Finally, one of Gore’s trained presenters debates a climate skeptic

People send me stuff.

Finally … finally! … a person trained by Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project agreed to face off in a public debate on global warming.  As WUWT readers may know, trying to get one of these folks to debate a skeptic has been an impossible task…until now. Full video follows, running about 59 minutes.

While I don’t know the details, I suspect the video quality has to do with an apparent long standing policy of Gore’s presenters refusing to allow their presentations to be video taped. My impression is that this appears to be a clandestine recording made by an audience member.

From an email I received:

============================================================

Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project squared off against The Heartland Institute in a global warming debate January 8 in Tallahassee, Florida. More than 260 people attended the hour-long debate, which resulted in standing room only at the Tallahassee Elks Club Lodge, which hosted the debate.

Ray Bellamy, a Florida State University faculty member who gives public presentations on behalf of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, argued humans are causing a global warming crisis. Taylor countered that global warming activists have proven none of four important factors they need to show in order to demonstrate a human-induced global warming crisis.

“I am very happy that this debate is now available on the Internet so people can see the for themselves, without having to wade through media filters, who possesses and presents the best evidence in a fair and balanced debate,” said Taylor.

“I encourage people to watch the debate and then share it with friends, family and acquaintances. So long as people have access to the truth, I believe the truth will always prevail,” said Taylor.

=============================================================

Source: Alyssa Carducci

The YouTube page says:

Heartland Institute Senior Fellow James Taylor debates Ray Bellamy, M.D., a Tallahassee Orthopedic Surgeon at the Elks Club Lodge at 276 North Magnolia Drive in Tallahassee, Florida on Jan. 8, 2013.

About these ads

206 thoughts on “Finally, one of Gore’s trained presenters debates a climate skeptic

  1. Thanks Anthony. No wonder the alarmists don’t like debating. In the closing remarks, after Taylor summarises the science, Bellamy just engages in a series of ad homs against Dr Soon and Dr Singer, and then admits what he had just claimed was a direct quote was ‘paraphrased’, to a chorus of boos from the audience. Epic fail!

    A shame the bootlegged video ends at that point, but we may look forward to many more such debates in future. /sarc

  2. HAHAHA! Typical “ad-hominim attacks” by the Gore-ite. Completely predictable and un-original.
    To bad the audiance wasn’t as AGRESSIVE as the “Critical Thinking” Club group I was with about 2 years ago in MN. They had a presentation by a AWG “disciple”, a retired U of Wisc. meteorology professor. Although I and one other engineer asked some questions that clearly “sliced and diced” the man’s technical points, such that …as one observer said after the presentation, the retired Professor displayed the classic “Deer in the Headlights” look, a few times during said logical disections, the Critical Thinking Club member absolutely eviserated the fellow for the (expected) ad-hominim attacks on sources and personages who present cases counter to the Al Gore approved group-think.

    Alas – the MOB versus Atlas! All I can do is shrug it off!

  3. Dr Bellamy’s closing remarks with their bitter ad homs and smears about Willie Soon and outright lies about Fred Singer tell you that even Dr. Bellamy thinks he has lost that debate hands down. These debates do not achieve much, in my opinion, but I do like the way in which James Taylor asks the audience to go out and look at the data and find out for themselves. Excellent.
    Was there no “before and after” voting?

  4. Jo Nova and David Evans debated Anna Rose, arch warmist for the ABC documentary. The documentary was to convince a senator Nick Minchin to the warmist case or Anna Rose to sceptics. Minchin is on record as saying threats from a warming globe are exaggerated.
    Anna Rose could not understand anything David Evans said and her argument depended on the computer modelling and the specious reasoning of the precautionary principle as if that is some sort of magic castle.
    The ABC refused to show the debate, only highly edited bits that attempted to reverse Evans opinion. They cut it to make it seem Anna Rose more than held her own, even when she was clearly out of her depth.

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/abc-doco-uncut-evans-nova-minchin-and-rose-the-full-unedited-video-2521502.html

  5. No contest! Muahahahaha!!!!!!! OMG – the Ortho was a complete FAIL. Jason Joice, I get your embarrassment, but don’t sweat it. Some Orthos are just plain deluded and slow, like the rest of the population. Maybe he’s a great Ortho.

    Mr. Taylor’s debate was fact-filled( peer-reviewed citations aplenty) , versus the emotion-filled anecdotes and ad-homs from the Old Guy. Quote of the debate was Mr. Taylor’s response to the Old Guy’s question (24:20) – “That’s the way it is”.

    Brilliant. Understandable that they don’t want debate. Fail every time.

  6. Man I hate this WordPress BS. I submit a well-worded, carefully edited and double spell-checked response, and lo, I get a WordPress page asking me to log in. So I do. And then…..

    … nothing.

    No “awaiting moderation”, no “thank you”, just, an assumption that eventually the satellite will reappear from behind the moon and communication will be restored. So I am left wondering whether or not to re-engage in the hard labour of reconstructing my response from memory. Fix it!

    [Reply: Not in the SPAM queue, so no idea. I've sometimes retrieved lost posts with the "back" or "forward" page option in the browser to pull up the pre-send page. Doesn't always work, but sometimes. -ModE]

  7. Sceptic- “Wheres the proof?.

    Warmist, “ummm, ahh, urm, uh, deniers,big oil urm, urh, erm.”

  8. Anyhoo, now that I am logged in….
    Quote of the week candidate could be “I don’t understand the question…” Josh has to do somrthing!

  9. While it is cold in China it is a hot summer in Australia. Just like it usually is and just like usually happens when we have a few hot days and the accompaning fires Dr. David Karoly tells all who will listen that this is climate change in action. He makes similar statements when ever the weather supports the climate change meme. He fails to add that he is one of our climate commissioners (please don’t laugh. I feel bad as it is for having a government as crazy as ours) and is paid handsomely to promote the need for a carbon tax in order to save the planet. Medical doctors get debarred when they screw up and tell lies and so do lawyers. How come climate scientists can get away with crap????

  10. Mike Jowsey says:
    January 12, 2013 at 2:54 am
    Man I hate this WordPress BS. I submit a well-worded, carefully edited and double spell-checked response, and lo, I get a WordPress page asking me to log in. So I do. And then…..

    —- —-
    It does happen. What I do these days is to merely copy my response then click ‘post comment’ and if word press pops up and the post disappears merely paste and try again.

    If the post had already been accepted it will normally say something like ‘this post appears to be a duplication’ in which case there is no need to resubmit.

    tonyb

  11. Nearly an hour? Ok… I’ll be back ‘in a while’ ;-)

    Until then, um, wasn’t that Ka-Ching the sound of The Fat -um- Lady Singing?

    How long before AlGore exits stage right or gets ejected by his dejected rejected ‘followers’ stage left?

    I expect the best and brightest have already noticed the snow from the UK to Jordan and California to what was it, 65% of the USA?

    And just think, only a half decade of steadily less solar help as this cycle ramps down.

    Look for the remaining ‘dregs’ of the AlGore Traveling Salvation Show to be of ever lower quality and competence.

    Ok, with that, off to video land for “a while”…

  12. I thought Ralph Bellamy was an actor…. oh, Ray Bellamy?

    Well, he’s still an actor. Apparently, in a bit role.

  13. James Taylor did a fine job debating his position and presenting the overwhelming evidence against CAGW. Dr. Bellamy was a bit of a disaster simply repeating the standard memes of: unstoppable positive feedback loops (not supported by empirical evidence), dangerous and rapidly increasing ocean rise (not supported by empirical evidence), current temps unprecedented (not supported), extreme weather incidence increasing (not supported), skeptics all in the pockets of oil companies (not supported)….

    I could go on, but what’s the point. Dr. Bellamy did a poor job in trying to defend the indefensible CAGW theory.

  14. WP does have some issues related to monetization of the Internet commons. I use OpenID Seatbelt from Symantec that WP has been unable to implement. Read Zittrain’s Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It.

  15. “How come climate scientists can get away with crap????”

    Because they are saying what their Government masters want them to say.

    When it comes to aggrandizing Government power and control, adherence to reality and truth are the first casualties soon followed by the lives and fortunes of its citizens. Except for a few blinks of history when Government was held in check, It has always been thus. Why then are we surprised when Government acts as Governments have always acted? Climate catastrophe is simply the current excuse for such behavior.

  16. Lawrie Ayres says:
    January 12, 2013 at 3:08 am

    … Medical doctors get debarred when they screw up and tell lies and so do lawyers. How come climate scientists can get away with crap????

    Scientists should be bound by the same rules that govern engineers.

    My conclusion is that, if the analysis by climate scientists had been required to pass a typical engineering preliminary design review, the crisis theory would have never been passed on to the non-technical audience.

    Burt Rutan http://www.iceagenow.com/Burt_Rutan_calls_AGW_a_Fraud.htm

  17. Dr. Bellamy, if you won’t bet $1000 that the world will actually warm as much as you say, will you bet $100? $10?

    You emphasized that the population isn’t under control: would you like to expand on that statement?

  18. The effect on plant protein of increased CO2 depends on the concentration of the gas, environmental factors (such as soil moisture) & type of crop. Alfalfa, for instance, increases its protein content under elevated levels of CO2, while even a doubling from present concentration leaves soybean content about the same. Some other crops do suffer as much as 10-15% loss in protein content under a doubling of recent levels (700-800 ppm).

    However, any such loss is more than compensated for by greatly increased yields, less water use & oxygen limitation. Furthermore, the increased crop bulk not used for food or feed still has energetic value, as does improved yields of forest fiber & other woody growth.

  19. Sadly, for a lot of people (including most of that audience by the sound of it), the slow-speaking MD with his homespun anecdotes about lightning at football games will come across as far more trustworthy than the sharp executive type armed with facts.

  20. “Metric tons are bigger than our tons” — so we’re supposed to be metric-scared, not our-scraed. Every little bit helps.

  21. Mike;
    If you use FF on a PC, or Chrome, you can use an add-on called “Lazarus”, which saves every keystroke of every form Reply or Comment, along with the URL of said form. The file can be held for the default 14 minutes or much longer, and searched or used to recreate your exact posts, etc. I save mine for 54 weeks, but I may add a zero to that, since storage is so cheap.

    I don’t know if it works on Macs, however. There was a version for Safari, but it’s withdrawn at present.

    If you can use it, you will NEVER lose another post, regardless of WP’s peculiarities.

  22. Ad homs from an AGW supporter? Who’da thunk it. It is so predictable. Why dont they wise up and realize that anyone on the fence and trying to give both sides the benefit of the doubt are going to be turned off by this non-intellectual tactic.

  23. P.S.;
    The “recreation” I mentioned consists of either a click on a context menu option (from a right-click in the form itself), or a “Copy” of the DB entry, which you can then paste anywhere.

  24. James Taylor writes for Forbes, and is routinely harassed by Warmists for his assaults on the Consensus. He has learned to stay clam, clue, and corrected. Though he has issued, as he says, a license to respond to ad homs with sarcasm.

  25. “My impression is that this appears to be a clandestine recording made by an audience member.”

    You have out gleicked Gleick. Congratulations.

  26. Mike Jowsey says:
    January 12, 2013 at 2:54 am
    Man I hate this WordPress BS. I submit a well-worded, carefully edited and double spell-checked response, and lo, I get a WordPress page asking me to log in. So I do. And then…..


    If you use Firefox, just get the Form History extension. It automatically saves all textareas for a week, so if you lose a submission you just go to the field, right click, find form history, and there you are.

  27. I felt embarrassed on behalf of Mr Bellamy. Badly briefed, badly presented. When he said that a major issue of warming could be cancellation of ball games because of lightning strikes I inwardly curled up. I am no expert and take a contrary view to Mr Bellamy but I could have put a lot better argument together in support of dangerous C02 than he did.

  28. Joe on January 12, 2013 at 5:01 am
    Sadly, for a lot of people (including most of that audience by the sound of it), the slow-speaking MD with his homespun anecdotes about lightning at football games will come across as far more trustworthy than the sharp executive type armed with facts.”
    ——————–
    I thought the same!

  29. All you guys cheerleading and crying victory…I find the audience reaction generally disgusting. This is what we’re up against, ignorance, anger, and closed minds. That clueless physician should have been laughed off the stage.

  30. Just to add, once again that risible 97 percent canard is used to good effect. That the lie is so precious to these people is seen in the audience reaction when the cherished consensus meme is challenged. I can’t get any of the leading skeptics to talk to me about trying to conduct a survey of our own. NOt sure why. I simply can’t see how that’s not something worth trying. Anthony? I’d be glad to dg deeply into my own pockets to help fund such an endeavor. Multiply me by thousands and you can see that we could easily afford it. Why don’t we do it?

  31. With apologies to Dr Joyce:
    An orthopaedic surgeon was seen approaching an elevator, the doors started to close just as he reached them. Bending forward he placed his head between the closing doors. “Why did you do that?” said a passing nurse. Holding his hands out, the orthopaedic surgeon replied, “I need these for my work!”

    What’s the definition of a double-blind clinical trial? Two orthopaedic surgeons looking at an ECG (EKG for the N American readers)

  32. Taylor wasted his question to Bellamy. The bet was a non-starter.

    That being said, the debate was not educational in the sense that nothing new really materialized. One side presented facts and figures, and the other merely responded with ad hominems and innuendo. I can see why the GoreBull Warmists do not like to debate. They operate better when no one questions them and asks to see the man behind the curtain.

  33. Joe says:
    January 12, 2013 at 5:01 am
    Sadly, for a lot of people (including most of that audience by the sound of it), the slow-speaking MD with his homespun anecdotes about lightning at football games will come across as far more trustworthy than the sharp executive type armed with facts.

    =======

    Unfortunately I am somewhat in agreement.

    I recently put up those two charts, showing how the Met CRU changed their temperature forecast for the next fews years… within minutes, I had someone tell me ‘those charts have long since been debunked.’

    …. seriously? Most people don’t have the First clue what is going on in the climate argument. That, despite our best efforts.

