Bish on the Lindzen debate at the Oxford Union – plus cartoon by Josh

Oxford Union, 2004-02-28. Copyright © Kaihsu T...

Oxford Union, 2004-02-28. Copyright © Kaihsu Tai. Category:Images of Oxford (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I was invited to attend this debate and to participate by Noha El-Sayed of Al Jazeeera, but the notice was too short, and arranging travel from California to England was impossibly expensive at the last minute, requiring me to defer. Maybe next time.

Bishop Hill writes:

The Lindzen debate at the Oxford Union was, I think, a rather significant moment in the climate debate. One in which sceptic views got a fair hearing in an open debate. Lindzen was to be accompanied by a panel of invited experts consisting of David Rose, Mark Lynas and Myles Allen. Part 1 was an interview of Lindzen with interjections from the panel, while part 2 opened up the debate to the floor.

A few of us sceptics – Josh, Tallbloke, David Holland and others had met up beforehand and I think it’s fair to say that we all expected little from the evening. Mehdi Hasan, the left-wing journalist who was to compere the event had been using the d-word a couple of evenings ago and had said he wasn’t a neutral. This didn’t bode well. In the event he ran through the gamut of “questions you ask sceptics” – denialism, big oil funding and do on – and in a way that was quite aggressive (but not unfairly so), but I think it fair to say that didn’t go the way he expected. I should add that Hasan’s handling of the Q&A was exemplary.

Read his entire account here

Josh livetooned the event, and you can see his work here

While the event was not livestreamed, it was recorded, and word has it that it will be made available online in about a week. When/if that happens, I’ll make it available here.

In related news….

Warmist bummed out by the results of the Lindzen debate: “The aim was to shame the sceptic, but we just gave him a stage”

http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/03/warmist-bummed-out-by-results-of.html

Adding fuel to out-of-date scepticism. | Tara’s Eco Science Blog[Warmist on the Lindzen debate] Ward expressed his anger, via Twitter, that we were giving air time to a person who is now completely irrelevant to science and research in climate change…The aim was to shame the sceptic, but we just gave him a stage.

Cliff Kincaid — Al Gore’s Al Jazeera Deal Now a Major Scandal

While the lawsuit over the sale of Al Gore’s Current TV to Al Jazeera is making headlines, a close reading of the legal complaint provides additional evidence that a congressional investigation into the curious transaction is urgently needed and necessary.

The media executive who claims to have arranged the sale says the idea was to make the Terror TV channel “palatable to U.S. lawmakers,” a formulation that suggests foreign lobbying on Capitol Hill in order to protect the $500 million payoff to Gore and other owners and investors in Current TV.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff702.htm

About these ads
This entry was posted in Presentations and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Bish on the Lindzen debate at the Oxford Union – plus cartoon by Josh

  1. tallbloke says:

    I’m still travelling back from the event. I put up a short summary here:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/free-tickets-available-for-oxford-union-head-to-head-debate-tomorrow/
    Lindzen was great. Calm, humorous, respectful. Totally foxed Hasan.
    Jerry Ravetz and I caught up with him and his good lady this lunchtime and took them to a nice Lebanese restaurant opposite the Synagogue they attended.

  2. D.B. Stealey says:

    tallbloke says:

    “I… took them to a nice Lebanese restaurant…”

    I was never into that girl on girl action myself…

    [/sarc ☺]

  3. Wait a minute….isn’t Al Jazeera in the “big oil funding” stream ? ? ?

    Al Jazeera > Al Gorezeera > Al Congresszeera

    can treason and ignorance get any simplier ?

  4. Vieras says:

    Al Jazeera arranging this kind of balanced and informative debates should make the western media really look at themselved with a fresh pair of eyes. But I doubt any of them do understand how bad a work they have been doing over the years.

  5. richard Verney says:

    Regrettably, here in the UK, because of the BBC (Biased Broadcasting Corporation), to get some balance on world events, or to see another view point on issues, I frquently watch Russia Today, (which carries quite a few good documentaries and current affairs programmes, in particular Cross Talk is often very good) and less often CCTC (Chinese news channel) and even occassionally Al Jazeera.

    The state of MSM is very depressing, especially since more than ever governments could really do with being held to account by MSM failing which they will ride rough shod over their citizens..

  6. TheOldCrusader says:

    “Terror TV” indeed!
    I’d rather see Al Jazeera or Russia Today than the US MSM.

