Skip to comments.Michael Crichton Debates Global Warming Wednesday 03/14/2007
Posted on 03/15/2007 9:35:38 AM PDT by Matchett-PI
NOTE: I don't know if this is on Youtube yet, or not]
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Global warming is not a crisis
Speaking for the motion: Michael Crichton, Richard S. Lindzen, Philip Stott Speaking against the motion: Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt, Richard C.J. Somerville Moderator: Brian Lehrer
SOLD OUT MODERATOR:
Brian Lehrer is host of the highly-acclaimed Brian Lehrer Show heard weekday mornings on WNYC® New York Public Radio®, 820 AM, 93.9 FM and wnyc.org. He is also an award-winning author and documentary producer. Lehrer holds masters degrees in journalism and public health/environmental sciences.
SPEAKERS FOR THE MOTION: Michael Crichton is a writer and filmmaker, best known as the author ofJurassicPark and the creator of "ER." Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. He has been a visiting instructor at Cambridge University and MIT. Crichton's 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios.
Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT since 1983, previously held professorships at Harvard, where he received his A.B., S.M. and Ph.D., and the University of Chicago. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the recipient of various awards. He is the author or co-author of three books and over 200 papers. His current research is on climate sensitivity, atmospheric convection and the general circulation of the atmosphere.
Philip Stott is an Emeritus Professor and biogeographer from the University of London, UK. Although a scientist, for the past ten years he has also employed modern techniques of deconstruction to grand environmental narratives, like global warming. Stott was editor of the internationally-important Journal of Biogeography for 18 years. He broadcasts widely on TV and radio, and writes regularly on environmental issues for The Times of London , among other publications.
SPEAKERS AGAINST THE MOTION: Brenda Ekwurzel works on the national climate program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Prior to joining UCS, she was on the faculty of the University of Arizona. Doctorate research was at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University and post-doctoral research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.
Gavin Schmidt is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. His publications include studies of past, present and potential future climates. Scientific American cited him as a top 50 Research Leader in 2004, and he has worked on education and outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences, among others. He is a contributing editor at RealClimate.org.
Richard C.J. Somerville is Distinguished Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on computer simulations of the atmosphere. Among many honors, Somerville is a Fellow of both the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society. He has received awards for both his research and his popular book, The Forgiving Air: Understanding Environmental Change
Wednesday, March 14, 2007 Asia Society and Museum, 725 Park Avenue at 70th Street, New York City Reception 6:00 p.m. Debate 6:45 p.m. Finish 8:30 p.m [snip]
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 Philip Stott. The preliminary position statements (from me and from Philip Stott) are available on the ABCnews site. It's sold out, but the proceedings will be broadcast on NPR (for instance, WNYC 820 AM on Friday, March 23, 2007 at 2PM) and there will be a podcast (though I don't know if it will stream live). There's an online poll as well for what that's worth.
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 educational? Or does it just validate the least serious opposition? Is it simply a waste of time that would be better spent blogging?
I'd be interested in any thoughts people might have. ~ Gavin Schmidt
Comment #2: "One of the postdocs I work next to recently told me 'Michael Moore has it right. If you can't make it entertaining you will never reach the general population. When it comes to disseminating the truth you need to set up a solid backbone for credibility and then grab their attention with entertainment.' .." Comment by Wacki 12 Mar 2007 @ 7:44 pm
15 Mar 2007 http://www.realclimate.org/
Adventures on the East Side
gavin @ 1:20 am
So that http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/global-warming-debate/ was .... interesting.
First off, I'd like to thank the commenters for all of the suggestions and ideas to the previous post. They were certainly useful. In particularly, the connection with the difficulties faced by evolutionists in debates vs. creationists proved to be very a propos. Our side played it it pretty straight - the basic IPCC line (Richard Somerville), commentary on the how 'scientized' political debates abuse science (me, though without using the word 'scientized'!) and the projections and potential solutions (Brenda Ekwurzel). Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying Eastsiders present) and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that global warming is a problem using any energy at all. Lindzen used his standard presentation - CO2 will be trivial effect, no one knows anything about aerosols, sensitivity from the 20th Century is tiny, and by the way global warming stopped in 1998. Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science. (more...) Comments (pop-up) (38) 4 blog reactions
The comments here from Al Gore's fans about the debate are hilarious:
I had read about this debate a couple of weeks ago, but forgot it was yesterday. I remember reading that the audience was to vote at the end of the debate about which side "won". Do you have any info how that vote went?
Can we get a link to some video or audio of the debate?
Never mind.......I found the results of the debate vote....the GW skeptics won!!
Last night, NPR and intelligence squared hosted a debate in New York City on the motion "Global Warming is not a Crisis." The proposition, Michael Crichton, Prof. Richard Lindzen and Prof. Philip Stott, won by 46% to 42%. What makes the performance all the more impressive is that before the event the organizers found the motion would have been disapproved of 57% to 30%, so there was quite a swing as a result of the arguments deployed.
The video link below has real scientists not Green Goron Enviralist Druids pretending to be scientists. They shred Gorons Global Warming caused by us bs:
Ping me if anyone finds a transcript or video.
Like a couple of animated cartoon polar bears drowning. Made ME laugh!
Comment by [appropriately named]
Gavin Schwartz, one of the debate participants comments regarding a podcast he will be making available next Wednesday here: http://www.realclimate.org/
"The podcast should be available next Wednesday (I'll link it here once it's available), and so you can judge for yourselves, but I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull. ..."
Who knew? LOL
If their politics weren't so transparent they might get more traction for their Gaia propaganda.