  34. I dont understand why any debate should last more than 15 minutes. AGW proponents argue that co2 absorption of incoming radiation will lead to a positive feedback. Where is the physical proof of that given the immense magnitude of all the other factors involved? I know PHD’s who say that it could be a net coolant. Temperatures went on when we had an ice age at 7000ppm CO2. Point is, it’s either a non factor, or something that is so small its not worth the time or energy or economic cost. There is the problem. That would destroy an entire cottage industry in academics, and the economy. Perhaps generously we can say as many do that it may have some minute effect. But the sheer weight of other factors renders it almost useless. The 2nd item is simple presentation of sst and air temps against CO2, and then all the other facts (ex: heat trapping hot spots not showing up). Finally propose a test… where will global temps be in 2030, once we have had 20 years plus of cold pdo and cold amo. Force them to make a forecast that we can watch. This isn’t rocket science, though the other side wants to make it more complex than it is. Force them to defend and then compete, Its the last thing they want to do. I cant believe all this is still going on. Are we to believe if CO2 was not increasing then we would be heading into a natural variability ice age. Prove that this warming and feed back can take place beyond the magnitude of what this gas’s relationship to the entire system would lead one to believe. When you break it down, its amazing how small it really is not only to the air, but the entire ocean/land /air system..not even bringing in changes in solar which they also have ignored over the years. No wonder Bill Gray has used words like hoax and scam years ago.

  35. My conclusion is that, if the analysis by climate scientists had been required to pass a typical engineering preliminary design review, the crisis theory would have never been passed on to the non-technical audience.

    Steve Mc has been asking for this for maybe 5 or 6 years. No show !

  36. I have to say that I don’t think this debate makes any difference. One that would, however, might be Slingo vs Lindzen or Betts vs Lindzen or Krugman vs Lindzen.

    Holdren vs Lindzen with Oblarny at Holdren’s side. Yeh that’s the one. Ooh, add SteveMc with Lindzen to back him up.

  37. Thanks for posting this debate. We’ve seen others over the years and our side holds up well. Time is winning the science argument for us and we have seen some hope in the media coverage. The battle royal is in the government sphere where Gore, Markey, and others created a Frankenstien’s monster of funding that rolls on year-in-year out. This whole mess started as a battle over nuclear power in the US and UK. In 1977 when Gore entered Congress he was 100% pro-nuclear. They were building a massive nuclear plant in Hartsville, TN and like his father before him he was all for it. Just entering the workforce at that time I can tell you that the economic impact in Gore’s congressional district was a game-changer. The pushback was from enviromentalists and the then new Union of Concerned Scientists. The TVA had to make a decision nuclear vs coal. At first it appeared that Gore and nuclear had won. 12 plants were planned with several going into construction. Coal and the environmentalists teamed up to reverse the decsion. The nuclear plants in construction were stopped and new coal plants were built. Coal was happy but nuclear and environmentalist were not. The enviros wanted solar, wind, etc… nuclear wanted nuclear. It took 30 years and years of mumbo-jumbo but in 2009 the enviro’s and nuclear cut a deal to stop coal. It’s raw political power and buckets full of money. Science has always been a victim twisted and tortured until it said whatever was needed.

  38. It is nice to see this video posted on you website, Anthony. In the days leading up to the debate, Bellamy kept referring to me as “the denier” and a number of activist groups engaged in a full-court press to turn out their members for the debate. As a result, approximately 70 percent of the audience consisted of environmental activists. Of course, if there is anything I enjoy more than exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist, it is exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist in front of 200 of his friends and supporters.

    Truth for truth’s sake,

    – James

  39. Stephen Richards says:
    January 12, 2013 at 6:54 am

    I have to say that I don’t think this debate makes any difference. One that would, however, might be Slingo vs Lindzen or Betts vs Lindzen or Krugman vs Lindzen.

    Holdren vs Lindzen with Oblarny at Holdren’s side. Yeh that’s the one. Ooh, add SteveMc with Lindzen to back him up.

    It isn’t the players that are being showcased as much as the argument. While it would be instructive to see your list of combatants face off, the scientific arguments are what really matter. An appeal to popularity is no more valid than an appeal to authority, which is one of the few ploys they have left, and according to public polls, is failing.

  40. What is the motivation? I don’t know what it is now but in the 1970’s the political science majors had to take a science course and the most popular course was Nat Sci 10 given by Stephen Gould. They learned about the interstadial periods and at the same time the environmental movement was beginning to take hold and needed a compelling arguement.They were learning about Thermasoclese in their political science classes. My observation at the time was that they determined that the correlation between CO2 and the interstadial temperature, CO2 and methane offered by the interstadial narrative and Vostok Ice cores presented an exceptional political opportunity. The technique is amazingly powerful, and presented huge political windfalls, everything we are is carbon based. Using straight forward political science techniques they have been manipulating dependence on CO2 and the the global warming trend to make the argument that we must have some political control on anthropogenic contribution and by ceding this control and power to them humanity will be directed into a better result in the future through care of our environment.
    In the final analysis when confronted with the data they would regress to the Thermastoclese dilemma.” Is it ethical to misrepresent the facts in order to get the Population to do the “right thing”.” Tey would say emphatically YES!.
    Once we get into the political realm an ad homenum attack and misrepresentation is fair game, scientists on the other hand are in a different reality and are at a disadvantage because usually one’s imagination is much more fertile for creating fantasy and the truth is generally [pretty boring.
    My take on the response to “What is the motivation.”

  41. james t,

    Thanks for the video. Is there a chance you could post the presentation you had?

    I also loved when the left tries shouting you down. I so dislike their non-science tactics.

  42. The answer to the question of “what is the motivation is grounded in studying Thermastoclese and the political science question. “Is it ethical to misrepresent to the public in order to get them to do the “right thing .”Let no “crisis” go un used.’ This campaign represents a steady pressure toward a major political power shift. The public is being offered specious reasons and ABSURDLY fabricated alarm and asked to cede control and authority over carbon to the political establishment for the greater good.” The UN thinks that it should be the controlling body and any good political science student can see the possibilities. Exciting times!

  43. Joe says… “AGW proponents argue that co2 absorption of incoming radiation will lead to a positive feedback. Where is the physical proof of that”.

    You need proof? How about the draft AR5 IPCC model predictions plotted against current temperatures as seen at this link …
    IPCC figure 2 with the following superimposed on the graph:
    o WFT monthly values from 1986-2012.
    o WFT Trend line from 1986-2012 projected to 2050
    o WFT Trend line from 1998-2012 projected to 2050

    Oh wait, ummm…. never mind.

  44. “Joe on January 12, 2013 at 5:01 am
    Sadly, for a lot of people (including most of that audience by the sound of it), the slow-speaking MD with his homespun anecdotes about lightning at football games will come across as far more trustworthy than the sharp executive type armed with facts.””

    Excuse me? I cannot believe anyone (and you were not the only one here) that thought this was a winner for the AGW side? The lightning football game was totally embarrassing.

    On the other side, I would not make the bet argument again, which I say as the only downside to James argument.

    As a side note, James sounded just like Kevin Costner, at least in this video. That has to be a good thing.

  45. On the lightning strike before the FSU football game…

    This was his con for why we should be afraid of the effects of global warming??? Because fans who travel from far away in their mobile home may miss a game because of a lightning strike within 10 miles of the stadium may miss the game or have it postponed. Are you kidding me?

    My fear is that if that professor and his ilk had their way, the fans would not be allowed to own a gas guzzling mobile home and would be prevented from taking trips that were unnecessary, all in the name of saving the planet.

  46. mbw says:
    January 12, 2013 at 5:54 am

    “My impression is that this appears to be a clandestine recording made by an audience member.”

    You have out gleicked Gleick. Congratulations.
    Huh? In what universe is videotaping an event equivalent to obtaining documents under false pretenses, forging another document and then ‘leaking” the results equivalent?
    You Warmists just don’t get ethics, do you?

  47. Long a fan and now a member of The Heartland Institute. (note to Glieck: feel free to use my name Jackbag :)

  48. “Excuse me? I cannot believe anyone (and you were not the only one here) that thought this was a winner for the AGW side? The lightning football game was totally embarrassing.”

    I don’t know about the commenter you’re directly referencing, but I’m talking about the audience reaction. Yes, you’re right the bumbling doctor was an embarrassing disgrace. Was there any real doubt he would be? The question is, was the audience swayed? Not to my ear, by a long shot. Which again, is an indication of what we’re up against

  49. Well done James. Keep up the good work. Keep spreading realism. We have to stop

    “Those who know what’s best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.”

    These folks are everywhere pushing their hysteria and while they mean well they are extremely dangerous pawns in a political/religious power/money grab by those like Gore who pull the strings.

  50. I think that it is unfortunate the audience was so misinformed, if not outright stupid. One only has to have heard the lady who said she thought the world was billions of years old or at least millions of years old to get a sense of who the audience was, and none of the other questioners convinced me that the general audience was much smarter.

  51. Bruce Cobb,

    I agree, there is no comparison between Gleick’s wrongdoing and simply recording a debate.

    mbw is just unhappy that the alarmist side lost yet another debate.

  52. mbw says:
    January 12, 2013 at 5:54 am

    “My impression is that this appears to be a clandestine recording made by an audience member.”

    You have out gleicked Gleick. Congratulations.

    Thank you. Everyone here is already well aware that CAGW proponents believe that their lying and deceit (Mann’s Hockey stick, IPCC grey literature, Gleick, Gore, Polar Bear scares, a “fixed” peer review process, “hide the decline etc. etc. etc.) is ALL justified because CAGW proponents tell themselves that the other side does it too and that anyway the “end (save the planet) justifies the means”.

    The fact is that those who have orchestrated the CAGW fraud (not the pawns that believe it) are simply enriching themselves by having created global hysteria with significant related expenditures, increased taxation and onerous legislation – all from what is certainly a non-problem.

  53. Gleick’s Pacific Institute needs an audit to ensure they are in compliance with federal contracting rules. This thing is played by “Chicago Rules” and it is played on several levels at once. The river of money pouring out of DC and into AGW alarmism has us playing wack-a-mole.

  54. The strongest, most knowledgeable CAGWers need to be debated, certainly not a pitiful “activist” such as Bellamy. Someone above suggested that a debate between Krugman and Lintzen might be interesting. I don’t agree. Krugman clearly doesn’t understand the subject.

    Lintzen and Gaven might be a lot more fun, or Lintzen and Betts (although I suspect that they would find plenty to agree on).

  55. Stephen Richards says:
    January 12, 2013 at 6:54 am

    I have to say that I don’t think this debate makes any difference. One that would, however, might be Slingo vs Lindzen or Betts vs Lindzen or Krugman vs Lindzen.

    Holdren vs Lindzen with Oblarny at Holdren’s side. Yeh that’s the one. Ooh, add SteveMc with Lindzen to back him up.

    I think you misunderstand Steve McIntyre’s position. He’s stated, more than once, that he tends to accept the IPCC’s position on global warming.

  56. James Taylor says:

    January 12, 2013 at 7:00 am

    It is nice to see this video posted on you website, Anthony. In the days leading up to the debate, Bellamy kept referring to me as “the denier” and a number of activist groups engaged in a full-court press to turn out their members for the debate. As a result, approximately 70 percent of the audience consisted of environmental activists. Of course, if there is anything I enjoy more than exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist, it is exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist in front of 200 of his friends and supporters.

    Truth for truth’s sake,

    – James

    *

    Wow! James, you are brilliant. Also, thank you for posting the bit above, it makes me feel better about audiences in general. Great work, mate. Cheers!

  57. The alarmist guy is just awful – I mean embarrassing. All he has is big numbers (a zillion tons of CO2 gets released every day, or whatever), non-controversial statements (“the world is warming”) – as if anyone has argued that it hasn’t done since the end of the little ice age – and the old “consensus” claim. CRAP! Is that really the best they’ve got?!

  58. There is something that troubles me in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) debate that I would like to bring to light and solicit remarks from others in helping me understand it. I used to believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) when I first heard about it decades ago because it seemed plausible, but as I read articles skeptical of it I saw how I had been fooled. Being a skeptic I must dig in and get both sides of a controversial subject and then decide for myself. I’m a mechanical engineer and I understand physics and chemistry and energy a bit better than the average bear.

    I compare the CAGW community to mainstream organized religion, in particular the Catholic church and its hierarchy, like a pyramid with the pope at the peak and below are bishops and then priests and then on the bottom are the laity. Obviously the pope of it is Al Gore, and below him are such names as Mann and McKibben and below them are priests (bloggers and pundits). On the bottom are many average citizens who are not active participants in the debate but if asked if they at least believe in AGW they respond yes, simply because the media bombard them with it daily, however they do not act on it beyond lip service and recycling because what can one do?

    It is one thing for Al Gore, as wealthy as he is, to tell others to sacrifice and use less energy (i.e. to cause less CO2 output) and then himself use 37 times the amount of energy that the average American uses. Here I am not talking about Gore, but rather those many people farther down the pyramid, at the priest level, who collectively add up to far more than Gore. How can they daily beat the CAGW drum and then live the typical American (high CO2) lifestyle? That would cause massive cognitive dissonance with me.

    A few years ago I was listening to a popular radio show, “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross on NPR, and she was interviewing a warmist whose name escapes me. I think he traveled around the USA on a university speaking tour, getting the word out about AGW, and when Terry gently reminded him that he was producing lots of CO2 by traveling on jetliners, he quickly countered “…ah, but I’m doing good work.” That revealed to me an elitist mindset; that it is okay to do what one is telling others not to do in order to spread the pearls of wisdom to the ignorant masses.

