenhouse effect, tipping points, etc.

7. The water cycle and water vapor’s influence on climate and temperature — greenhouse effect, clouds, stratospheric water vapor

8. Oceans, currents, and oscillations: ITCZ, ocean currents, salinity, ocean oscillations, global ocean conveyor belt, etc.

9. Antarctica and the Arctic

10. Glaciers

11. Tropical regions

12. The role of the sun and cosmic elements in influencing climate — sunspots, orbital mechanics, cosmic rays, etc.

13. The role of heat transport via the oceans and atmosphere, currents, storm systems and atmospheric effects, heat transport, polar vortexes

14. Clouds and albedo

15. Equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2

16. The origins of the IPCC and reports 1-3

17. IPCC reports 4-6

18. Evidence for the global climate already being influenced by humans.

19. Predictions and model quality

20. Future climate next 200 years

21. Future climate next 50,000 years

The two committees will be given equal amounts of time for presentation and argument, generally 90 minutes each, alternating 15-minute time slots with a short break half way through. Then there would be 1–2 hours of questioning by the judges. During this time, the presenters speak only to the panel, not to opposing presenters.

At the end of each day, the two sides have 15 minutes to summarize their position, taking into account the arguments they have heard from the other side.

Each week, the panel of judges will independently write up their impressions and conclusions from what they learned in that week’s debate. They will submit summaries of their conclusions in writing separately, without communication, to the chair at the end of each week. They may also submit questions to either group to answer separately in writing.

At the end, there is a session where the panelists just ask all their questions as they try to understand the big picture.

A week later, there is a final day, in which each side has 45 minutes to present its case relative to everything discussed so far, and then 2–4 hours of questions by the panel.

Note: the format is open for discussion. I think once a week is about right for the two sides, but twice a week is probably better for the judges, to keep them current. Would be great to do this in three solid weeks in-person, but I think that’s too much to ask of both sides, unless they are very organized. I’d work with the moderator on the format and rules.

Synthesis

After the sessions are over, the panel of judges, which includes the moderator, will each submit their overall summaries and short summaries of each session independently, without knowing the others’ summaries. They will attempt to answer these questions:

1. To what degree have humans already influenced the global climate?

2. To what degree is there a climate emergency now? How important is decarbonization?

3. What do they believe should be done about CO2 (and methane) today and for this century?

4. How much extra a) temperature change, b) storms, c) floods, d) glaciers melting, etc. are humans expected to cause by 2100?

5. What are the uncertainties involved? What are your confidence intervals for all conclusions?

Then, after submitting their separate analyses, the panelists will meet to discuss the evidence among themselves — sort of like a jury does. After this meeting, they will craft a joint statement with a summary that includes the conclusions reached by all judges individually and as a group. There can be majority and minority opinions. The moderator will read this document out loud in a final session, and any judges who want to comment may do so. Then, the big issues of the magazines will come out, supplemented by many other stories in each.

Press coverage

Select journalists would be invited by the magazines, based on their ability to be neutral, attend all sessions, maintain secrecy, and their degree of statistical literacy. We may need to hire an outside group to choose these journalists, or I can do it with the moderator. The journalists may be paid by their employers or we may pay them if they are independent. Journalists must declare their previous biases, any biases by their employers, and commit to covering both sides fairly.

There would be a press embargo during the debate, to avoid sensationalizing the sessions.

There will be some kind of press event after the final session. It could be an open Q&A with the panel members and the chair.

Members of the press may interview presenters or experts on their own time after the final session.

Journalists

Journalists would have access to all the video files after the debate is over and before results are officially published. There’s too much risk they will leak beforehand.

Promotion

Most of the expense comes in promotion. We will hire a single PR company to help get the word out, along with the magazines that have committed. This involves a website dedicated to the debate and its results. It involves hiring a PR firm to promote to the media. It also involves naming any media who openly refuse to cover the debate.

Staff

The staff would be:

• David Siegel, producer

• a full-time coordinator

• Web team to coordinate zoom, manage data and media assets, and produce website

Prize money

The prize is to compensate the presenters for their time and to help draw attention to the debate. The prize should be enough to make a splash. If we’re already spending trillions of dollars, we need enough prize money to help everyone realize what’s at stake. We will need a scoring system to determine the winner, based on the panelist’s answers. Something like $2 million. It could be 100 percent for one side, or an 80/20 split, 50/50, etc. The winning side would choose how to deploy the money to go to groups they think are doing the most important work.

Budget

This debate will be its own nonprofit entity, dedicated to a fair evaluation of the data and the science, and to promoting the results, whatever they may be. If we’re going to validate or debunk trillions of dollars in funding, I don’t want to short-change this effort. I’m happy to work up a budget for anyone who’s serious about funding. I think it would be around $10m:

$1m in staff and expenses

$400,000 each for the two groups presenting evidence

$2m in prize money

$1m in payment for the moderator(s) and panelists.

$1m each for each magazine willing to dedicate an entire issue.

$3m for public relations

The lion’s share for public relations and promotion of the results.

Sponsors

I am looking for sponsors who are dedicated to neutrality honest reporting. We should not care about the outcome, only the process. I want to make sure this is an event that the mainstream climate apparatus can’t back away from.

The big problem

The big problem is that the IPCC, WMO, NASA, and NOAA won’t participate. These are politically driven organizations. They have refused many debate offers in the past. They are winning at the moment — why risk a debate? This debate, especially, is not in their best interest. We need to put pressure on them to get them to the table. We may need to take out full-page ads just to get them to agree to come.

Once we set up the budget and sponsors, we will work with a good PR firm and our network to invite the other side. If they refuse, that message will be made public. If we can get over this problem, we should be prepared for many new revelations in the world of climate science that people didn’t know before. We should be prepared for news organizations like the New York Times to distort the results. Most news organizations make good money when they tell people the world is going to end — it sells advertising. They are not neutral. Many people make a living now on decarbonization and don’t want it to go away.

There will be opposition to a debate. That is precisely why we need one.

On the other hand, precious little money goes from fossil fuel companies to researchers and people like us at the CO2 Coalition. Almost none. We are volunteers trying to find the truth. If they win the debate, we will have to admit that our arguments were unconvincing and will need to look again at where we think the science really is. We don’t mind. We want scientific integrity to win over politics. We’ll happily change our minds when we see new data that contradicts our existing beliefs.

A second problem: this event will be attacked by fringe groups and rent seekers. We must work very hard to ensure scientific integrity. While I am qualified to produce the event, they will attack me as not being neutral. However, that is not the case. My first book was alarmist. I had to go back into the literature for a full year to realize what the IPCC was doing and change my mind. Activists won’t appreciate this. They will use labels and smear tactics. We will be very open and transparent. We must work with the PR company pro-actively to make sure everything is tranparent.

Future debates

This is strictly a scientific debate on the past and predicted effects of human-added CO2 to our climate. If successful, this debate could lead to a group doing cost/benefit analysis before spending trillions on energy and environmental issues. It could be influential on policy. More debates could be held to investigate renewable energy, fossil-fuel energy, ozone depletion, plastic pollution, nitrogen fertilizer, ocean and rainforest health, nuclear energy, energy policy, and other topics.

Summary

If you think this isn’t important, look at the worldwide effects of energy poverty. Look at the damage the ESGs are doing to our economy and to people in poor countries. Bad energy policy is strangling Europe.

One side is lying. One side is looking for the truth. Let’s find out which side and get to work building resilient economies that take care of their poor.

I welcome a discussion with any potential sponsors who may be interested. If it goes well, we could take on many other controversial and important scientific and economic topics.

This debate will be an important moment not just for the environment but for science.