  7. I attended the two debates of an hour and a half each in Houston, Jan 2010 with Dr LIndzen against Archwarmist Gerry North of TAMU. Two preconditions that the Archwarmist demanded were, that there were to be no visual aides and no mention of the material in the Nov 2009 “stolen” email files. Since 80% of learning is visual and a picture is worth a thousand words, Dr Lindzen was limited on the Truth he could share. Since obvious misconduct by the Archwarmists was unmentionable, there was a false sense of parity….bordering on parody. When days later the Archwarmist claimed in a WaPo article that there was NO EVIDENCE in the ClimateGate emails… that HE HAD NEVER READ…of any scientific misconduct….well parody prevailed….”No Loophole for Your Soul” was posted at Canada Free Press.

    Dr Lindzen is not correct on everything….but he’s more correct that the Archwarmists.

  8. At Bishop Hill Myles Allen states:

    The real question, therefore, is whether 4+ degrees is OK. That’s what we need to be discussing…

    My response there follows:

    Indeed. I have addressed this very question in two peer-reviewed papers:
    Is Climate Change the Number One Threat to Humanity? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 3: 489–508. doi: 10.1002/wcc.194 (2012).

    Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”? Energy & Environment 20(3): 279-302 (2009). Ungated versions of papers available at http://goklany.org.

    The abstract of the first paper states:

    This paper challenges claims that global warming outranks other threats facing humanity through the foreseeable future (assumed to be 2085–2100).World Health Organization and British government-sponsored global impact studies indicate that, relative to other factors, global warming’s impact on key determinants of human and environmental well-being should be small through 2085 even under the warmest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario. [N.B. The warmest scenario results in 4 °C increase between 1990 and 2085.] Specifically, over 20 other health risks currently contribute more to death and disease worldwide than global warming. Through 2085, only 13% of mortality from hunger, malaria, and extreme weather events (including coastal flooding from sea level rise) should be from warming. Moreover, warming should reduce future global population at risk of water stress, and pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity (by increasing net biome productivity and decreasing habitat conversion). That warming is not fundamental to human well-being is reinforced by lower bound estimates of net gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. This measure adjusts GDP downward to account for damages from warming due to market, health, and environmental impacts, and risk of catastrophe. For both developing and industrialized countries, net GDP per capita—albeit an imperfect surrogate for human well-being—should be (1) double the current US level by 2100 under the warmest scenario, and (2) lowest under the poorest IPCC scenario but highest under the warmest scenario through 2200. The warmest world, being wealthier, should also have greater capacity to address any problem, including warming. Therefore, other problems and, specifically, lowered economic development are greater threats to humanity than global warming. [Italicized note added for explanation.]

    In other words, humanity should not only be able to adapt to, but it may well thrive under, an average global temps increase 4 °C above the 1990 level. Of course, if we undertake policies that impoverish and/or reject technological change, all bets are off, even if we don’t have to contend with climate change.

    These papers do not consider hypothetical tipping points precisely because they are hypothetical. Read the paper.

  9. Stephen Wilde says:

    Oddly, I have found Al Jazeera to be more politically neutral than I ever expected.

    In fact, it tends to highlight the leftist bias of some western news outlets.

    Russia Today is obviously from the Russian point of view but that is understandable. Nonetheless it does not seem to have the same degree of political slant as some western media as long as the direct interests of Russia are not affected.

    The western media do generally seem to have been taken over by an anti capitalist mindset whilst other nations are moving in the opposite direction towards capitalism albeit with varying degrees of state control.

    All part of the long term historic rise and fall of empires I suppose.

    The West has lost its moral confidence and is abandoning the principles that brought us from tribalism through feudalism to capitalist democracy.

    Meanwhile the developing world is taking up the baton with its own local variations on the theme.

    Everyone apart from North Korea, the Palestinians and a few other failures are getting the picture that within limits capitalism and individual freedom are the only way to go.

    The USA and UK ahave already blown it with their borrowing and money printing policies. The only issue of interest is how brutally they let their people down in the coming years.

    I think it could be salvaged but not without a dose of reality that might be rejected by the voters who are dominated by state supplicants.

    .

  10. Doug Huffman says:

    The limits on capitalism are an intelligently educated skeptical market. In the limit, democracy is mob rule/kakocracy and not progressive of anything.

    Godzilla romanized by Hepburn or Kunrei is Gojira or Gozira and an apt addition to the clade zeera as Godzeera. The name was originally a Japanese portmanteau of gorilla and whale, each a darling of the Gaians.