    Taking that notion, I want to make an analogy. Imagine a scenario of miners who are trapped underground after a cave in, with apparently limited air supply. One miner begins to tell the others that they should remain calm and sit down and relax and conserve oxygen until help arrives, and then other miners who agree also go around telling everyone the same and soon every miner is running around frantically telling everyone else to sit down and relax but no one will do what they are telling others to do because they think it is doing good work. Later, after rescue they are told that the mine is so big that there was no danger of oxygen depletion anyway. What if everyone were to fly around on jets and preach to everyone else not to fly on jets? One could not even email others and tell them not to use their computers because it takes coal to make the electricity. It puts warmists in a wildly bizarre dilemma, so how can they justify it? I would say compartmentalized thinking.

    I used to go camping on my friend’s hilltop property near Mt. Vernon, Ohio. Near there are Amish farms and I stopped at their roadside stands to buy their baked goods. I am agnostic so I do not agree with them on a theological level, but I have great respect for them because from what I can tell, their life style is consistent with their beliefs. They do not merely talk the talk, they walk the walk, and it is not an easy walk. They are not warmists; but for theological reasons they forego modern luxuries.

    The CAGW faithful talk it but do not walk it (except Ed Begley jr.), and I really notice it at the priestly level, mainly from pundits and bloggers. They should give up modern luxuries because of their belief in CAGW. I never expect a politician to practice what he preaches, but I would think that if all these warmists really believe in their cause they would all band together live much like the Amish, not for theological reasons, but simply to avoid being flaming hypocrites. And if the oceans rise up to smite us skeptics, then the warmists, from their sea-walled enclaves can say, “We told you it would happen, so don’t blame us because we have lived like the Amish for 88 years!” (2100 – 2012 = 88) I use the year 2100 based on all their “by the end of the century” predictions.

    The CAGW debate should be a purely scientific debate, but too often it is a political debate. Lefties (American partisan politics) are automatically warmists because for them it is politically correct to promote the CAGW meme. I fancy myself a skeptic, and within the skeptical movement is the famous Professor Robert Todd Carroll, of California who authors “The Skeptics Dictionary” (www.skepdic.com). I really admire this man, I have learned a lot reading his web site. However, he is a warmist, seemingly because he is a leftie. Many of my friends are lefties and I have no problem with that, but here is a stellar example of someone who is 99% skeptic, yet puts political fashion above evidence. Here I am, the student, observing my mentor doing what he taught me NOT to do, but I respect him so much that I do not want to call him out on it. In my view, a true skeptic should doubt the CAGW meme.

    From the McKibbens down to the warmist bloggers, I would love to follow any of them around for a day and remind them not to use any carbon-based energy, lest they be elitist and hypocritical. Don’t you dare heat your house in the winter, or use an air conditioner or drive a car, or cook on the stove or use your computer, because that would make you look like a “denier” as they call my kind. If I were a warmist I would not be caught dead in a car or an airplane. I would set a golden example and walk or ride a bicycle or use a paddle boat. No phone, no lights, no motorcar, not a single luxury!

    end

  59. as has been pointed out the warmists packed the audience with supporters, much the same phenomenon can be witnessed on any BBC discussion programme, it is a powerful tactic of the left

  60. James Taylor has his act together – and the AGW proponents don’t, because their script lacks factual basis, and MUST rely on ad-hominem, call-to-authority, and fabricated consensus to claim credibility. If Al Gore really believed in the AGW case, he personally would be debating, along with his entourage of sycophants. For some reason (pangs of integrity perhaps?) he is nowhere to be seen. Thank goodness, Mr. Taylor is!!!

  61. me2-” same phenomenon can be witnessed on any BBC discussion programme, it is a powerful tactic of the left”

    Authoritarians of all stripes use this tactic. Once in power the Nazis systematically eliminated their opponents from civil society using a process known as “getting into gear” Science and academia were not excluded but rather given given priority. All scientific/academic societies were forced to make positive statements of support for the “concensus” of the people as expressed through The National Socialist Workers Party and it’s Fuhrer. You get the point.

    To a non-scientist Liberal Arts Major like myself the similarities jump off the page. Neutrality is not acceptable in this anti-science anti-reason environment. This is why the BBC, National Science Foundation, Royal Society, AGU, and so many others have to make the statements they have made. Having made them they must defend them. German science is still recovering from this brutal but short period of political corruption which was far shorter than what has been done in our time.

  62. Go Home says:
    January 12, 2013 at 8:01 am

    Excuse me? I cannot believe anyone (and you were not the only one here) that thought this was a winner for the AGW side? The lightning football game was totally embarrassing.

    ————————————————————————————————————

    I think you’re misunderstanding my position. I agree totally that Taylor “won” the debate on facts but I’m also well aware that the vast majority of the population don’t care about facts. They care about their gut feeling about the person who’s offering the “facts”.

    In this case, Taylor was efficient, professional and on the ball. He also “smelt” of successful business type – just the sort who are supposed to be financing the Big Denial Machine. So he would be taking that view wouldn’t he because he’s just the type who’ll benefit from business as usual.

    On the othert hand, that old Doctor who’s devoted his whole life to helping people with their health, and reminds them a little of Dr Jones back in Hazard County, is obviously just as concerned about this as he is about his patients’ arthritis and has nothing to gain personally from it. Now THERE’S someone they can believe. Doesn’t matter that he hasn’t got all those high-falutin’ facts and figures down pat, he’s showing it in ways we ordinary people can understand like cancelled football games and wasted drives to see them.

    None of that audience (or at least very few) will be going home and taking Taylor up on his suggestion of researching the facts themselves because they believe IN the good doctor more than in the executive. So it doesn’t really matter WHAT the doctor’s saying.because, whatever it is, it must be right.

    Don’t forget, one thing the warmists are VERY good at is marketing – do you really think the selection of their person was a blundering accident?

  63. The audience simply responded the way most audiences respond. Their emotional beliefs, beliefs which warm their hearts and souls, will trump cold hard facts and unbaked raw data any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Throwing more cold facts behind the cold ones they already discarded reminds me of a Bible verse about pearls.

    We, on the skeptic side, would do well to remember this tried and true wisdom when presenting to a contrarian audience. Yes, I am loath to persuade with emotions, but unless we dress those cold hard facts and raw data with such garments, audiences such as those in the video will continue to deflect away what is cold (facts) and embrace what is warm (belief in fear).

    If our purpose is to persuade, we MUST use emotion. If our purpose is to opine and debate under the blind rule of logic, by all means leave emotion behind. Choose wisely with your audience and intent in mind.

  64. Bellamy clearly hasn’t done his homework. He seems to know little apart from the handful of set peices he brought with him.

    Talyor was on that ball and seemed to have a good solid responce whatever was brought up.

    I certainly wouldn’t Bellamy on my side. No wonder they don’t want to be filmed.

  65. @ John Bell I read that same comment over at Digging in the Clay, a while back, by now you might have some fresh insight, into people caught up in self loathing and fear of everything around them.
    Best call I can give you is , secular anti-humanism. Combined with teenage rebellion to being brought up saturated in white liberal guilt.
    So found any unique shapes to the hypocrisy of true believers?
    Or of the folks who milk them?

  66. mbw says:
    January 12, 2013 at 5:54 am

    You have out gleicked Gleick. Congratulations.

    Tell us where the forgery is. Where the deception is. Where the need for confidentiality is. You think secretly filming a debate that was held before an audience, and releasing it unedited, is “out-Gleicking Gleick?” I’d love to hear the – ahem – logic, behind your statement.

  67. “I find the audience reaction generally disgusting. This is what we’re up against, ignorance, anger, and closed minds.”

    I agree with that comment, plus more, as it is a religion/power game now.

    I was recently speaking to a paid Catholic church “activist” who had spent his time in South America mobilizing the poor(as an activist priest), and now was making his mark in his native Canada being an activist against the Oil Sands, and fighting for “”equity” for the worlds “poor”.

    Global Warming was his offensive weapon. Literature to be presented at the pulpit was his ammo.

    When provided with the data by me, ie, that the warming is not happening as predicted, and that 100% of the IPCC models have been falsified.. he cared not a hoot. He in fact was derisive of my view that he should be aware of the facts about what he was preaching.

    My takeaway was that normal “science” has lost control of the discussion, as it is all just power politics for the left. They preach to the masses of poor, to “mobilize” them. The scary “”sciencey” stuff scares them, and the demoniziing of opponents works. I am surprised that we have not had terrorist type events happening from some looney leftists. Perhaps the events of 911 made the anit-terror measures so effective that the weather underground types are no longer able to do their thing. (thankfully)

  68. Russell Cook (@questionAGW) says:
    January 12, 2013 at 9:21 am

    Not the first time an AGW person threw in an ad hominem zinger at the very end of a debate.

    Indeed, but these guys are really pikers compared to this frustrated intellectual.

    (Go to the very, very end)

  69. Charles.U.Farley says:
    January 12, 2013 at 2:57 am
    Sceptic- “Wheres the proof?.
    Warmist, “ummm, ahh, urm, uh, deniers,big oil urm, urh, erm.”

    Brilliant short summary.
    Embarassing CAGW presentation and typical activists ad-hominem in the end, good arguments well presented by James Taylor, thank you!
    With all data, it looks like, the longer the time is, the more precise the measurements are, the better the skeptic case looks.

  70. Seth Borenstein reports about this mammuth new report:

    http://news.yahoo.com/report-says-warming-changing-us-daily-life-232742530.html

    The National Climate Assessment: http://ncadac.globalchange.gov.

    “There is so much that is already happening today,” said study co-author Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University. “This is no longer a future issue. It’s an issue that is staring us in the face today”

    This version of the report is far more blunt and confident in its assessments than previous ones, Hayhoe said: “The bluntness reflects the increasing confidence we have” in the science and day-to-day realities of climate change.

    The report emphasizes that man-made global warming is doing more than just altering the environment we live in, it’s a threat to our bodies, homes, offices, roads, airports, power plants, water systems and farms.”
    ==

    The cream of the cream…

  71. Bellamy merely spewed the usual Alarmist talking points, propaganda, and ad hominems. A trained chimp might have done better. Taylor, to the dismay and complete disaproval of the apparently brain-dead audience offered facts and cogent arguments.
    I’d hardly call that a debate. More of a romp, really. They should have stuck with their “the debate is over” meme.

  72. “I think you misunderstand Steve McIntyre’s position. He’s stated, more than once, that he tends to accept the IPCC’s position on global warming.”

    SOmehow I find it hard to believe he swallows the IPCC’s avowed 95 percent confidence level.

  73. Say, does gore have a website where one can view the ratings for these guys? I’d like to see where bellamy stands with him right now.

  74. It isn’t the players that are being showcased as much as the argument. While it would be instructive to see your list of combatants face off, the scientific arguments are what really matter. An appeal to popularity is no more valid than an appeal to authority, which is one of the few ploys they have left, and according to public polls, is failing.

    That is only true if you want to inform sceptics. For those they put their fingers in theirs ears and sing la la la only the destruction of the idols will suffice and even that may not be enough.

  75. halftiderock says:
    January 12, 2013 at 7:31 am
    What is the motivation? I don’t know what it is now but in the 1970′s the political science majors had to take a science course and the most popular course was Nat Sci 10 given by Stephen Gould….

    Gould was highly loved, but I have to think he was also hugely over-rated and owed much to a puzzling celebrity status. He actually tried to argue that science could be informed, favorably by Marxism. LOL.

  76. ssat, nothing was being “buried” here! The decadal forecast is updated every December, and goes on our science pages as it’s ongoing research and not intended to be a forecast for public use (it’s not yet been shown to be useful to anyone, although we hope it will be when we’ve developed the technique further). It’s not particularly relevant to global warming as it’s about near-term natural variability rather than the long-term trend.
    Jan 10, 2013 at 11:19 PM Richard Betts

  77. “Lintzen and Gaven might be a lot more fun, or Lintzen and Betts (although I suspect that they would find plenty to agree on).”

    They sparred back in 07 at the IQ2 debate in New York.

    Lindzen and company won the debate hands down.

  78. As James mentioned the audience was obviously stacked against him but he was the better versed and presented a much better argument. No contest as to who the winner was. Thanks James for doing this and thanks Anthony for posting it. Maybe there were some in the audience that actually listened to James and opened their minds to the data.

  79. milodonharlani says:
    January 12, 2013 at 4:52 am

    ….Some other crops do suffer as much as 10-15% loss in protein content under a doubling of recent levels (700-800 ppm)…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is the usual lies wrapped in truth. First there are three types of plant photosynthesis, C3, most plants & trees. C4, grasses including corn and sugarcane, and CAM – cacti. Most human food is C3.

    C3 responses the best to CO2. C4 evolved to deal with CO2 starvation – graph of response.

    Second they never tell ALL the findings or they rig the experiment.
    The Gorites use the this UC Davis studypress release: Rising CO2 levels threaten crops and food quality

    In the peer reviewed article quoted below, it was found that in durum wheat the nitrogen level in the leaves decreased with higher CO2 but at the same time the nitrogen level in the stems and seeds increased. Both biomass and grain yields increased under all nutrient and water regimes where CO2 was higher. The UC Davis authors measured the leaf nitrogen content and found it lower with increased CO2. However, they failed to grow the plants to maturity and measure the nitrogen content in the seed. It appears that the plants in the higher CO2 regime are able to use less nitrogen to generate more leaf mass and then deposit the excess nitrogen in the seeds where it will be of benefit to the next generation.

    The study the Gorites DON”T mention.

    FROM: CO2 Science
    Reference
    Kaddour, A.A. and Fuller, M.P. 2004. The effect of elevated CO2 and drought on the vegetative growth and development of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) cultivars. Cereal Research Communications 32: 225-232.

    What was done
    The authors grew three commercial cultivars of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) registered in Syria (Cham 1, Cham 3 and Cham 5) from seed in 10-liter pots in different compartments of a phytotron, half of which compartments were maintained at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of approximately 400 ppm and half of which were maintained at a concentration of approximately 1000 ppm. Half of each of these treatments were further subdivided into two soil water treatments: well-watered, where available water content (AWC) was replenished to 90% of full capacity when it had dropped to 60%, and water-stressed, where AWC was replenished to 70% of full capacity when it had dropped to 45%.

