Moving the Overton Window

Is global warming a real but over-hyped inconvenience that should under no circumstances be tackled by aggressive emissions pricing, or merely a vast left wing conspiracy in imminent danger of collapse that should under no circumstances be tackled by aggressive emissions pricing?

Two Serious Minds will answer this burning question once and for all.

About these ads

13 responses to “Moving the Overton Window

  1. I’m glad someone has the fortitude to follow Pielke’s blog and alert the rest of us to historic events like this.

    I think your have captured the “opposing” views very accurately.

    Paul

  2. In March 2010? Wouldn’t it be more timely – and better suited to their respective consequence and talents – to debate Super Bowl XLIV in March 2010?

  3. I have a hunch how this will go, and I may tell you too if I was correct after the debate, it all depends if my hindcasting methods are correct.

  4. Hmm, does this mean that Pielke has gone emeritus? Or gone swiftboat? Or that Swiftboat has gone pielke?

  5. Yes, I think this is a fair assessment of the event. Other, more important tangible benefits of the “debate” is validation for the Swift Boater, and false perception of authority for Jr.

    Best,

    D

  6. It’s an interesting tactic … likely to be effective, too. What will be next, Watts vs. Pielke, Sr? M. vs M.?

  7. What’s the Overton Window?

  8. Rather like the idea of shifting baselines I guess. Good ol Wickerpedja to the rescue again.

    I asked Roger why he was chosen and what he hoped to accomplish. No response so far. Think he knows?

  9. Jim B.,

    RP jr “chose” himself. Or perhaps it was a calling from on high.

    Marc Morano is upset that Andrew Freedman, a blogger with the Washington Post, won’t debate him about climate change. Not wanting to see Marc left without a debating partner, I’d be happy to debate Marc Morano on climate policy.

    MM was first in with a comment a scant 13 minutes later, and the happy event was quickly arranged:

    Roger,
    Absolutely, I would be happy to debate you. Although, I think we have many areas of agreement. you could not be more wrong in advocating a carbon tax. It would quickly become a slush fund for politicians. You should know better than to push for such a poor idea. But, I will acknowledge a carbon tax is a more “honest” and effective approach to addressing emission concerns than cap-and-trade.
    At any rate, I am willing to debate you at an agreed time and place.

    If you absolutely can not bring yourself to look away, you’ll see Ken Green of AEI offering to host and Andy Revkin eagerly offering to moderate.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/09/inviting-marc-morano-to-debate.html

  10. The Glenn Beck Review

    Interesting post. I have a review of Overton’s Window, the political theory, on my blog that might interest you. It addresses the topic of this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s