  11. Wamron says:

    Stephen Wilde. Thats the thing. Most of us most of the time have a very proximal focus. The longer view makes all our affairs seem pointless excrpt that which directly affects us and those we know. Western civilisation is over, any familiarity with history offers that as the most plausible vision. Why in hell should I give a damn anyway. I and everyone I know will be dead before long. Personally I can say it wont be a minute too soon.

  12. _Jim says:

    FauxScienceSlayer says March 9, 2013 at 8:02 am

    Dr Lindzen is not correct on everything….but he’s more correct that the Archwarmists.

    This from … well, you know …

    .

  13. _Jim says:

    Oops … I think my last got stuck in the spam bin … TIA _Jim

  14. Silver Ralph says:

    .
    There is a big problem with Al Jazeera.

    Not sure about their climate views, but Al Jazeera are big on Islamic propaganda, as you might expect. But they also fund Western media outlets that are similarly propagandistic – outlets like The Onion. Note the same logo. Beware of the political opinions from outlets like this.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/
    http://www.theonion.com/

    .

  15. arthur4563 says:

    Remember the good old days, when diversity of thought,opinions, race, and practically everything else was a good thing amongst the new liberal elite? And questioning a person’s motives was scorned as the ad hominem fallacy that it is? Or when conspiracies were figments of a diseased mind (JFK assassination the exception) ? Ah, those were the days.I believe the biggest change
    around is not the climate, but liberal mentalities. Such as they are (and were). Of course, belief
    in AGW has no logical connection with liberalism or conservatism. But that’s not so strange – over the years, each political wing has embraced belief in ideas that have no intrinsic connection
    to their political beliefs.

  16. Silver Ralph says:

    Stephen Wilde says: March 9, 2013 at 8:09 am
    Oddly, I have found Al Jazeera to be more politically neutral than I ever expected.
    ___________________________________

    But that is the whole rationale underpinning efective propaganda. You keep the news neutral and unexceptional until you need to use your influence – and then you slip in the partisan propaganda when nobody is noticing.

    Of course there are some outlets, like the BBC, who broadcast bias and propaganda every day of the week. But they get away with this (to a degree) because most people assume them to be honest (which they are not), due to a previous 50-year heritage of honesty. (Which is fast being eroded).

    But Al Jazerra has the opposite problem, and must built up trust for some considerable time, before slipping in a propaganda one-two punch under the belt.

    .

    .

  17. kramer says:

    Is there a video link somewhere so we can watch it?

  18. cui bono says:

    It sounds like the warmists didn’t get very far in this debate.

    To adapt Buffett, “When the intellectual tide goes out, we see who is swimming intellectually naked”.

  19. Mike Mellor says:

    FYI, Al Jazeera has nothing to do with Al Qaeda, despite the (to Westerners) similar-sounding name. It’s like confusing The Guardian and The Telegraph because they both begin with “The.”

    Al Jazz is mildly right of center. It supports neither Hamas nor Hezbollah. During the run-up to the 2012 US Presidential elections, A-J backed Obama while giving Romney a fair hearing.

  20. Vince Causey says:

    richard Verney,
    “I frquently watch Russia Today, (which carries quite a few good documentaries and current affairs programmes, in particular Cross Talk is often very good)”

    I too used to watch RT, but came to realise bias exists there as well. It became so blatant at times, I thought I was living in the old Soviet Union.

    I was particularly struck with the way they covered the anti-capitalist protests in New York. They only gave air time to either the protesters themselves, or bearded bloggers who were portrayed as experts on the protests. I particularly liked the way the protesters were lionised while the police were shown as brutal oppressors.

    When the Syrian uprising began, it was the US and UK who had instigated it, and were supposedly waging a proxy war against the government.

    I don’t watch it any more, though I agree there has been some good output, but that doesn’t compensate for the anti American and British bias.

  21. DirkH says:

    arthur4563 says:
    March 9, 2013 at 10:17 am
    “Of course, belief in AGW has no logical connection with liberalism or conservatism.”

    It has every imaginable connection with statism.

  22. Jimbo says:

    On Tara’s Eco Science Blog (mentioned in above post) I left 3 simple questions:

    “Tara, I have just 3 simple questions.

    1). What is causing climate change?

    2). In the past has the climate ever stopped changing?

    3). How would you survive if all fossil fuel companies went on strike tomorrow and the strike lasted for 10 years?”