    What was learned
    Averaged over the three cultivars, the extra 600 ppm of CO2 supplied to the CO2-enriched compartments led to total plant biomass increases of 62% in the well-watered treatment and 60% in the water-stressed treatment. Also of interest was the fact that the extra CO2 led to increases in the nitrogen concentrations of stems and ears. In the case of ears, nitrogen concentration was increased by 22% in the well-watered plants and by 16% in the water-stressed plants.

    What it means
    “These results,” according to Kaddour and Fuller, “have important implications for the production of durum wheat in the future.” They state, for example, that “yields can be expected to rise as atmospheric CO2 levels rise,” and that “this increase in yield can be expected under both water restricted and well irrigated conditions.” Hence, as they continue, “where water availability (irrigation) is a prime limiting economic resource, it can be distributed more effectively under higher CO2 conditions,” and “for countries such as Syria where average national production is well below the physiological maximum due largely to drought stress, the predicted rise in atmospheric CO2 could have a positive effect on production.”

    The UC Davis study of wheat going only so far as nitrogen content of the leaves that is used by the CAGW crowd is borderline fraud if you ask me.

    More on Plants and CO2
    They never mention the problem with elevation and CO2 starvation….

    …While [CO2] does not vary with elevation, CO2 partial pressure decreases in proportion to total atmospheric pressure. Under modern conditions, partial pressures of CO2 at high-elevation sites are 10–30% lower than at low-elevation sites, producing an even more conservative com-
    parison between glacial and modern conditions….
    PDF

    Or that elevated CO2 makes crops more drought tolerant

    …. Elevated CO2 mitigated the degree of change in all physiological factors under drought or heat stress and resulted in increases in A (162%) and RWC (19%) and a reduction in EL (21%) under the combined stress. These results suggest that elevated CO2 could improve tall fescue tolerance to drought and elevated temperature by enhancing plant water status, cellular membrane stability, and photosynthesis capacity and by suppressing gs for water loss and C consumption through lowering respiration rate…..

    https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/52/4/1848?access=0&view=pdf

    It looks like An evolutionary transition from C3 to C4 was taking place because of carbon dioxide starvation probably combined with the droughts seen during cold periods.

    … these wide grasslands are an extremely recent feature in the region’s history. There isn’t solid evidence of animals consuming C4 plants until a scanty 10 million years ago (mya), and grasslands did not become widespread until the late Pliocene and Pleistocene. This recent birth of what is now a dominant feature of the landscape brings to mind many important questions. Specifically, after C4 plants started to become a food source in the Oligocene, how long did it take different herbivore species to adapt to eating this new type of greenery? Which species were early adopters, and which made the most complete shift from C3 to C4 plants? The process of adapting to a new resource—the relatively young C4 plants—had profound effects on community ecology of eastern Africa, as it provided new ways for large herd animals to both exploit new food sources and partition resources in order to facilitate coexistence and/or higher densities….

    http://www.scilogs.com/endless_forms/2011/04/07/im-going-to-take-a/

    And the CAGW types never mention…

    …About 85% of plant species are C3 plants. They include the cereal grains: wheat, rice, barley, oats. Peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, tobacco, spinach, soybeans, and most trees are C3 plants. Most lawn grasses such as rye and fescue are C3 plants…

    Moore, et al. say that only about 0.4% of the 260,000 known species of plants are C4 plants…

    Moore, et al. point to Flaveria (Asteraceae), Panicum (Poaceae) and Alternanthera (Amarantheceae) as genera that contain species that are intermediates between C3 and C4 photosynthesis. These plants have intermediate leaf anatomies that contain bundle sheath cells that are less distinct and developed than the C4 plants….

    The drawback to C4 photosynthesis is the extra energy in the form of ATP that is used to pump the 4-carbon acids to the bundle sheath cell and the pumping of the 3-carbon compound back to the mesophyll cell for conversion to PEP. This loss to the system is why C3 plants will outperform C4 plants if there is a lot of water and sun.….

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/phoc.html

  80. Tomwys, Al Gore is not stupid, otherwise he wouldn’t have made so much money from the scam. He is not so stupid as to get into a losing debate like this.

  81. I just finished watching the debate.
    As a compliment to this site, I didn’t hear one thing from either side I hadn’t already heard here.
    Can that be said of the pro-CAGW sites? (I don’t frequent them so I personnally can’t say.)

    I did notice that neither Hansen nor Mann were mentioned by Bellamy, even when Taylor talked of past warmer periods. I wonder why? Have even Gorephiles abandoned the “Hockey Stick”?

  82. TomRude says:
    January 12, 2013 at 11:42 am

    “This version of the report is far more blunt and confident in its assessments than previous ones, Hayhoe said: “The bluntness reflects the increasing confidence we have” in the science and day-to-day realities of climate change.”

    …and if you need a climate modeler to tell you how to adapt, you can always rent her:

    http://atmosresearch.com/who_katharine.html

    Her livelihood depends on alarmism. I hope she goes broke.

  83. Barrowice says:
    January 12, 2013 at 11:58 am
    “At last, a better speaker on the Skeptic side than on the Warmist side… Brilliant!”

    Did the warmist side ever have a good speaker? Well, maybe Steve Schneider. His “We have to choose between being honest and being efficient” is a real classic.

  84. Dr Burns says:
    January 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm
    Tomwys, Al Gore is not stupid, otherwise he wouldn’t have made so much money from the scam. He is not so stupid as to get into a losing debate like this.

    =======================================================================
    He just made $100,000,000 by selling out to “Big Oil”. Maybe he’s decided the “CAGW” well is running dry? I don’t measure “stupidity” or “ethics” by dollar signs. There are things much more valuable. I feel sorry for the guy. What has his just plain lack of honesty gotten him that’s worth having?

  85. Ed_B says:
    January 12, 2013 at 11:09 am
    “I am surprised that we have not had terrorist type events happening from some looney leftists. Perhaps the events of 911 made the anit-terror measures so effective that the weather underground types are no longer able to do their thing. (thankfully)”

    Joe Stack flew a plane into an IRS building killing one. He left behind a leftist Unabomber-style Malthusian manifesto praised by Noam Chomsky. Like in 9/11 a plane was used. (One dead besides Stack). Like in 9/11 it wasn’t prevented. The plane was smaller.

  86. What is the alias for this blog site? Bubba Sr and Bubba Jr. angry old southern white man and his son. Tea Party gerry mandering losers blog blah blah blah…..
    Must be hard to let go of all that alpha male aggression and control on the rest of us.. All new intelligent information is scoffed at first, and usually in a bullying type fashion. which is what is happening in this blog. All one has to do
    is casually observe what is happening in nature. Really, you all sound like a bunch of scared little boys hiding behind junk science you get from right wing web sites, AM talk radio, or Fox News… Taylor sounded almost psychotic, “There is no evidence of drought, there is no evidence of deserts increasing, there is no evidence of increasing tornadoes or super storms. Taylor, a lawyer, is the Sr. Fellow at the Heartland Insitute, which
    is funded by the 2 richest men in the world, the infamous Koch brothers, two psychopaths who fund ALEC, which tried to keep
    the voters of Fl from the polls. The Kochs made their money in fossil fuels. Think their whipping boy- Taylor is unbiased? Where is the common sense button located in this crowd? on your investment portfolio?
    We are wasting precious time attempting to deny reality. Soon when a large storm comes barreling through Tallahasse, and you are picking through the pieces, remember what you wrote in this blog site.
    I will.

  87. Bellamy went from being a clueless buffoon to a despicable liar with his ad homs and lies in closing remarks.
    FAIL.

  88. pokerguy says:
    January 12, 2013 at 6:18 am

    Just to add, once again that risible 97 percent canard is used to good effect…… I simply can’t see how that’s not something worth trying. Anthony? I’d be glad to dg deeply into my own pockets to help fund such an endeavor. Multiply me by thousands and you can see that we could easily afford it. Why don’t we do it?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It WAS done 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs There is more information HERE about how the petition was circulated, and this is the accompanying letter from Letter from Frederick Seitz Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., President Emeritus, Rockefeller University that went with the petition.

    Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

    The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

    This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas…..

    And finally THE RESPONSE Which is the first site that came up on google BTW
    Climate Denial Crock of the Week: Astounding Interview with “Oregon Petition” Nutjob – Art Robinson

    Remember that creepy old guy in your neighborhood that had a lot of guns and was always yelling at you to keep off the grass? Or maybe you can picture the archetypical survivalist freak in a bad science fiction movie? (Tremors comes to mind.)

    Now you can meet that person in real life. My video, “32000 Scientists”, is one of my most popular, because it addresses the widely circulated meme about a petition of ”scientists” who purportedly deny the reality of climate change.….

    The originator of the bogus petition is Art Robinson, an entrepreneur serving the needs of the paranoid, right wing, conspiracy theorist and survivalist subculture….

    Rachel Maddow featured an interview with Mr Robinson in full-on climate conspiracy crazy mode.

    Hilarity ensued.

    So ‘They’ have a study consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists in 2009 who wereAmerican Geophysical Union (AGU) members. 3146 responded. The “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”… only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic the paper with the data: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say? is even funnier “..I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but you will undoubtably be able to prove your pre-existing opinion with this survey! I’m sorry I even started it!..” is my favorite. (Doran/Zimmerman feedback)

    However it does not matter if they have 75 scientists who comprise their “consensus” and we have 31,487 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs, all that matters is the propaganda machine Mass media keeps repeating the CAGW consensus and ignores the Oregon Petition.

    Art redid the petition after the first one on-line petition was savaged by the CAGW crowd but as you can see they resorted to ad hominems.

    Now they are even bolder and resorting to false surveys showing skeptics are not right in the head according to the Looney Lew paper and his paper is getting traction LIVE SCIENCE: Link Between Climate Denial and Conspiracy Beliefs Sparks Conspiracy Theories:

    A study suggesting climate change deniers also tend to hold general beliefs in conspiracy theories has sparked accusations of a conspiracy on climate change-denial blogs.

    The research, which will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, surveyed more than 1,000 readers of science blogs regarding their beliefs regarding global warming. The results revealed that people who tend to believe in a wide array of conspiracy theories are more likely to reject the scientific consensus that the Earth is heating up….

    Now, climate-skeptic bloggers are striking back with a new conspiracy theory: that the researchers deliberately failed to contact “real skeptics” for the study and then lied about it.

    Climate change conspiracy

    Though about 97 percent of working scientists agree that the evidence shows a warming trend caused by humans, public understanding of climate change falls along political lines. Democrats are more likely to “believe in” global warming than Republicans, according to a 2011 report by the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute. In fact, deniers and skeptics who felt more confident in their climate-change knowledge were the strongest disbelievers…

    Sorry pokerguy but a simple survey will not do a thing about entrenched corruption and that is what we are looking at. All we can hope for is that the Money Men decide not to kill the golden goose, although given how money is flowing out of the West and into the East (China, India and also Brazil) I would not bet on it especially when the Director General of the World Trade Organization is talking up Global Governance and is bashing national sovereignty (second sovereignty link)

    Global Warming and the Financial Crisis (all carefully orchestrated) are as Lamy states, needed “..to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions which lead to change — ownership to prevent the built-in bias towards resistance to modifying the status quo …” The status quo being Freedom, Liberty and a say in government, the modification being a lower standard of living and micro-management by an unelected bureaucracy.

    If you start with the goal of a global totalitarian state run by the WTO/UN and modeled after the EU, all of a sudden the whole mess of the last couple of decades become very very clear.

    Do a bit of research on the “Harmonization of laws” and you will see what I mean. Important Banking Laws explains the financial crisis if you are willing to connect dots.

    FWIW Art Robinson Reponds to Petition Slander

  89. Anna says:

    “All one has to do
    is casually observe what is happening in nature.”

    What is happening is completely normal. Educate yourself on the Null Hypothesis: everything currently being observed has happened repeatedly in the past, and to a much greater degree. Nothing unprecedented is occurring.

    None of your complaints are worth answering. They are the typical sniveling of the anarcho-leftist eco-wacko crowd. Just read the nonsense you wrote, and ask yourself: “Do I sound credible?”

    You are not credible. You are driven 100% by emotion, 0% by rational science. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. Run along now, back to the DailyKos where you belong.

  90. Anna,
    You are long on rhetoric but short on facts. Pick a point and make a fact based argument. You may want to re-research your facts on the funding of Heartland by the Koch brothers. Once you have done that and posted that you were mistaken we can go on to discuss the facts about extreme weather. I say this in the most friendly non-bullying manner…

  91. Anna says:
    January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Anna, did you actually listen to the video? Taylor answered every one of your “points” and more with peer-reviewed science. All you can do is bellyache in the same manner as your bosses Al Gore and Bill McKibben do. The bellyaching is sounding more and more shrill as the years go by.

  92. Earlier Alex Epstein got McKibben to debate him, for money:

    “Last Monday, Bill McKibben and I finally squared off to debate whether fossil fuels make our planet a better place to live. I know many of you watched it live (thank you) and many of you had difficulty watching it live (I apologize, our server crashed from the traffic) but now everyone can watch the whole thing–or watch some 2-3-minute highlight clips. Thanks to Amy Chou for putting these together.

    Epstein to McKibben: “You’re not a Scientist” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a01TA4fofs&feature=plcp

    What does Bill McKibben really advocate? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Mppr8a1KrQ&feature=plcp

    Fossil Fuels are “the Food of Food” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY4ol5DUfNY&feature=plcp

    Are affordable fossil fuels a “market failure”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dbqL-xckWg&feature=plcp

    Alex Epstein on pollution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsLt_F7azM8&feature=plcp

  93. *sigh* Hi Anna. Glad to have you here. Did you have anything constructive to offer? All you’ve done so far is to leave a screed of hate, non sequiter, ad hominem, and innuendo. Come back when you’re ready to talk with grownups, hmm-kay?

