Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Crichton Debates Global Warming Wednesday 03/14/2007
Intelligence Squared.org ^ | March 14, 2007 | Event Staff

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]


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; energy; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; michaelcrichton
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last
To: CedarDave
"TGGWS"

Watched it yesterday. Very interesting. If the gw doomists cannot satifactorily answer the anti-gw scientists contention that many times in the past temperature rises PRECEEDED!!! CO2 rises, then the whole gw hysteria campaign collapses.

51 posted on 03/15/2007 11:45:45 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pete98

The more dumb-dumbs (I.e. Lefties) that they convince about GW, the less trouble they'll have when they impose their draconian measures on us.


52 posted on 03/15/2007 12:41:53 PM PDT by Catholic Canadian ( I love Stephen Harper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

Read that and thought surely Michael Moore must dream he is Rush Limbaugh. . .


53 posted on 03/15/2007 12:47:09 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
"Please ping me and I will combine the two links with a Gorebull Warming Cartoon."

Will do!

54 posted on 03/15/2007 12:51:01 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: alnitak
I highly recommend both blogs.

ClimateAudit.org to get a good idea about one aspect of the "resistance". It reveals numerous questionable tactics in gathering (and preserving, or even better NOT preserving) data upon which all of IPCC's conclusions are based. You will witness attempts through Freedom of Information Act to get the data, and how the IPCC folks reject the requests.

RealClimate.org is worth visiting regularly if for no other reason than to witness how smug and arrogant the AGW theorists are. My sense, compared to reading various other blogs, is that most posters are NOT scientists but rather eager kool-aid drinkers with Gavin Schmitt, et. al. more than willing to do the pouring. I have to say that I experienced a great feeling of Schadenfreud witnessing them licking their wounds after last nights debate and whining about how unfair the forum was to them and how they were the only people representing science and that is was necessarilly less glamorous.

I regularly visit several other blogs (mostly skeptics in nature):

Roger Pielske Sr's Climate Science Blog
Bruce Hall's Hall Of Record
A Better World: Graeme Bird for High Office

All of these blogs are great, and often they will cross-post. These are REAL climate scientists, some of which are the most prominent "resistance" scientists in their fields. I particularly like Roger Pielske Sr.'s blog for balance. Gavin Schmitt frequently drops in, makes criticisms, gets spanked, then departs. I have rarely seen Mr. Pielske NOT come out on top in dust-ups with Gavin. Mr. Pielske, BTW, does believe that man has had a significant impact on the climate, but not in the ways that the IPCC and Gavin, et. al. postulate. He believes that man-induced climate change is mostly regional and result from land-use changes. He also is a firm believer that the IPCC has made many mistakes and have not been very honest in their tunnel-vision that everything comes down to man's introduction of fossil-based CO2 emissions.

Bruce Hall is a regular poster on Pielske's blog, as is Graeme Bird. Graeme is a rather colorful character with VERY strong opinions. He seems a little "out-there" if you know what I mean, but his theories are interesting to read nonetheless.
55 posted on 03/15/2007 1:22:35 PM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
Mr. Pielske, BTW, does believe that man has had a significant impact on the climate, but not in the ways that the IPCC and Gavin, et. al. postulate. He believes that man-induced climate change is mostly regional and result from land-use changes. He also is a firm believer that the IPCC has made many mistakes and have not been very honest in their tunnel-vision that everything comes down to man's introduction of fossil-based CO2 emissions.

As a geologist in the SW US, I concur with Pielske's belief. It's pretty obvious that the increase in black bodies (streets, buildings, etc.) and moisture (watered lawns, recreational lakes) in Phoenix has changed the microclimate in that area since I was a youngster living there in the '50s.

56 posted on 03/15/2007 1:31:44 PM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Matchett-PI
Not a friendly Web Site....no granularity at all..... They want you to see all of their stuff.....

Lets see if this works:

Inconvenient Truth?

Is Al Gore cashing in on carbon credit scheme?

****************************************************

Today this is under Fox and Friends.,...tomorrow .....who knows.....

57 posted on 03/15/2007 1:39:24 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The DemonicRATS believe ....that the best decisions are always made after the fact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Grampa Dave; CedarDave; xcamel; AaronInCarolina; jsh3180

Thanks for the link!


In the comments section of Gavin Schmidt's ---[he was one of those who debated Crichton, et.al.]--- web site http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/global-warming-debate/ ---, someone references this thread at comment #66 here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/#comment-28304

#66 "well cynically, if you guys are going to help the skeptics win support, then perhaps doing these publicity stunts is a bad idea!

