Spencer, Ridley, and Gavin on Fox tonight

Readers may recall that Dr. Mann had an unprofessional visceral reaction to the invitation. Kudos to Dr. Gavin Schmidt for taking the invitation and to follow through with it in a professional manner*.

fox-business[1]

Dr. Roy Spencer writes:

Stossel Show: Schmidt, Spencer, & Ridley on Global Warming

John Stossel interviewed me and Gavin Schmidt yesterday at the FoxNews studios in Manhattan, and I’m told he will interview Matt Ridley today, for (Thursday) nights Stossel Show entitled “Green Tyranny”. As is often the case, the show might air on FoxNews Channel once or twice this weekend.

Looking for a global warming debate, Stossel said they asked 10 natural climate change deniers (sorry, my term, I couldn’t help myself), and only Gavin took them up on it. Scott Denning was also willing, but unavailable.

At least Gavin knows what he’s talking about…I’ve debated people who so badly mangled the explanation of anthropogenic climate change that I had to fix it for them so the audience wouldn’t be misled.

Talking with Stossel afterward, he said he thought Gavin did a good job of articulating his position. I hope Gavin is willing to return, although I could tell he was somewhat annoyed by the conservative/libertarian vibe he was surrounded by. It will also be interesting to see what Matt Ridley has to say.

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

Look for it on Fox Business Channel 9 p.m. EDT Thursday, March 28th (tonight).

You can find FBC on DirectTV and Dish Network, as well as many local cable outlets. Check listings with your television service provider.

* UPDATE: After watching the Stossel show on Fox Business Channel, I was disappointed at how Dr. Schmidt behaved. Stossell interviewed Spencer first, then Gavin Schmidt, who came across as being afraid of debate, and unfortunately he made arrangements that he would not stay on the podium when Spencer came up. This in my opinion, lost his entire case with the public in one childish appearing action.

Spencer even agreed with some of Dr. Schmidt’s points, and said things that have already been said, so if Dr. Schmidt feared some sort of ambush, he was sorely mistaken. Then Matt Ridley was interviewed and pointed out how there are positive benefits to global warming and CO2 increasing global biomass.  IMHO Both Roy and Matt were upbeat and positive where Gavin by his actions came across really badly. I still give him props for participating, as it was far and above the juvenile response of his colleague Dr. Mann, but I think making demands like he did hurt his trust with the audience far more than he realizes. – Anthony

About these ads

120 thoughts on “Spencer, Ridley, and Gavin on Fox tonight

  1. Thanks! I saw the post at Dr. Spencer’s site but was too lazy so far to go search for the date / time of the broadcast. Should be interesting.

  2. Basically Mann has only done one thing and he did that badly. Gavin is more of a scientist. He won’t be the last guy in the trenches if evidence against his position becomes strong enough.

  3. Are you really surprised that scientists are reluctant to join in a segment called (in a fair and balanced way) “Green Tyranny”?

    REPLY: Why not watch before bloviating about it Nick? – Anthony

  4. Hey Nick,

    Gavin did it, which shows some balls on his part. I’m surprised that he’s crawled out from under his ‘green tyranny’ Voice of God, post deleting echo-chamber website RealClimate and actually put something on the line here against a reasonably solid opponent.

  5. Gavin knows his stuff, and kudos to him for participating. I look forward to watching Gavin and Roy go head to head. Although, their differences, while extremely important, are rather arcane for a general audience.

  6. I sent out a bunch of emails letting the folks know about the show. Kudo’s to Schmidt. Roy Spencer is quite an adversary and he’s such a gentleman.

    Thanks for the heads up Anthony.

  7. I hope that we in the UK are able to see a video of this later ( but not too much later ).

    I notice that Scott Denning is always willing to turn up and talk to the nasty D-word folk. I’m not sure if that is testament to his conviction or that there is a free meal in it ;)

  8. Russ R. says:
    March 28, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    (My respect for Schmidt) / (My respect for Mann) = #DIV/0!
    =======================================================
    You left “X infinity” off of the right side of the equation.

  9. an addition to my previous post. I have just found this when searching for ‘Fox Business live video’.

    http://live.foxnews.com/

    Interesting that it shows to a UK IP address, these things are usually restricted for licensing reasons.

    can someone please comment on whether this is what is actually live on your TV right now and if so can you then confirm my poor understanding of US time zones and confirm that i’m right in thinking it’s 7pm EDt right about now?

