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]
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.
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.
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.
Read that and thought surely Michael Moore must dream he is Rush Limbaugh. . .
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.
Lets see if this works:
Is Al Gore cashing in on carbon credit scheme?
Today this is under Fox and Friends.,...tomorrow .....who knows.....
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:
#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:
Comment by Carl Christensen 15 Mar 2007 @ 1:16 pm"
They were up to 100 comments there last I looked.
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.
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.