Although considering uber-right-wing sites like FreeRepublic were following this, and they are notorious for stacking ("freeping") polls in a childish attempt to facilely swap opinion, that could explain some things:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801351/posts

Comment by Carl Christensen ­ 15 Mar 2007 @ 1:16 pm"

LOL

They were up to 100 comments there last I looked.


58 posted on 03/15/2007 3:13:08 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

The Gorebal Warming BS can't stand up to any close scientific review. This is why they are trying to ram it through and call those of us who say no, the bad guys and gals.


59 posted on 03/15/2007 3:57:42 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (GW has more Honor and Integrity in his little finger than ALL of the losers on the "hate Bush" band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave
saying we just don't know enough yet?

They're saying that many of the studies don't seem to really say what their authors are saying that they say. When you dig into them, you find proxies being used for things they don't represent, statistical errors (both mathematical and conceptual), self-selecting methodologies, "independent" studies by close associates of the original authors that reuse the same datasets as the one they are "verifying" and using the same known-to-be-flawed methods, finding various publications peer review process doesn't include looking at either the data or what calculations were done on it, proxies for which the originator can't say where they got them, and many other flaws which make the studies *meaningless*.

By and large they take no position on what is. They are primarily pointing out that what IS being put out there on the subject of AGW is not science, or is at best merely an inkling worthy of investigation not a conclusion.

60 posted on 03/15/2007 4:00:24 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

sorry for mis ID.. as I said I had skimmed the thread & saw most was written in first person..


61 posted on 03/15/2007 4:13:14 PM PDT by DollyCali (Don't tell GOD how big your storm is -- Tell the storm how B-I-G your God is!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: lepton
By and large they take no position on what is. They are primarily pointing out that what IS being put out there on the subject of AGW is not science, or is at best merely an inkling worthy of investigation not a conclusion.

Wow, just WOW!!

62 posted on 03/15/2007 4:47:57 PM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Transcript of the debate here:

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf


63 posted on 03/15/2007 5:33:20 PM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Debates are fed to National Public Radio(R) member stations across the country. "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis" airs on WNYC(R) AM 820 in New York City on Friday, March 23rd at 2:00 PM, KQED FM 88.5 in San Francisco on Wednesday, March 28th at 8:00 PM and Saturday, March 31st at 1:00 PM, KJZZ FM 91.5 in Phoenix on Sunday, March 25th at 3:00 PM, WDUQ FM 90.5 in Pittsburgh on Sunday, April 8th at 6:00 PM, and KERA FM 90.1 in Dallas on Friday, May 11th at 1:00 PM and 8:00 PM. Please check your local listings for other dates and times.
64 posted on 03/15/2007 8:28:08 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lepton
When you dig into them, you find proxies being used for things they don't represent, statistical errors (both mathematical and conceptual), self-selecting methodologies, "independent" studies by close associates of the original authors that reuse the same datasets as the one they are "verifying" and using the same known-to-be-flawed methods, finding various publications peer review process doesn't include looking at either the data or what calculations were done on it, proxies for which the originator can't say where they got them, and many other flaws which make the studies *meaningless*.

What makes me irate is that individuals associated with the IPCC are constantly going back and retro-tweaking data that has been around for years because the old data is "inconvenient truth". From ClimateAudit.org from a Tuesday thread, a Jan-Anders Grannes posts:

I just had a look at the new Jones et al for 2006 for Arctic 70N-90N 180E/W and what a BIG surprise!! Until for 1 week ago, with the period 1930-2005 we had the following 12 warmest Arctic years:

Year Anomaly degrees C

1938 2.030988
2005 1.971766
1937 1.856739
1944 1.600208
1998 1.413495
1934 1.371807
1981 1.363475
1947 1.272157
1943 1.212582
1954 1.132263
1953 1.086665
2002 1.075276

But today I had a look at the new Jones et al 1930-2006 and the list have been somewhat modefied!!

2005 2.032369
2006 1.891971
1937 1.806445
1938 1.562015
1947 1.593568
1944 1.544973
1998 1.285725
1943 1.251363
1940 1.200875
1934 1.137410
2002 1.129200
2003 1.029881


If nothing happens today you can always change the past to make people feel that today is changeing?


Notice how 1938 lost about a half a degree Celsius just like that??? A half-degree Celsius is almost as much as the entire warming trend of the entire century (IF you believe the data and that the trend was not mainly Urban Heat Island effect).
65 posted on 03/15/2007 9:07:18 PM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

Is the original data preserved someplace? Secondly, if changes were made since the time it was originated is there a scientific reason documenting the changes? For example, more accurate temperature analysis. I'm not talking about the IPCC hacks, but rather, by legitimate scientists or researchers.


66 posted on 03/15/2007 9:44:41 PM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

Thanks for the links, I will add them to my list.


