The climate alarmists rarely engage in serious debate. Why should they? Their narrative plays endlessly on the leftist media. The so-called journalists don't dare question the fraudulent 'data' or ask why none of the scary predictions they made decades ago all proved to be false. In a real debate the climate change narrative quickly collapses when faced with actual data.
Two months ago I attended one of the few debates between well known representatives from both sides. At Colorado University in Boulder, Guy Benson moderated a debate between Alex Epstein and Robert Kennedy Jr. Epstein, author of 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels', takes a somewhat unique approach by first stating we all want what's best for humans. Few argue with that. Then he proves that fossil fuels, despite some downsides, have made life immeasurably better for virtually everyone on the planet.
I actually found myself feeling embarrassed for Kennedy at times. Early in the debate he went into a wild rant against vaccines. He finally got more focused and attacked his usual villains, rich people and big corporations. He also had silly anecdotes about catastrophes caused by climate change, like a boat dock that was wiped out in New England. I'm glad he showed up, but he sure didn't help his cause.
It's a long but very good debate, available here:
https://youtu.be/jjE6tt8PoZE 