    “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

    Link

  23. Lew Skannen says:

    “The aim was to shame the sceptic,..”

    So they have given up all hope of ever refuting the sceptic argument in logical debate then.

  24. Crispin in Waterloo but actually in Yogyakarta says:

    Maybe someone was shamed into accepting the CAGW tripe and climbed aboard the shame train. As it turns out, the train is still standing at the station waiting for the heat engine to pull all the riders to the promised land of warmth.

    Thus embarassed by any lack of progress, they strut the platform trying to shame others into buying a ticket. The cost is significant: credulity, capacity for independent thought and $0.82 per kWh. Even if a sucker is born every minute, it is no wonder they are running out of them.

  25. Poptech says:

    I just posted a comment to Tara’s blog about her misinformation about Dr. Lindzen but do not know if she will approve it, so I am posting it here as well,

    Tara, you are confusing papers and dates and stating incorrect information.

    Dr. Lindzen’s did successfully publish his Iris hypothesis in a peer-reviewed science journal, “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” in 2001,

    Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp. 417-432, March 2001)
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou

    The NYT article you link to cites a comment on this paper but fails to include Dr. Lindzen’s rebuttal,

    * Comment on “No Evidence for Iris”
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 83, Issue 9, pp. 1345–1349, September 2002)
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, Arthur Y. Hou

    You are confusing this with a later paper the NYT’s article also discusses, which again was published in a peer-reviewed science journal, “Geophysical Research Letters” in 2009,

    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
    (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 36, Number 16, August 2009)
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

    This is the recent paper the NYT’s article is discussing that was criticized to which Dr. Lindzen addressed all such criticisms and again published an updated version of the paper in a peer-reviewed science journal, “Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences” in 2011.

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
    - Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

    Thompson Reuters (ISI) Science Citation Index lists the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences as a peer-reviewed science journal,

    http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&ISSN=1976-7633

    Before being so sarcastic in the future please get your facts straight.

  26. Poptech says:

    Lew Skannen says: “The aim was to shame the sceptic,..”

    So they have given up all hope of ever refuting the sceptic argument in logical debate then.

    This has been their tactic for some time now and is getting more shrill the worse they lose any debate. I’ve seen it repeatedly, just when you are sure they lost the argument they go into a full court press of smear, no lie left unsaid.

  27. Jit says:

    Gods… some of you think you’ll get the truth from Russia Today? Wake up.

    I see no comments at Tara’s Eco Science Blog – I guess they have not been approved…

  28. John Tofflemire says:

    Cliff Kindaid’s Al Jazerra posting is both hysteria and bigotry and posting the term “Terror TV channel” from his screed on this website dengrates its excellent quality. While Al Jazerra’s editorial page tends to be an embarassing melange of western leftist fellow travelers and its coverage of Israel ridiculously one sided, Al Jazerra provides the most comprehensive coverage of news across the globe of any news organization in the world (including the BBC). Americans deserve the global perspective Al Jazerra offers and I trust that people can filter out the leftist nonesense and take away a greater understanding of the world.

  29. Nick says:

    ” richard Verney says:”
    March 9, 2013 at 7:38 am

    “Regrettably, here in the UK, because of the BBC (Biased Broadcasting Corporation), to get some balance on world events, or to see another view point on issues, I frquently watch Russia Today, (which carries quite a few good documentaries and current affairs programmes, in particular Cross Talk is often very good) and less often CCTC (Chinese news channel) and even occassionally Al Jazeera.”

    “The state of MSM is very depressing, especially since more than ever governments could really do with being held to account by MSM failing which they will ride rough shod over their citizens..”

    This observation is unbeleivably telling!

    The Western population is sleepwalkin into and abys.

    Every single one of those organisations and the society’s they represent will turn on the west the minute they smell the opportunity of weakness. Which is on it’s way, BTW.

    Has anyone thought of Wind Farms and Solar panles? surely they’d be good idea?, and would save us lots of money, and save the planet as well.

    Most of the Western population has turned into “Useful idiots” Look it up, might scarer the pants of a few.

  30. Sad-But-True-Its-You says:

    “Its a bummer Man.”, The Dude.

  31. StephenP says:

    The Observer yesterday had an interesting interview with Mark Lynas where he explains his change of mind on GM and other matters, which he says was brought about by studying the science. He is not at all complimentary about his former fellow travellers who regard him as a turncoat. Hopefully he may look at the ‘science’ behind global warming.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/09/mark-lynas-truth-treachery-gm

Comments are closed.