67 posted on 03/16/2007 2:47:19 AM PDT by alnitak ("That kid's about as sharp as a pound of wet liver" - Foghorn Leghorn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Zon

Thanks! Here's the link to the station in NYC which will be carrying the debate on Friday, March 23rd at 2:00 PM. (I just emailed my local NPR station to find out if and when they will be carrying it):

http://www.wnyc.org/podcasting/

Look on upper left side of page for this "Listen Live" block:

Listen Live

FM 93.9 Windows 20k
MP3 32k
On Air: Morning Edition

AM 820 Windows 20k
MP3 32k
On Air: Morning Edition


68 posted on 03/16/2007 7:04:54 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; xcamel; CedarDave; Grampa Dave; AaronInCarolina; jsh3180; lepton; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...

Thank you so much for the transcript. You had it posted here before James Inhofe's office got it posted to his web site:)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

March 16, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them."

The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor during the debate.

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.

"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience. (For more debate quotes see bottom of article)

The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.

The scientists arguing for a climate ‘crisis’ were NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public Radio’s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: "Global warming is not a crisis.”

Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience

The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate "crisis" moments before the debate began.

But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of 46.2% -- a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official audience voting results]

[Link to full debate pdf transcript]

Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealCilmate.org.

"…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 [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s Philip] 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," Schmidt wrote.

‘Advantage: Climate Contrarians’

The ScientificAmerican.com’s blog also declared the global warming skeptics the clear winner of the debate in a March 15 post titled: "Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians."

"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello wrote.

The advocates of climate alarmism "were faced with the folksy anecdotes of Crichton and the oratorical fire of Stott," Biello wrote at ScientificAmerican.com.

Biello concluded, "…the audience responded to Crichton's satirical call for a ban on private jets more than Ekwurzel's vague we need to throw ‘everything we can at the climate crisis.’ By the final vote, 46 percent of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a crisis, while just 42 percent persisted in their opinion that it was."

Biello also criticized climate "crisis" advocate Richard Somerville as "perplexed" and "hardly inspiring."

Skeptic’s ‘Very Popular’

Debate participant Schmidt lamented that the evening turned into one of futility for believers in a man-made global warming catastrophe.

"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."

Schmidt continued, "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."

Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.

Selected Quotes from the climate debate from transcript: [Link to full debate pdf transcript]

Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:

"I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]"

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."

Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott:

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

Skeptical quotes of MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

[snip]

Click above link for the hot links embedded within the commentary and for related links.


69 posted on 03/16/2007 7:14:28 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

I watched The Great Global Warming Swindle last night. Everyone needs to watch it.


70 posted on 03/16/2007 7:17:18 AM PDT by 6ppc (Call Photo Reuters, that's the name, and away goes truth right down the drain. Photo Reuters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

D-fender posted the transcript at #63 last night:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1801351/posts?page=63#63

Also see my post #69:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1801351/posts?page=69#69


71 posted on 03/16/2007 7:19:24 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lecie; All

Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners In Global Warming Debate
The (Senator) Inhofe Environment and Public Works Blog ^ | March 16, 2007 | Marc Morano
Posted on 03/16/2007 9:38:53 AM EDT by Lecie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1801848/posts [refresh browser]


72 posted on 03/16/2007 7:35:05 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: 6ppc

Thanks for the feedback.

I got very similiar feedback from friends and relatives on my conservative email lists. No comments from the few liberals on my lists.


73 posted on 03/16/2007 7:47:53 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (GW has more Honor and Integrity in his little finger than ALL of the losers on the "hate Bush" band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

This is great. If this hasn't been posted as a stand by itself thread, please post it as a thread by itself. Either we are overloading this site or Gore's Gorebal Warming Facists are trying to trash it.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ac1c0d6-802a-23ad-4a8c-ee5a888dfe7e

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.gov
Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprising, it swung against them."

The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor during the debate.

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a ban on private jet travel.

"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience. (For more debate quotes see bottom of article)

The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.

The scientists arguing for a climate ‘crisis’ were NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public Radio’s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: "Global warming is not a crisis.”

Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience

The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate "crisis" moments before the debate began.

But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of 46.2% -- a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official audience voting results]

[Link to full debate pdf transcript]

Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealCilmate.org.

"…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 [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s Philip] 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," Schmidt wrote.

‘Advantage: Climate Contrarians’

The ScientificAmerican.com’s blog also declared the global warming skeptics the clear winner of the debate in a March 15 post titled: "Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians."

"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello wrote.

The advocates of climate alarmism "were faced with the folksy anecdotes of Crichton and the oratorical fire of Stott," Biello wrote at ScientificAmerican.com.