As long as they keep making these sorts of comments, we'll keep quoting them. These quotes serve to illustrate the contempt they have for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the rest of us.
"Comparatively, we were pretty dull. ..."
Say it ain't so.
Thanks for the link. It's a great documentary. As soon as this Crichton debate is available on google or Youtube, I want to link that here also. bttt
Will do. I want to link it here as soon as it's available.
ping for ipod...
What arrogance. He believes that the question is settled; that global warming is a fait accompli and man is the cause. Therefore it is a waste of time to even discuss it because it takes away from doing more useful work. Besides, in his opinion, the mind of the common man cannot grasp the details.
Hillary talks about the vast right-wing conspiracy, but the global warming conspiracy is much more obvious and the leftist, one-world government radicals are behind it.
Brilliant cartoon Dave, my colleagues are now wondering why I am laughing.
BTW, this is a better quality video:
realclimate.org is a website setup by Michael Mann after McIntyre and McKitrick ripped his "hockey stick" to shreds.
M&M have their own website over here: http://www.climateaudit.org/
and the history of their paper debunking the hockey stick is available here
What M&M are doing is digging into the fundamental data and asking questions of the AGW crowd. Really difficult stuff like
1. Please publish the full dataset you used.
2. Please publish the computer programs you used to generate the results.
and the AGW crowd refuse....which makes them non-scientists in my mind.
Thanks for the link. If you find a video of this debate anywhere, please link it here, also, will you? Thanks!
Now I'm calling it the Great Gorebull Warming Swindle.
Here's another great video:
Video on Fox and friends 3/14/07
Click here http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html and scroll down to the "Shows" catagory then click on the Chris Horner video entitled Inconvenient Truth? Is Al Gore cashing in on carbon credit scheme?
Proverbs 18:17 says that the first to plead his case always seem right until another comes to examine him.
See post #6: "I found the results of the debate vote....the GW skeptics won!!
Last night, NPR and intelligence squared hosted a debate in New York City on the motion "Global Warming is not a Crisis." The proposition, Michael Crichton, Prof. Richard Lindzen and Prof. Philip Stott, won by 46% to 42%. What makes the performance all the more impressive is that before the event the organizers found the motion would have been disapproved of 57% to 30%, so there was quite a swing as a result of the arguments deployed."
In an way they are right. Why participate in any debates, since the global elites including the Democrat party are already dead set on imposing draconian restrictions and "carbon taxes" to penalize us for causing global warming.
I'm confused by your post. I've been to realclimate.org and find it full of global warming Kool-aid drinkers. Now McIntyre and McKitrick have a site up that appears to debunk the those on realclimate. On the other hand it appears that they are equally skeptical of the AGW crowd (if AGW means "anti-global warming"). So are M&M septics of both sides? Do they have a firm position or saying we just don't know enough yet?
I wish I could find it, but I can't.
Of course. The audience must have been swayed by the 'entertaining presentation' of the skeptics, because all the 'facts' were on the side of the alarmists.
Nice to see that liberals can still rationalize away their losing a debate.
And, according to the POLL, the audience was NOT 'split roughly half/half' before the debate. Only 30% of the audience was in the 'skeptic' camp before the debate, while 46% were skeptics after the debate. That this guy can lie to himself about this does not bode well for his integrity as a 'scientist'.
I think this is as good an explanation as any!
great Info on thread BUMP
I have scanned this briefly.. Match... are you Gavin?
Hell no! He's an Algore sycophant! What would make you think I'm him?
Great stuff, thanks.
I wish that I had the skills to find the direct link so that people wouldn't have to wade through all of the Fox stuff to get to it.
Gore and his Gorebull Warming Scam are laughable. However, we need to get a lot of people laughing and discrediting his Gorebull Warming Scam.
It may be too early for it to be posted yet. The debate just happened last night.
AGW in global warming circles = Anthropogenic global warming, i.e. man made-----not Anti global warming.
You got it!
Please ping me and I will combine the two links with a Gorebull Warming Cartoon.
No, my link goes to the second program on that page (the one that looks like a black pyramid). My link is wide screen which eliminates the scrunched-up look of the participants.
Ah, now alnitak's post makes sense.
BTW, septics = skeptics in my post.
They are all so arrogant and condescending, marking any who doubt their conclusions as small, ignorant people who are to be barely tolerated, but certainly not listened to.
I don't think M&M have taken a position on AGW, what they are doing is trying to apply a normal degree of scientific rigour to the GW "science". Full and fair disclosure, for example - it's a principle of science that results must be replicatable, but the GW side seem to be a bit lax about publishing their methods and data.
Both sites are not typical blogs, there are well qualified scientists who post on both, plus the usual "hangers on". A deep reading over several days of climateaudit will be very rewarding for bolstering scepticism.
I have spent the last couple of weeks reading them, and my impression is that realclimate is they are rather defensive and dismissive of anyone who doesn't share their opinions.
I'd also heartily recommend the Wegman paper which deals with networks of pro-GW scientists - http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf - by reading it you will come to understand how incestuous the AGW crowd are!
Here are some of the findings
In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction. Normally, one would try to select a calibration dataset that is representative of the entire dataset. The 1902-1995 data is not fully appropriate for calibration and leads to a misuse in principal component analysis. However, the reasons for setting 1902-1995 as the calibration point presented in the narrative of MBH98 sounds reasonable, and the error may be easily overlooked by someone not trained in statistical methodology. We note that there is no evidence that Dr. Mann or any of the other authors in paleoclimatology studies have had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface. This committee does not believe that web logs are an appropriate forum for the scientific debate on this issue. It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.