  94. Anna says:
    January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    =====================================================================
    Wow!
    Let me guess. You’re in your teens? Early 20’s?
    Was all that you said what you think Bellamy meant to say or should have said?
    You’re rational presentation of the facts and data have convinced me that NASA will not need to waste money that could be better used to save a tree or a polar bear or an orca to send a probe to Venus. We just need to wait a few more years (according to Hansen) to find out what Venus is like.
    PS Feel free to press your own “common sense button” at any time. It’d be good for you.
    PPS Nobody funds me to say what I just said. (But you’re more than welcome to send me a check that won’t bounce.)

  95. That was one of the most one-sided debates I have ever seen. Bellamy presented very few data, was inarticulate, scientifically inaccurate (note d13C definition was wrong: reference to 14C), made his arguments via platitudes and the end resorted to ad hominem. Taylor on the otherhand backed up each point with fully referenced data, articulate response and rational arguments.

  96. Anna says;
    We are wasting precious time attempting to deny reality.
    Yes, you and your Alarmist friends most certainly are, and thank you for your candor. Here you will find the actual reality about climate, instead of the nonsense you’ve been fed via the MainScreamMedia, and any astroturf pseudoscientific Alarmist sites you attend. But, I doubt you are really interested in the truth about climate.

  97. Time for some light relief (a light is a clue in cryptic crosswords).

    In today’s Times Jumbo crossword

    42 across: Foolishly invest, without strength of mind, being green.

    Answer: Environmentalist

    Made my day.

  98. Anna says:
    January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    Lots

    —————————————————————————————-

    Hi Anna,

    Unfortunately, to an extent you’re probably right. A lot of the regular posters here probably do have large home armouries (excuse the UK spelling btw), even survival shelters, and many will have portfolios.

    But that’s not what the site is about, and that’s by no means the whole readership.

    Personally, I’m almost as far left as Marx (Carl, not Groucho) even to the point of believing that Communism is (in principle) a great idea. It’s only let down in practice by human nature, particularly the human nature of people who, under other systems, would be firmly on the right of the political spectrum. That’s why they manipulate communism to give themselves power and everything, while the rest gain little to nothing. In other countries they’d be called Bankers. From that personal perspective I hate it when political (including economic) posts appear here because I know I’m not going to agree with the ethos of the poster.

    But I still come here and I still read because, regardless of what I may think of the personal values of others here, I’ve seen enough to believe that they’ve actually got the science more “right” than the other side. The fact that something true is being said by someone you may not like doesn’t alter the truth of what they’re saying. An intelligent person will still listen to what they say, look at the evidence they offer for themselves – not just accept the “debunking” by people who they relate to – and possibly find that they’re saying something true.

    That’s what I did, and that’s why I still come here – even though I doubt I’d want to go for a pint with anyone here. Unless they were buying, of course ;)

  99. Bruce Cobb says:
    January 12, 2013 at 8:12 am

    ….You Warmists just don’t get ethics, do you?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No they do not. At least they do not have our understanding of ethics.

    HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THEORY AND THOUGHT: The Philosophy Of Karl Marx
    ….As a student, Marx accepted the philosophy of Hegel as the only sound and adequate explanation of the universe. According to this philosophy, “the only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement.” The one universal phenomenon is change, and the only universal form of this phenomenon is its complete abstraction. Thus, Hegel accepted as real only that which existed in the mind. Objective phenomena and events were of no consequence; only the conceptions of them possessed by human minds were real. Ideas, not objects, were the stuff of which the universe was made. The universe and all events therein existed and took place only in the mind, and any change was a change in ideas. Therefore, to account for these changes in ideas was to account for change in the universe….

    In the Hegelian philosophy no idea could exist without an opposite. Thus, the idea of light could not exist unless there were an idea of darkness, nor truth without falsity, nor high without low. If an idea were labeled a thesis, its opposite would be its antithesis. Consequently, in this realm of the mind within which the universe had its only real existence, innumerable theses and antitheses existed. Struggle or conflict was the en-evitable fact in such a universe—conflict of the thesis with its antithesis. In this struggle thesis and antithesis acted and reacted on each other, and a new phenomenon—synthesis—was created…..

    To Marx the thing the mind perceived was realty in itself. Objective existence was exterior to the mind of man, and ideas were the reflections of those exterior phenomena. The phenomena to be explained were therefore the objective events in the universe and not the ideas of those events residing within the mind. It might be said that Marx rejected Hegel’s idealism and substituted for it realism. The thesis and antithesis became to Marx actual opposing forces existing in the universe, with synthesis the resulting objective phenomenon that, becoming in its turn thesis or antithesis, played its part in the creation of a new synthetic phenomenon.

    In other words we as scientists believe in “Objective phenomena and events” they believe in a changeable ideas and a changeable reality. I had one of these ‘Philosophers’ show up at a business management short course where he was trying to tell a bunch of manufacturing foremen that reality does not really exist and all the rest of it. I got sick of it after about 15 minutes and told him if he didn’t think reality existed then he could go lay on the R/R track outside the class room but to give me his keys and sign over his car first. He got laughed out of class at that point. Too bad we can not do the same to these people.

  100. William E Heritage says:
    January 12, 2013 at 5:36 am
    Don’t you think we should begin referring to “Climate Skeptics” as ” Climate Realists”

    I agree. I’ve been using the term Climate Realist (as opposed to Alarmist) since I first discovered WUWT. Click on my handle above and you’ll see a Zazzle site with ‘Climate Realist’ bumper stickers, sweatshirts, etc. (That’s not my site, but I know the creators.)

    We should use the term more, to make sure the Alarmists don’t appropriate it, as they have shown signs of doing.

    /Mr Lynn

  101. Anna says:
    January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    What is the alias for this blog site? Bubba Sr and Bubba Jr. angry old southern white man and his son. Tea Party gerry mandering losers blog blah blah blah…..
    Must be hard to let go of all that alpha male aggression and control on the rest of us.. All new intelligent information is scoffed at first, and usually in a bullying type fashion. which is what is happening in this blog….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thank you Anna for proving once again that all the CAGWarmists have on their side is ad Homs and scary scenarios.

    You want REAL SCARY Anna? How about this graph and explanation.

  102. It was kind of sad watching Gore’s guy read slides–and little more. Perhaps a little training outside the slides?
    It will be much harder to accuse skeptics of being in the pocket of Big Oil now that Gore has drank the crude. Sure, they’ll try to wiggle out of the Gore thing, but just keep repeating “$100 million from Big Oil, $100 million from Big Oil” and they’ll go away. :)

  103. Jeremy says:
    January 12, 2013 at 8:18 am
    Well done James. Keep up the good work. Keep spreading realism. We have to stop

    “Those who know what’s best for us must rise and save us from ourselves.”

    That song is appropriate at so many levels:

    “Quick to judge, Quick to anger, Slow to understand
    Ignorance and prejudice, and fear walk hand in hand”

    And a great song to listen to with the volume at max.

  104. James Taylor was very effective. I actually felt sorry for his opponent, who seemed out of his depth. When Bellamy talked about the (spurious) “97% of scientists” I thought he was just another victim of alarmist propaganda. But at the very end, when Taylor called him out for misattributing a quote to Joe Bast. It became obvious to the whole audience that he had been caught telling a lie, and he knew it was a lie.

    ———————–
    Mr Lynn wrote:

    I agree. I’ve been using the term Climate Realist (as opposed to Alarmist) since I first discovered WUWT. Click on my handle above and you’ll see a Zazzle site with ‘Climate Realist’ bumper stickers, sweatshirts, etc. (That’s not my site, but I know the creators.)

    I get you’re point Lynn. Words are weapons and important. I describe the other camp collectively as alarmist.

    Its accurate, succinct and not likely to be taken as derogatory. And it gets the point across that the issue is not just about ‘warming’ -it is about to what extent that warming is man-made and to what extent is it (if any) a cause for alarm.

    We are called “deniers” in a deliberate attempt to ‘frame the narrative’ and portray us us cranks or worse.

    My problem with self-identifying as a “climate realist” is that either side can appropriate it, and doing so looks like we are using the same tactics as the alarmists. Calling yourself “realist” implies that your opponent is a fantasist, delusional or similar. However, accurate that may be, in certain cases, it doesn’t help the debate.

    I think Taylor carried the day in the above video because he didn’t sink to his opponent’s level.

  105. cd says:
    January 12, 2013 at 3:09 pm

    Joe you’re a communist – surely the state should be doing the buying!
    ———————————————————————————————

    It should be, CD, but apparently they haven’t met their 5 year plan this time round (something to do with our Brothers in the government spending too much time doing their expenses) so it’s everyone for themselves again :(

  106. (Anna wrote, January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm)

    Anna thought she’d crawl amongst the ‘denier-gorillas in the mist’ of fossil-fueled obfuscation, and get us “alpha-males” all worked-up and thumping our chests. Thanks Anna, you are beyond parody, your post was the best laugh I’d had all day.

  107. Here are some suggestions for JT’s next debate:

    1. If the “melting of Antarctica” is cited, the counter should be:

    A) The melting estimate was cut in half within the last six months. Are you still using the earlier figures?

    B) There is no “melting” occurring in Antarctica, apart from the Peninsula, nor will there be in the 21st century, because the temperature there never gets within ten degrees of freezing. If Antarctica is losing mass, it is because of increased sublimation of ice to water vapor due to a combination of decreased cloudiness, increased windiness, decreased humidity, and decreased snowfall–which is due to the vagaries of weather, not global warming.

    2. If the increased risk of coastal flooding is cited, the response should not be that flooding from swollen rivers has decreased. It should be that the low-lying islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans, that we used to hear so much about, are not being impacted as predicted five or ten years ago. (The impacts that are observed are due to human mismanagement. The sea level isn’t rising at their locations.)

    3. If a bet-challenge is made, and it is declined on the grounds the Dr. gave (that warming will accelerate later in the century, so it won’t warm at 1/10th its ultimate rate in the next ten years), then offer to bet that it won’t rise by 0.15 degrees in the next ten years, which is roughly the IPCC’s lower bound estimate (IIRC). He can hardly decline that bet–and it’s at least 50/50 that it won’t happen.

    4. If it is claimed that the in creased melting of Arctic ice will cause increased warming of the Arctic Ocean due to decreased albedo, the counter should be that the effect will be the reverse, since at such a high latitude the sun’s rays strike the surface at such a low angle that they are mostly reflected away–and meanwhile the lack of insulating ice is allowing heat to escape from the water.

    5. If the 97% survey figure is cited, respond not only with a counter to the ridiculous Doran survey, but also to the Anderegg survey, as was done recently here thusly:

    Robin Guenier says:
    January 8, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Anderegg is more sophisticated than the hopeless Doran. But there’s a basic problem: it’s concerned with whether or not respondents agree that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most [i.e. more than 50%] of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”. The only scientists qualified to evaluate that are those engaged in detection and attribution (both difficult and uncertain). Yet the research was not confined to such scientists. [NOTE: moreover, it says nothing about whether or not further emissions are likely to be dangerous/catastrophic.]

    And, in any case, the research itself is flawed. First, the total number of “climate researchers” who accepted the above statement was, according to the paper, 903 and the total that did not was 472. In other words, 66% – not the much-claimed 97%. The researchers got their 97% by restricting their findings to researchers “most actively publishing in the field” – in other words, the paper’s findings do not cover all “climate scientists”. Further, it wasn’t an opinion survey at all, but an analysis of scientists who signed pro/anti statements – not the most useful documents. And, again, it was essentially confined to North America and was not concerned with whether or not the warming was dangerous. For these reasons, it’s valueless as a measure of climate scientists’ opinion about the dangers of AGW.

    6. If the opponent hands out literature in the lobby, leave out in the lobby, and/or offer to give out after the talk, double-sided business cards containing links (in tiny-URL form) to contrarian sites containing contrarian arguments and counterpoints. (Heartland or Anthony could/should create these for use by all of us, not just you. Anthony could create a crowdsourced thread where link-nominations could be made and sell them at a profit, like his calendars.)

    More later, when I think of them.

  108. @Eric H.
    “Eric H. says:
    January 12, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    Anna,
    You are long on rhetoric but short on facts. Pick a point and make a fact based argument. You may want to re-research your facts on the funding of Heartland by the Koch brothers. Once you have done that and posted that you were mistaken we can go on to discuss the facts about extreme weather. I say this in the most friendly non-bullying manner…”

    Eric, I am constantly fielding this type of argument, and don’t know how to refute it (other than saying that truth is truth, it does not matter that you don’t like the organization that sponsored the research). So how is Heartland funded and (forgive my ignorance) how does one find something like that out?

    Thanks!

  109. Anna says:
    January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    =====================

    Did you have any facts to back you up or just pack of emotion laden lies? Come back and tell me any truths or are you really that ignorant.

    I mean really while it is easily something you can look up tell me exactly how much the phantom menance of the Koch brothers fund the Heartland institute for. Oh and what did they fund them to do? I give you a hint it wasn’t very much money and it wasn’t anything to do with global warming or the environment. You should have no problem coming back with accurate information on that minor easy to research bit of fact. But I don’t think you will bother since really looking into it would reveal just how ignorant you are and I don’t expect you to actually follow through.

    You make this claim.

    [i]“Taylor sounded almost psychotic, “There is no evidence of drought, there is no evidence of deserts increasing, there is no evidence of increasing tornadoes or super storms”[/i]

    Ok, you say this is not true. Great show us your proofs we will talk with you about them but make certain you understand the science. If you don’t your likely to not do well. If you bring real hard science not post modern science to the table people will discuss it with you.

    I wish I was rich or made money from oil that would be just cool but hey I don’t make that kind of money. Oh do realize that big oil is behind the major environmental groups and had a big hand in pushing the global warming they fund to the tune of millions global warming research because it benefits them.

  110. PS: If the point is made that “we must move away from fossil fuels,” the counter should be:

    A) That that’s what the EU has attempted to do, and that it has found that the supposed alternative energy sources it has invested in were wildly over-hyped as to their performance, and that their example-setting has not shamed or inspired the rest of the world to follow.