Biello concluded, "…the audience responded to Crichton's satirical call for a ban on private jets more than Ekwurzel's vague we need to throw ‘everything we can at the climate crisis.’ By the final vote, 46 percent of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a crisis, while just 42 percent persisted in their opinion that it was."

Biello also criticized climate "crisis" advocate Richard Somerville as "perplexed" and "hardly inspiring."

Skeptic’s ‘Very Popular’

Debate participant Schmidt lamented that the evening turned into one of futility for believers in a man-made global warming catastrophe.

"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."

Schmidt continued, "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."

Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.

Selected Quotes from the climate debate from transcript: [Link to full debate pdf transcript]

Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:

"I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]"

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."

Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott:

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

Skeptical quotes of MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down, not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these gases on the greenhouse effect."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

# # #

Related Links:

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

AMS Certified Weatherman Strikes Back At Weather Channel Call For Decertification

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"







74 posted on 03/16/2007 8:05:55 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (GW has more Honor and Integrity in his little finger than ALL of the losers on the "hate Bush" band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello wrote.

Anyone who reads RealClimate.org knows that Gavin Schmitt talks down to anyone who he thinks disagrees with him. If you have a dissenting opinion, its because you are not the scientist he is. In fact, every scientist who comes out with a paper or study that questions the conventional wisdom as defined by Gavin and the IPCC is a scientist to be discredited, not first listened to objectively.
75 posted on 03/16/2007 8:22:28 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.

What a crock!! The audience was heavily weighted on the side of believers of climate 'crisis'. It was in no way, shape, or form equally split going in. The man is delusional.
76 posted on 03/16/2007 8:26:11 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina

Thanks for the feedback.

Gavin appears to be the typical elite liberal pseudo intellectual. Use bad science, and screams and shouts until he has silenced his opponents.


77 posted on 03/16/2007 8:26:57 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (GW has more Honor and Integrity in his little finger than ALL of the losers on the "hate Bush" band)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
This is a typical post of Gavin at Roger Pielke's Climate Science Research blog:

I would draw readers attention to the fact that all these points were drawn to Roger’s attention when he first made these claims.

science-errors-or-at-best-cherrypicking-in-the-2007-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers


It is curious therefore that he should choose to repeat them verbatim.


It is inconceivable to Gavin that someone he thinks he corrected in earlier arguments would dare to continue to make those arguments. Typical elitism.
78 posted on 03/16/2007 8:39:20 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave

Thanks! Someone already did start that thread. I linked to it in #72 and went over there and linked his thread to this one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1801351/posts?page=72#72


79 posted on 03/16/2007 8:39:40 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Thanks!


80 posted on 03/16/2007 9:32:27 AM PDT by listenhillary (You can lead a man to reason, but you can't make him think)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Thanks for the link.


81 posted on 03/16/2007 9:57:24 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CedarDave

Very nice quality AVI format on BitTorrent


82 posted on 03/17/2007 8:07:38 AM PDT by enviros_kill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lepton

bookmark bump


83 posted on 03/17/2007 4:46:35 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton

bookmark #50 bump


84 posted on 03/17/2007 4:51:25 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Zon; xcamel; D-fendr; CedarDave; Grampa Dave; AaronInCarolina; jsh3180; lepton; ...

Today's the day that you can listen to the debate Crichton took part in last week. Ping your lists and/or others you know who might be interested. (I also posted this link in the live thread of AlGore's "testimony" today on C-Span-3. I've linked that below also):

Michael Crichton "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis" debate 3/23/07

For those interested, you may listen to this debate today on NPR on line at the feed shown below.

Look on upper left side of page for this "Listen Live" block by clicking here:
http://www.wnyc.org/podcasting/

Listen Live

AM 820 Windows 20k
MP3 32k

Debates are fed to National Public Radio(R) member stations across the country.

"Global Warming Is Not a Crisis" airs on

WNYC(R) AM 820 in New York City on Friday, March 23rd at 2:00 PM


444 posted on 03/21/2007 10:46:30 AM EDT by Matchett-PI
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1804253/posts?page=444#444

bttt


85 posted on 03/21/2007 8:00:01 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

also - AlGore and the 556K signatures - proving he can dupe 0.00185333% of the population on any given day.


86 posted on 03/21/2007 8:15:43 AM PDT by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Thanks.I'm off to listen.


87 posted on 03/21/2007 8:16:09 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: xcamel
"AlGore and the 556K signatures - proving he can dupe 0.00185333% of the population on any given day."

Exactly.


88 posted on 03/21/2007 9:12:59 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

bookmark


89 posted on 03/03/2013 10:30:50 AM PST by Matchett-PI (You know how to stop abortion? Require that each one occur with a gun -Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-89 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson