Michael Crichton Debates Global Warming Wednesday 03/14/2007

Intelligence Squared.org ^ | March 14, 2007 | Event Staff

[CedarDave]

From Gavin Schmidt:
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?

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.

[alnitak]

Brilliant cartoon Dave, my colleagues are now wondering why I am laughing.

[P-Marlowe]

Bump.

[CedarDave]

Excellent program. I downloaded the best quality video early on (before it was yanked) and am buring it to CD's to give to friends and co-workers.

BTW, this is a better quality video:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Matchett-PI]

Algore is the one who earned himself that reputation, but Gavin inexplicably said this: "..Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. .."

[alnitak]

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

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html


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.

[Matchett-PI]

Thanks for the link. If you find a video of this debate anywhere, please link it here, also, will you? Thanks!

[Matchett-PI]

Thanks!

[Grampa Dave]

That is the same link, I have been using for a few days.

Now I'm calling it the Great Gorebull Warming Swindle.

The Great Gorebull Warming Swindle

[Matchett-PI]

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?

[Chena]

bookmark

[Matchett-PI]

"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."

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."

Hahahaha bttt

[Pete98]

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.

[CedarDave]

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?

[Excellence]

I wish I could find it, but I can't.

[Kellis91789]

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'.

[Real Cynic No More]

I just now realized why all the kooks are against global warming. Someone read the memo that told them "... at all costs, we must oppose GW" The next line of the memo, which was apparently on the lost 2nd page, continued: "Bush in this next election." And it just grew from there.

I think this is as good an explanation as any!

[DollyCali]

great Info on thread BUMP

I have scanned this briefly.. Match... are you Gavin?

[Matchett-PI]

Hell no! He's an Algore sycophant! What would make you think I'm him?

[Grampa Dave]

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.