    B) That some form of nuclear energy would be a reasonable “alternative.” (Plus various no-regrets measures like increased use of diesel and natural gas vehicles, increased insulation, increased research money on potential breakthroughs, etc.)

  111. Winnebagos dogging lightning strikes? Was it just me?
    That’s so sad; because them things ain’t that maneuverable!
    :)

  112. Matt says:
    January 12, 2013 at 11:25 am
    I wonder what Singer really said re. cigarettes :)
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Here’s what Singer says he said.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/second_hand_smoke_lung_cancer.html

    Relevant points:
    o Doesn’t smoke himself
    o Father was a heavy smoker who died at a relatively young age from emphysema
    o Finds scond hand smoke offensive and asserts that it has to be harmful
    o Called out shonky science promoted by the EPA (details iin the article).

    A similar target of hatred by the anti-tobacco lobby is Geoffrey Kabat, author of “Hyping Health Risks”. He has similar attitudes to SInger on smoking. He was one of the leads in the study the anti-tobacco lobby likes to castigate as being funded by big tobacco. According to Kabat, the study was originally funded by the Americal Cancer Society (or similar – I can’t put my hand on my copy of his book). However, when the numbers didn’t come out the way the sponsors wanted, they withdrew support. Tobacco companies provided the funding to complete the study. Facts are a real problem for ideological activists :-)

  113. S. Meyer says:
    January 12, 2013 at 4:56 pm

    … So how is Heartland funded and (forgive my ignorance) how does one find something like that out?

    Google is your friend. :-)

    The Heartland Institute’s Wiki entry gives some details of its funding. You have to put it in context before getting too excited. Compare the Heartland Institute’s funding with the amounts spent on trying to prove CAGW. Story. In the contest to influence the hearts and minds of the public, the playing field isn’t exactly even.

    The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”

  114. Climate change funding is buried in every federal department with a lions share being in the Defense budget. This is typical behaviour for government. The vampires do not much care about the merits. They always care about the funding. After WWII the Air Force budget was booming because they could make the case that the Army and Navy had been superseded by the atomic bomb. That was technically true but turned out to be false in application due to MAD. Not to be outdone the Army came up with the Pentomic Divison concept. In theory this was a division that could “fight on the nuclear battlefield” That’s what all those tests in Nevada with soldiers watching the nuclear tests were about. Of course the Pentomic Division was nicknamed the ashtray brigade. But the money did flow.

  115. What is really sad is that I don’t have to watch the video to know who made an ass of themselves since it is common knowledge that the CAGW believer runs on pseudoscience babblings and quickly get snotty and worse are the loser in the end.

    I have met many CAGW believers over the years but they share a common defect.A serious deficiency in following the scientific Method paradigm and instead follow eco-political propaganda that is often unbelievably stupid.

    So no I will not waste my time watching yet another smackdown of a foul mouthed CAGW believer as I have seen it many times already.

  116. I have two suggestions for next time. 1) insert the words taxpayer funded data sets along the source agency name and 2) don’t stray off into the benefits of a warming world and attribute that to agricultural productivity, it is a distraction and partly wrong anyway. Just stick with model fails, uhi, solar influence, ocean cycles, and perhaps a short quiz on what percent co2 is of atmosphere. Of course they present a ripe target on Antarctic ice issues also.

  117. On the subject of funding, from Netright Daily and NYT:
    Now the biggest and oldest environmental group in the U.S. finds itself caught on the horns of that dilemma. TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking—to help fund the Club’s Beyond Coal campaign. Though the group ended its relationship with Chesapeake in 2010—and the Club says it turned its back on an additional $30 million in promised donations—the news raises concerns about influence industry may have had on the Sierra Club’s independence and its support of natural gas in the past.

    I suppose you could say it’s okay because they stopped, but only is it okay if they paid EVERY PENNY back and did not accept money from ANY other corporations of any kind. There’s no mention of such action.

  118. 8. If a point is made regarding methane emissions from melting permafrost, the counter is:

    [chart of methane vs. AR predictions]
    [in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/17/another-example-of-clear-failure-of-ipcc-models-to-predict-reality-in-the-ar5-draft/ ]

    Pethefin says:
    December 1, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/01/permafrost-far-more-stable-than-claimed-german-expert-calls-danger-of-it-thawing-out-utter-imbicility/

    Venter says:
    November 28, 2012 at 6:18 am

    Permafrost melted in 1944 also. These things happen naturally and get blown up out of proportion always

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/1944-shock-news-permafrost-melting-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see/

    Houndish says:
    August 12, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    It’s a crying shame that all the funding provided by the NSF to UAF-GI for northern hemisphere permafrost depletion studies doesn’t allow their findings to be disseminated to the world.

    The reports I’ve seen show that the depletion came to an end in 2005 with further temperature decreases since then. Good portions of the continuous and discontinuous permafrost regions get very close to 32 degrees F. and the ice lenses contained within the layers do provide rapid surface changes when they melt (thermokarsts, oblique depressions etc..), but I suspect that over the next two years the alarmists will need to change their tune, as the temperatures continue their drive downwards.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/25/remember-the-panic-over-methane-seeping-out-of-the-arctic-seabed-in-2009-never-mind/

    thepompousgit says:
    December 30, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Logan in AZ said @ December 30, 2011 at 1:30 pm

    “The feedback factors treated on WUWT are physical mechanisms. The dimethylsulfide feedback from the oceans is a major factor that is ignored by those who only study or think about physics.”

    But of course the biological effects must be left out, or else there’s nothing to be alarmed about. I was amused when someone decided to test the release of clathrates from permafrost idea in situ. The plant growth shaded the ground enabling the permafrost and clathrates to persist under warmer conditions. And contra R Gates’ claim that paleoclimatology validates the models, we know that temperatures in the high latitudes supported trees where now there is tundra only three thousand years ago. Temperatures supposedly high enough to release the methane from the permafrost.

    Bruce Cobb says:
    December 15, 2011 at 4:31 am

    Methane Madness? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/methane-discovery-stokes-new-global-warming-fears-shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-releases-greenhouse-gas-6276278.html

    Or not: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/methane-time-bomb-in-arctic-seas-apocalypse-not/

    Abstract of the AGU paper: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JC007218.shtml

    Dave Wendt says:
    November 30, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    GettingWarm says:
    November 30, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    When I first viewed that video I assumed you were being sarcastic in recommending it, but after viewing some of your other contributions, it appears you were serious. I have a few problems with Ms Walters exposition. Most notably she spends most of it blathering on about melting permafrost killing off the trees around her, but anyone with even a rudimentary familiarity with Arctic environs would know that the very presence of those trees is strong proof that you are not in a permafrost area. Trees don’t survive in permafrost and so the only way that permafrost could be killing the trees is if it was advancing into an area which had been seasonally frozen, the only type of landscape where boreal forests can survive.

    Also like most of those who prattle on about the coming methane cascade she seems to be under the illusion that permafrost means ground that remains permanently frozen year round. In a sense this is correct, but in almost all permafrost areas the actual permafrost layer lies beneath what is known as the active layer which thaws annually. There doesn’t seem to be a real “consensus” on the range of depths of this active layer, but in my explorations on the topic I’ve come across estimates of a minimum of 2 ft ( which seem to be fairly consistent) to maximums everywhere from 7 ft to 20 ft. What this means is that when you hear discussions of melting permafrost what is actually being talked about is ground somewhere between 2 and 6 meters below the surface which for a brief part of the summer season is going from being a degree or two below freezing to a degree or two above, hardly enough of a change to generate a wholesale methane cascade. The ground above the permafrost layer has already experienced innumerable annual thaw cycles and has thus had many opportunities to release whatever gas is there. Warming may accelerate the rate of release, but unless the warming of the atmosphere is well beyond anything that has been speculated about, its affect on the climate will be mostly immeasurable.

    Molecularly methane may be many times more potent than other gases, but its concentration in the atmosphere is a thousand times less than even CO2 and what evidence that exists on the question suggests its present contribution to the GHE is almost negligible.

  119. @James Taylor:

    Of course, if there is anything I enjoy more than exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist, it is exposing the weak evidence and weak thinking of an Al Gore-trained global warming activist in front of 200 of his friends and supporters.

    Truth for truth’s sake,

    – James

    Nice work! I was also amused by the usual infantile “Progressive” cat-calls/acting-out-behavior from some in the audience, especially, the “let someone else talk” directed at you during your official closing statement! You handled their attempts to disparage and interrupt you quite well.

  120. Anna,

    I found your arguments very persuasive and am keen to follow them up. I’d be very grateful if you would recommend some links to sites with the new intelligent information you mention.

    Kind regards,
    John

  121. David Ross says:
    January 12, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    . . . My problem with self-identifying as a “climate realist” is that either side can appropriate it, and doing so looks like we are using the same tactics as the alarmists. Calling yourself “realist” implies that your opponent is a fantasist, delusional or similar. However, accurate that may be, in certain cases, it doesn’t help the debate.

    You have a point, but I think ‘Realist’ raises the truly scientific side of the debate over the ideological ‘Alarmist’ one, and ‘Skeptic’ just smacks of a ragtag minority, not very different from ‘Heretic’. That’s why I said we should adopt ‘Realist’ for ourselves, to prevent letting the Alarmists have it.

    In point of fact, maybe the best label for the Alarmists is ‘Climatist’, that is, true-believers, members of a quasi-religious cult that has elevated a pseudo-scientific idea to the status of dogma. It’s not science any more.

    That is to say, when we’re dealing with the likes of the Goracle, or the reprehensible Ed Malarkey, it is essential to make clear that these are not people who deal in science, or even facts; they are ideologues, and have to be treated as such.

    /Mr Lynn

    PS Mods: Corrected blockquote: please delete previous. Sorry.

  122. Anna was a hit and run. I doubt that she even read any of the well thought out replies. It’s a shame really. I would like to reach someone like her–young, idealistic, someone who could do good if they understood the dynamics of what happened to them–how they are sucked in to other’s agendas and misled to support those agendas. Does Gore come to mind? Look how much he made off people like her.

    Gail thainks for the petition reply–I copied it to save–very well written and should have been submitted as a post.

    Thanks Mr. Taylor and Anthony for posting this. Great read.

  123. It is very hot in Aust at the moment and we are seeing all sorts of guff from our Bureau of Meterology about having to find new shadings for heat on the map. Who would have thought a heat wave in Australia in January – gee thats never happened before. Funny in Adelaide and Melbourne it s rainy and cool today. I liken the debate with the CAGW crowd as a debate with creationlists – they wanna believe. The MD was embarassing and goes to the thing of the skeptics know more about science thats why we don’t buy it. We look at the data and make up our own minds while the sheeple merely get swept along, just as Dylan put it ‘the time before and the time before that’.

  124. Anna says:
    January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    What is the alias for this blog site? Bubba Sr and Bubba Jr. angry old southern white man and his son. Tea Party gerry mandering losers blog blah blah blah…..
    Must be hard to let go of all that alpha male aggression and control on the rest of us.. All new intelligent information is scoffed at first, and usually in a bullying type fashion. which is what is happening in this blog. [etc.]

    Mr. Saul Alinsky “Anna” , you fool no one with your own “alias”! Personalize, Demonize…avoid speaking on the actual substance of the issue…instead be sexist, racist, ageist, geographist, elitist…be infantile!

  125. They mentioned the heat in Australia a few times. Living in Melbourne (runs close 2nd to Australia’s biggest city) the MSM are talking-up “Heat waves”. This summer, so far we’ve had 3 days over 38C (the old 100F).

    By the MSM’s new definition of “heat wave” (one hot day in a row), and all the increased hysteria, we’ve had 3 heat waves this summer (one in Dec last year and 2 in Jan). These single days have all been separated by many days of cold. Today, I need a jumper. The kids are on summer holidays and wouldn’t mind a few “heat waves” in a row.

    February and March are still coming – what will the MSM call it when we do get a few hot days in a row?

  126. S. Meyer,
    Both the Koch brothers and Heartland put out statements that said that Koch brothers had made a one time donation of $25,000 for Healthcare research and that was the only donation that has been made. The claim that Heartland received $200,000 from Koch brothers for climate research is a lie that was part of Peter Gleick’s fraudulent letter and stolen Heartland documents. You should find what you need here, at Heartland, or you can wade through a Google search.

  127. That was massacre not a debate. On the Mark Morano Newnight a***ole thing I can claim to have been the person who brought this to Mark’s attention by emailing him just after watching the programme live.

  128. January 12, 2013 at 12:47 pm | Dr Burns says:
    [ ... ] Al Gore is not stupid, otherwise he wouldn’t have made so much money from the scam. He is not so stupid as to get into a losing debate like this.
    ——————

    He just found a lot more people more stupid than he is … stupidity not being equated to his ability to fleece his flock of their money. No doubt he has found it increasingly difficult as is demonstrated by his selling out the TV station and its employees.

  129. Gail, I”m aware of the petition. However it’s been largely ignored/dismissed by warmists as untrustworthy. And they have a point since something like that could be falsified. I’m talking about a valid, statistically sound poll.

  130. Just to add, I take your point about entrenched corruption. But this is not a good reason not to try. Every added bit of truth and light is helpful it seems to me.

  131. James Taylor,

    You’ve got a friend. :) Well done. Apart from anything else the quality of your delivery far exceeded that of your opponent. Very professional. You were crisp and on the ball. He just bumbled on, eventually into incoherence. Laughable. But I’m guessing his skill at orthopaedic surgery misled him into lazily thinking he was giant among men and could easily pontificate on any matter. You’d think he’d have the sense to know better.

    As far as I’m concerned you won hands down. But I also note what others say here about Dr Homespun and his appeal to the ordinary Joe. It surprises me but I’ve been unpleasantly surprised like that before. I never thought people could fall for that blatant creep, Tony Bliar, but they did — not just once but three times.

    Mr Lynn says:

    You have a point, but I think ‘Realist’ raises the truly scientific side of the debate over the ideological ‘Alarmist’ one, and ‘Skeptic’ just smacks of a ragtag minority, not very different from ‘Heretic’. That’s why I said we should adopt ‘Realist’ for ourselves, to prevent letting the Alarmists have it.

    In point of fact, maybe the best label for the Alarmists is ‘Climatist’, that is, true-believers, members of a quasi-religious cult that has elevated a pseudo-scientific idea to the status of dogma. It’s not science any more.

    Sold! You make a very good case there. I like ‘climatist’. I intend to use it.

    You should get a job in sales. You’d do well. :)

  132. u,k,(us) says:
    January 12, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Joe says:
    January 12, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    ==========
    Nice comment, the feeling is mutual I’m sure.

    —————————————————————————————–

    It very likely is mutual and that was the point of my comment.

    Anna came on here showing clear dislike of, and bias against, the sort of person she assumes frequents the place. Several posters did a pretty good job of confirming that bias within minutes.

    But truth doesn’t care about politics, or personal likes or dislikes. Truth simply IS.

    If Saddam Hussein had gone on record as being an AGW sceptic, would the fact he was a thoroughly nasty piece of work (by anyones standards) have affected your view of the matter? What about if Al Gore pops up tomorrow and says it was all a big mistake? Will you switch to believing in AGW just because of who he is?

    Whether or not I like your life view, or you like mine, is completely irrelevant to whether or not we’re causing dangerous warming. Being open about that might just lead Anna, or others like her, to look at the whole evidence..

  133. Anna says: January 12, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    “…… Soon when a large storm comes barreling through Tallahasse, and you are picking through the pieces, remember what you wrote in this blog site. I will….”

    Anna.
    You erred on the standard format:

    Surely you meant; “..an unprecedented large storm.. … well, unprecedented since the date of the last one….”

  134. James Taylor did a great job. I wish that when confronted by people who shout “liar” from the audience when presenting factual data, that they would stop andromptly put that “Hey, it’s not about me – this data is from NASA, or NOAA, or whatever. I didn’t make this up. Are you calling these agencies/scientists liars?” The warmists are so addicted to faith-data (“This is the hottest year EVER!!”) and the warming meme that they are unable to believe real data even when it is put in front of their eyes. I seem to remember that when Galileo showed his telescope to the Pope, the Pope refused to look through it, presumably because it might shake his faith. Some in this audience were very Pope-like.

  135. “Eric H. says:
    January 12, 2013 at 11:15 pm
    S. Meyer,
    Both the Koch brothers and Heartland put out statements that said that Koch brothers had made a one time donation of $25,000 for Healthcare research and that was the only donation that has been made. The claim that Heartland received $200,000 from Koch brothers for climate research is a lie that was part of Peter Gleick’s fraudulent letter and stolen Heartland documents. You should find what you need here, at Heartland, or you can wade through a Google search.”

    Thank you, Eric. I had looked at the Heartland Institute website before, but did not see the part about funding in the “about” section.

    Call me naive, but I am impressed by their straightforward attitude about this. There is even a published tax return. And they do operate on a shoestring budget.

    I don’t agree with most of Heartland’s non-climate activities, but that is beside the point. I think, once you can convince yourself that your discussant has integrity (e.g. an argument is not intentionally misleading, or comes from fabricated data), you stop looking at who says it, and instead look at what is said.

  136. When he said that a major issue of warming could be cancellation of ball games because of lightning strikes I inwardly curled up.

    So, CO2 is the “control knob” for lightning or lightning strike locations?..

  137. Sparks says:
    January 13, 2013 at 1:54 am
    Off Topic? throwing rules at people now are we?

    [You seem like a decent enough fellow but there are rules here http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/ and our job is to enforce them in a low key and light handed way. Posting up clips from that most excellent movie does nothing for the thread frankly. thanks . . mod]
    =========================================================================
    Hi Sparks. I don’t know what you said that was snipped but I got the same “treatment”, from REP no less. I’d venture to say that whatever was snipped wasn’t for “censoreship” but rather the post’s continuity. Sometimes the “line” does get fuzzy but remember that the Mods are as human as you are. Don’t take a “snip” personnally. Here’s part of my first comment I made on this post.
    Gunga Din says:
    January 12, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    I just finished watching the debate.
    As a compliment to this site, I didn’t hear one thing from either side I hadn’t already heard here.
    Can that be said of the pro-CAGW sites? (I don’t frequent them so I personnally can’t say.)

  138. must have hit a few nerves. Funny how truth can do that. Sure has been warm today, oddly warm
    and all over the planet too. Heard the news about the severity of air quality in China this past week? Chinese authorities warning the public to stay indoors. Chinese and India too wants to drive big SUV’s to Walmarts, just like us. Oyster bed collapse, plastic islands floating in the ocean, rivers running dry, elephants/rhinos being slaughtered for penile dysfunction cures, disappearance of vital
    rain forests so you can get cheap hamburgers, wildfires starting by drought and increased lightning strikes, tremendous ice melt in the arctic (satellite pictures don’t lie-unlike people)
    increasing disease and starvation due to careless and prodigious breeding of the human species,
    destined to increase civil unrest in already desperate countries.

    people drinking recycled sewer water, decimation of soil and errosion, drought-stressed trees being rotted by investing insects, economic damage from super storms, Oceans overfished, dead zones in the Gulf. The term pollution has grown up and coming home to a theatre near you. Have you ever or can you admit when you are wrong? But hey, don’t argue with me, hide behind slick repetitious.big-money funded “papers”.
    Nature doesn’t give a damn about sentiment, yours or mine.

    • Anna, Every sane individual understands that we have a responsibility to, putting it delicately, not deficate in our own nest. You list a number of notable transgressions.

      Shame on us. (You included) It is reasonable to be upset. It will require resources to set these these transgressions right.

      Unfortunately RAILING against discussions on scientific proocess and theory is not putting resources to work making the changes.

  139. Anna:

    As you say, we have pollution and we need to reduce it. But we should also rejoice that pollution from human activities is now less than it has been for thousands of years.

    Richard

  140. Anna says:
    January 13, 2013 at 11:58 am

    must have hit a few nerves. Funny how truth can do that. Sure has been warm today, oddly warm
    and all over the planet too.

    …………………………………………………

    No it hasn’t been warm all over the planet today, Anna:

    It’s been unusually cold in India:

    http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2013/Jan/13/snowfall-brings-respite-from-cold-38.asp

    the United Kingdom:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21004656

    and California:

    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2013/January/Temperatures-Plunge-in-California/

    I’ve tried to keep to news sources you might trust.

    Now, you can say that’s just weather, or even that it’s an effect of CO2, if you like but you CAN’T say that it’s been “oddly warm”. The clear facts say otherwise, so it makes you look a bit silly if you do – a bit like swearing blind that the sky is a glorious shade of green :)

  141. Anna says:
    January 13, 2013 at 11:58 am
    must have hit a few nerves. Funny how truth can do that. Sure has been warm today, oddly warm
    and all over the planet too.
    ==========================
    Me: I assume you don’t live in North Dakota.
    ===========================
    Heard the news about the severity of air quality in China this past week? Chinese authorities warning the public to stay indoors.
    ===========================
    Me: The USEPA originally addressed a real problem. Since then it’s become a policy tool.
    ===========================
    Chinese and India too wants to drive big SUV’s to Walmarts, just like us. Oyster bed collapse, plastic islands floating in the ocean, rivers running dry, elephants/rhinos being slaughtered for penile dysfunction cures, disappearance of vital
    rain forests so you can get cheap hamburgers, wildfires starting by drought and increased lightning strikes, tremendous ice melt in the arctic (satellite pictures don’t lie-unlike people)
    ===========================
    Me: I’ve been alive and remember further back than any satellite pictures you may have seen. Yes, people lie. What lies have you chosen to believe? And what do you have against a “cheap hamburger”? Are you a vegan? Is low priced food a bad thing?
    ===========================
    increasing disease and starvation due to careless and prodigious breeding of the human species,
    destined to increase civil unrest in already desperate countries.
    ===========================
    Me: So you have a problem with people in general? Why should anybody think that anything you advocate is for the good of humanity?
    ============================
    people drinking recycled sewer water,
    ==============================
    Me: Unless it was made in a lab, there isn’t a molecule of water on the planet that hasn’t been “recycled”. Is that what you really want, all molecules of water must be produced in a lab? That would take a LOT of energy. Where are YOU going to get it?
    ===========================
    decimation of soil and errosion, drought-stressed trees being rotted by investing insects,
    ============================
    Me: Bring back DDT?
    =============================
    economic damage from super storms, Oceans overfished, dead zones in the Gulf.
    ==============================
    Me: “Super” storms? I know you don’t personally remember storms that were actually stronger than what the MSM media has labeled “super storms”. Please take some time to look up just how strong past storms have been before those who would manipulate you started to call recent storms “super”.
    ===============================
    The term pollution has grown up and coming home to a theatre near you. Have you ever or can you admit when you are wrong? But hey, don’t argue with me, hide behind slick repetitious.big-money funded “papers”.
    ================================
    Me: Maybe you should lay off the SyFy channel for awhile?
    ================================
    Nature doesn’t give a damn about sentiment, yours or mine.
    =================================
    Me: At least you admit the weather is natural.
    Will you admit what Gore “et al” have done with it is carnal?

  142. Anna:
    Satellite pictures don’t lie, but the people choosing, cropping and publishing them certainly can and do. Unless multiple sources put online every single satellite photo ever taken for free public comparison, the lying and misrepresentations will continue. There are multiple satellites and multiple angles, all of which can skew what the picture is said to represent.

    What does plastic floating in the ocean have to do with global warming? I thought that was just lazy, inconsiderate humans throwing things out.

    Even if it were “oddly warm today” that’s ONE data point and has no meaning outside of that point in time. Also, I thought weather and climate were not the same thing–unless you want them to be. There have always been wildfires–one of the biggest in Wyoming occurred during a “normal” year. Millions of acres. Not really proving climate change there.

    Actually, research indicates it is not “over-breeding” that is the problem–it’s the pesky fact that babies and children refuse to die as frequently in the past. So you are in favor of babies and children dying? Seems cruel to me.

  143. Anna says:
    January 13, 2013 at 11:58 am

    must have hit a few nerves. Funny how truth can do that. Sure has been warm today, oddly warm and all over the planet too. Heard the news about the severity of air quality in China this past week? Chinese authorities warning the public to stay indoors. Chinese and India too wants to drive big SUV’s to Walmarts, just like us. Oyster bed collapse, plastic islands floating in the ocean, rivers running dry, elephants/rhinos being slaughtered for penile dysfunction cures, disappearance of vital rain forests so you can get cheap hamburgers, wildfires starting by drought and increased lightning strikes, tremendous ice melt in the arctic (satellite pictures don’t lie-unlike people) increasing disease and starvation due to careless and prodigious breeding of the human species, destined to increase civil unrest in already desperate countries.
    people drinking recycled sewer water, decimation of soil and errosion, drought-stressed trees being rotted by investing insects, economic damage from super storms, Oceans overfished, dead zones in the Gulf. The term pollution has grown up and coming home to a theatre near you. Have you ever or can you admit when you are wrong? But hey, don’t argue with me, hide behind slick repetitious.big-money funded “papers”.
    Nature doesn’t give a damn about sentiment, yours or mine.

    Is your rant over?

    Now, just WHAT will increasing poverty from YOUR demand that already too high energy prices increase through bureaucracy and taxes – all that going to the corrupt bureaucracies and governments worldwide who CAUSE that poverty you declaim? – … Just WHAT will increasing poverty do to “feed the poor, cloth the naked, heat the cold, shelter the homeless and comfort the afflicted?

    Just what will increasing the price of energy worldwide do to solve poverty and grow more food and lower pollution?

    YOU – your attitude and your prejudices and your demands and your hatred towards others – are the cause of this poverty and disease and filth. YOU do not want their freedom and their ability to gain wealth and health and their happiness.

    YOU want them dead, bluntly put, so YOU can live in your cocoon (er, energy-fed city with lights and power and heat and oil and food and sanitation and transportation) as YOU want.

    With moral governments – and NO socialist state, communist state, nor tribal kingdom or ignorant 7th century religious state ANYWHERE is “solving” any poverty.

    Moral capitalism and moral free men and women with the FREEDOM to earn and spend and decide WILL SOLVE those problems you mentioned. EVERY PROBLEM you decry is caused by corrupt governments and corrupt bureaucracies and socialist-driven demands. The most polluted, most poverty stricken people drinking that “recycled sewage” ARE the result of YOUR policies and YOUR international governing bodies.

    Give me free markets, cheaper energy, better transportation, more steel, copper, concrete, coal, fertilizers, and roads and I’ll solve those problems you are crying about. ONLY the richest economies, least corrupt nations can afford to solve pollution and poverty. Many years ago, we tried dirt farming with “natural fertilizers and no fossil fuel except what was cut by hand. Know what happened?

    Of their OWN FREE WILL, millions left that farm to work 12 hour days in unhealthy and unsafe factories — because it better for them! Those workers had choices – they KNEW how bad it was “back on the farm” and they LEFT for the cities and mines and railroads and workshops.

  144. Me: At least you admit the weather is natural.
    Will you admit what Gore “et al” have done with it is carnal?

    ==============================================
    Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by “carnal”. I mean a selfish serving of personal desires, putting personal desires above any ethical or moral considerations.

  145. Anna says:
    January 13, 2013 at 11:58 am

    must have hit a few nerves. Funny how truth can do that. Sure has been warm today, oddly warm
    and all over the planet too. Heard the news about the severity of air quality in China this past week? Chinese authorities warning the public to stay indoors. Chinese and India too wants to drive big SUV’s to Walmarts, just like us. Oyster bed collapse, plastic islands floating in the ocean, rivers running dry, elephants/rhinos being slaughtered for penile dysfunction cures, disappearance of vital
    rain forests so you can get cheap hamburgers, wildfires starting by drought and increased lightning strikes, tremendous ice melt in the arctic (satellite pictures don’t lie-unlike people)
    increasing disease and starvation due to careless and prodigious breeding of the human species,
    destined to increase civil unrest in already desperate countries.

    people drinking recycled sewer water, decimation of soil and errosion, drought-stressed trees being rotted by investing insects, economic damage from super storms, Oceans overfished, dead zones in the Gulf. The term pollution has grown up and coming home to a theatre near you. Have you ever or can you admit when you are wrong? But hey, don’t argue with me, hide behind slick repetitious.big-money funded “papers”.
    Nature doesn’t give a damn about sentiment, yours or mine.

    ========================================================

    Oh Anna.

    No I just feel very very sorry for you. You have stated no truth just bad emotion laden propaganda. You can’t prove or link to any real facts can you. I notice you dropped every claim you made in your first post.

    Now it is breaking cold records today where I live. So no it isn’t warm today. I remember back in the 1970’s when it would have been 75 outside not 40.

    So you want to do something about China? Go over there and do it then. Nothing you do here will have any impact on them.

    What oyster beds have collapsed and why?

    What plastic islands floating? Links please.

    Oohhh so your condemning Asian culture? That is the culture that is big on the ‘nautural’ penile cures. The US uses modern drugs not herbal traditional remedies. So if you have a problem with it take it up with them. Don’t come to me in the US and complain about it. I can’t do anything about it take your war to the people doing what you don’t like.

    You really should research the claim about Ice melt. You would find that you have been lied to or else you know very well that you are the liar.

    How are the rainforests linked to cheap hamburgers? Cites please. Or is this just propaganda you believe never having looked into it?

    You probably should research the real causes of diseases and starvation. I’ll give you a couple of hints. First population has nothing to do with it and governments do.

    Wild fires out of control have more to do with years of stopping every fire not your propaganda you again claim.

    You do realize that if you live in a city the odds are you drink recycled sewer water.

    I had no idea insects invested but you should provide links to your claim about draught stressed trees etc… again you will find that the claim isn’t what you think it is.

    Super Storms. Go back and look at history. The measly minor storms we have lately are nothing on the storms of the past. You have nothing there but bad propaganda again. Propaganda that doesn’t even stand up to minor research.

    You should research your over fishing claim.

    Also you should check on the claim of dead zones.

    Oh I can admit when I’m wrong but since you have just spouted nothing but emotional propaganda that isn’t remotely true I can’t see where I’m wrong. You on the hand are very very wrong.

    And big money? All of that is producing the propaganda your mindlessly spouting here. That is where the big money is. Perhaps you should be asking why all the big money is producing the slick propaganda your buying into.

  146. I think you should all leave poor Anna with the comfort and solace of her delusions. She reminds me very much of the very nice Scandinavian lady who unfortunate enough to meet up with Lord Monckton at a climate protest. It was good humoured but very telling.

  147. Hi Anna,
    I was going to try and reply point-by-point to your second post, but I think Gunga Din did a better job than I could. However, I’d like to say the following to you in the most genuine and sincere way I can:
    Like you are now, I was once someone who had bought into ‘global warming’ (as it was known back then before they shifted the goalposts to ‘climate change’). However, I started to visit sceptic sites and began to realise what a scam CAGW was – it was just a bunch of extremely rich companies, universities, radical advocacy groups and hucksters using the the threat of impending catastrophe to advance their own, often conflicting, interests. Indeed, I learned of bizarre moments when radical environmentalists sat down with oil company execs so that they could work together on putting the coal industry out of business.
    When I tried to return to warmist sites such as ‘Climate Progress’ and ‘Sceptikal Science’ and post some fairly mild comments criticising the CAGW hypothesis, my posts either vanished without trace or I was accused (amongst other things) of being a gun-toting, SUV-driving, pro-life, faggot-hating, bear hunting, beer-swilling, anti-science, racist, bible-thumping fundamentalist from the Deep South who was obviously in the pay of ‘Big Oil’.
    Fortunately, those calling me names couldn’t me more wrong: I’m an atheist, I don’t own a car and instead I ride a bicycle (fixes rule!), I’m avowedly pro-choice, I love scuba-diving rather than hunting, I come from the UK, and I love a well-mixed cocktail. As for the ‘faggot hating’ thing; well, I teach mathematics to students in a world famous performing arts school where it is camper than a row of tents – everyone calls each other ‘darling’, they sing show-tunes all day, and students arrive to my mathematics lessons in leotards and tap-shoes. It’s an absolute scream!
    I suppose what I’m trying to say is please stick around here at WUWT and listen to what we have to say – it’s all about true science being discussed by a very large and diverse group of genuinely sincere people (most of whom happen to be educated in the hard sciences) and nothing to do with slaughtering rhinos to help cure our erectile dysfunction problems.

    All the best,

    Andy

  148. A medical doctor uses data every day. We all know that doctors have to obtain all manner of data: X-rays, scans, blood pressure, heart rate, temperature, blood tests, urine samples, respiration, ECG’s, biopsies etc. Such data is essential for a proper diagnosis.

    Yet when Dr Bellamy is confronted with data about this planet he refuses to accept it.

  149. When discussing medical doctors who use data every day and presumably follow the science, one must remember, there’s always Dr. Oz doing everything but that. An MD does not necessarily mean one will stick with science when something more popular and lucrative comes along.

  150. I only give as good as I receive.
    . Arguing with reality, does not change reality.
    Educated and objective scientists should always check funding sources and research criterion
    used for any study.One should cross reference. Many of the so-called “scientists” sited in these
    “studies” are neither scientists nor objective.
    The so-called “Oregon Petition” was signed by people with degrees in religion, archeology, etc.
    Would you allow your general practioner to operate on your brain? I think we should leave climatology science to highly trained, educated scientists with PHD’s in climatology. Mr. Taylor
    is a lawyer representing the fossil fuel industry. Can you make the connection? As for the question about oyster bed collapse and ignorance of other human-sourced trashing of nature, I encourage the writers involved in this group, for the sake of your offspring’s future habitat, please educate
    yourselves, perhaps seek counseling. Denial is a form of pathology. good luck.

  151. Anna:

    Your post at January 14, 2013 at 7:21 am shows that you failed to read or understand the responses to your earlier post, and it includes your saying

    Denial is a form of pathology.

    If that be true then I respectfully suggest that you seek treatment for it.

    Richard

  152. Anna says:
    January 14, 2013 at 7:21 am

    . Arguing with reality, does not change reality.
    Educated and objective scientists should always check funding sources and research criterion
    used for any study.One should cross reference. Many of the so-called “scientists” sited in these
    “studies” are neither scientists nor objective.
    The so-called “Oregon Petition” was signed by people with degrees in religion, archeology, etc.
    Would you allow your general practioner to operate on your brain? I think we should leave climatology science to highly trained, educated scientists with PHD’s in climatology. Mr. Taylor
    is a lawyer representing the fossil fuel industry. Can you make the connection?

    Let me make a correction to your propagandic screed above:
    EVERY ONE of the so-called “scientists” sited in these “climate studies” are biased government-paid scientists promoting their objective. EVERY part of their future funding, their current reputations, their future papers, their future promotions, their bureau’s budget next year and EVEY PART of their political power stems directly and proportionally from their personal zealotry and their personal prejudices towards promoting their catastrophic global warming dogma.

    Because you claim “oil money” is corrupting science” – and so many thousands of your fellow religious zealots do as you have just done – then obviously you must have evidence of such manipulation of “science” …. Since you know nobody in the energy or engineering or power production industry and cannot provide any evidence of any “skeptic” actually corrupting the science of climate research, then I directly you of observing CAGW corruption, an dprojecting that corruption towards skeptics because YOU are biased or corrupt yourself.

    Or you are lying about skeptical corruption.

    Would I allow a general practitioner to operate on my heart?
    I would rather an honest optometrist operate on my heart than a corrupt “heart surgeon” would cannot even tell when my blood pressure is falling, who refuses to measure my blood pressure, but rather predicts EVERY minute that it will get higher … Your precious “heart surgeons” are using leeches and purgatives to “get rid of bad fluences” …. because that’s what their medieval theory says. Because that’s what they are being paid to say. Because that’s what they believe is the latest medical practices.

  153. I thank both both debaters, James Taylor of HI and Ray Bellamy M.D, for the willingness to have a public debate on climate science.

    If only the fake CAGW consensus, one that is incorrectly implied by the biased IPCC assessment processes, would be so willing to debate after avoiding it for >20 years.

    John

  154. Anna: In politics, you follow the money. In science, you follow the data. Your insistence in following the money clearly shows you are engaging in a Political discussion. Try using data and join the science group.
    Yes, funding will have an influence–as in government funding of AGW “proofs”. As in oil companies and drug companies funding their own research on their products. This is NOT PROOF the science is wrong. It has nothing to do with the truth value of the information. It may lead one to question the research, but bottom line, it is the DATA that matters.
    I am sick of that stupid “would you let a doctor” question. I wouldn’t let any doctor do brain surgery without checking him out thoroughly. Dr. Oz is/was a cardiac surgeon. I wouldn’t let him treat a hang nail. I DO NOT care whether the AMA gave them a license–the AMA can be wrong and doctors can be wrong. The really cool thing about that question is the LAW will not let my general practitioner do surgery so the whether or not a general practitioner could do brain surgery is irrelevant–he is not allowed. I have been thoroughly damaged by incompetent people who had MDs after their names. MD is not synonymous with God, except in the mind of those who worship titles.

  155. Oh Anna really that was your response? That was the best you could do?

    Denial is a form of pathology. good luck.

    You really need to gaze deep into a mirror and ponder your confusion about life. You appear to mean well but you don’t have any clue about how to actually help the world.

    As for your diatribe about scientists why do most of the AGW scientists receive millions in big oil money? You did know that major corporate and oil money back the AGW studies and also back the major ‘environmental’ groups. Have you asked yourself what they are getting out of that?

    Also you appear to be ignorant of the fact that most of the ‘climate’ scientists don’t have their degrees in that. They have their degrees in things like trees, computers, and other things but not in the climate. Yet you accept blindly that they are experts while questioning in detail everyone else.

    Also I know very well about various ecological disasters and their aftermath but I am certain that you don’t which is why I told you provide proof something you haven’t done once in any of your emotional propagandist diatribes. Basically you appear to be just a propagandist not actually a concerned person. If you where really concerned about the environment you would do the research asked of you.

    And again why do you appear to believe the fossil fuel propaganda? When you are the one spouting their propaganda?

  156. @Anna if you really are who you claim, you would post under your full name so in 10 years time we can confirm your claims.
    Have you read the IPCC AR4? Does could-a, would-a, might-a & maybe ring any bells?
    Or are you just venting your own personality disorder at WUWT?
    Nice of you to drop by, but could you please point me to the actual science that supports your rather random ranting?
    Projection is rough on your ego after a while, something about 3 fingers pointing back at you.
    Yes we pollute the planet, how is hysteria and misappropriation of public funds in the name of AGW, going to help reduce pollution?
    If you have evidence of measurable AGW and a causation that can be tested, please produce it.
    Or sell it to the IPCC, cause they are desperate for such .

  157. Oh yeah, Anna highly trained,expert, ethical scientists, like the ones corresponding about “Science” in the CRU emails?

  158. Wasn’t there something about a floating plastic island in the mid-Pacific gyre?

    As I recall, some environmentalists went looking for it and were a little disappointed to find it didn’t exist.

    DaveE.

  159. The comments from Anna show that she is not a scientist.

    In her second post, she rambled about: “…air quality in China…Oyster bed collapse…
    plastic islands floating in the ocean…rivers running dry…elephants/rhinos being
    slaughtered…disappearance of vital rain forests…wildfires starting by drought
    and increased lightning strikes…tremendous ice melt in the arctic…increasing
    disease and starvation due to careless and prodigious breeding…people drinking
    recycled sewer water…decimation of soil and erosion…drought-stressed trees
    being rotted…economic damage from super storms…oceans overfished…
    dead zones in the Gulf.”

    By my count, of these 15 issues, at least 9 have absolutely no connection to
    supposedly CO2-driven warming. It’s not clear whether she is simply ignorant
    or deliberately using the debater’s trick, common among so-called environmentalists,
    of conflating the results of OTHER types of pollution with CO2.

    As others here have pointed out, the items in her list that might have some
    connection to human-caused global warming are all largely speculative.

    In case Anna might still be reading here, news flash for you–
    many of the posters here are concerned about ACTUAL pollution. They share
    any concern you might have for making sure that industrial impact on the
    environment is minimized. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
    CO2 can be regulated as a pollutant is a prime example of why lawyers
    should not be allowed to do science. The results are ludicrous–on the
    order of a cow trying to play the violin.

  160. Chris R… Anna is either a misled but devout advocate of the earth or more likely a propagandist for Big Environment. And shills for one or more of those organizations for money.

    I generally suspect she falls into the misled but devout category. She has bought into all of the propaganda about how horrible the environment suffers and won’t someone do anything about it. So she commits energy to her cause without ever asking if she is doing good or evil? Does what she does improve the environment or damage it more and clearly if she follows any of the major environmental movements she is off into the causes more damage to the environment and humans.

    That is the dirty secret. There are many many many ways to improve the and help the environment but you need to know if your actions are helping or not and the believers never question never bother to check if their good intentions equal good outcomes.

    It is sad really.

    I personally do take my steps to help and improve the environment but they are mine not the ones pushed by the fake environment movements that just want money and power and not much else.

  161. Denial is a form of pathology

    Hmm
    I should check up on what Kramer and Sprenger have to say about the psychology of denial …

  162. Is there a copy of James Taylor’s slides on line? Would be good to have for rebuttals of alarmists’ claims.

  163. Thank you for your interest, Ben. I am currently setting up a personal website on which I will post the PowerPoint slides and other material. I will post a link here to the website when it is online.

    – James

Comments are closed.