    Thanks

  10. I am pleased to see that Stossel is doing this show. He asks a lot of good questions and puts on some real interesting shows. And why some of those posters here would question the fairness of Fox is way beyond me. Most of the time the critic’s are knee jerk liberals who have never even seen any of their shows. I have been watching Fox for at least 10 years and do find them to be “Fair, Balanced and Unafraid”.

  11. Nick Stokes: Are you of the thought that the term Green Tyranny is unfair? What part of holding a gun to my head while taking my well-earned money to fund projects that make some people wealthy is not tyranny? Please explain. I’m waiting.

  12. Bought Stossel’s book about 5 years ago. Had him sign it, after a lecture.

    Reformed “progressive”. Like the old story about the little girl with the “good communist kittens”..that a week later, were no longer good communists. The Russian teacher asked, “Why not?” Her answer: “Their eyes opened!” Same with John S. He did the “consumer protection” thing for about 12 years, and then found out that more realistically PRODUCERS of goods needed to be protected from rabid consumers, lawyers, and the politicians.

    I’m really suprised the liberal hippie lefty loonies in NYC have NOT, in fact, burned him at the steak yet. (Oh wait, they DON’T eat STEAK, that’s why!)

  13. Nick Stokes says:
    March 28, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    “Are you really surprised that scientists are reluctant to join in a segment called (in a fair and balanced way) “Green Tyranny”?”

    Would Green Lies or Green Deception be more acceptable? Or just Watermelons? Green Stupidity? Green Incapability Of Handling Numbers? How about Misguided Green Ideas About The Population Of Polar Bears?

  14. REPLY: Why not watch before bloviating about it Nick? – Anthony

    How exactly was Nick Stoke’s comment ‘bloviating’?? That ‘Green Tyranny’ title seemed like a reasonable thing to point out in the context of comments about the apparent reluctance of scientists to appear.

    It doesn’t matter if you agree with the opinion expressed in the title or not. If you asked 10 chiropractors to appear in a segment called “Chiropractor Tyranny”, it would not be surprising if 8 are reluctant.

    Good for Gavin Schmidt to look past it.

  15. I also give Gavin Schmidt props for bucking the boycott of all things skeptical and participating in this show. I would like to believe this might be the beginning of the end of the stupid climate wars, and people can get back to doing science and exploring all paths without the academic bullying that’s push everyone either to one side, or forced them to be silent for fear of losing their jobs..

  16. Good on Gavin. It’s a mark of professionalism to participate in a debate even in a forum that may not be entirely sympathetic to his views. A lesson we can all be reminded of even if some of us need more reminding than others.

  17. Do this and end GRANT SCIENCE – they bad mouth business sponsored research – but bribed university professor chairs is OK – if the Prof does not produce the desired Progressive carbon tax his job will be gone . . It used to be PUBLISH OR PERISH in the Universities as they got money from books and Publishers , , now it is get a GRANT OR BE GONE . . STUDY FOR PAY.

  18. Gavin Schmidt is one of the very rare exception of the consensus advocates wiling to discuss, if not debate, his position. He did it once before in a series of exchanges with Judith Curry on Keith Kloor’s site. He also took questions from the hoi polloi.

    I remember being amused by the fact that he just could not seem to figure out how Dr. Curry continued to disagree with him, once they agreed on certain basic underlying facts. I look forward to seeing the program.

  19. jim papsdorf says:
    March 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm
    And why some of those posters here would question the fairness of Fox is way beyond me. Most of the time the critic’s are knee jerk liberals who have never even seen any of their shows.
    ================================================================
    Walk up from behind a liberal and wisper “fox news” in their ear.
    It’s like garlic to a vampire.

  20. I’m really suprised (sic) the liberal hippie lefty loonies in NYC have NOT, in fact, burned him at the steak (sic) yet. (Oh wait, they DON’T eat STEAK, that’s why!)

    It’s “stake” and plenty of leftists eat steak, hence the thriving steakhouses that permeate the city. Also, don’t refer to them as liberals, as they are anything but. I’m a liberal and wouldn’t be caught dead spouting the nonsensical shit they too commonly regurgitate. A liberal is someone who believes in both social and economic liberty. Don’t let them bastardize the term into something that it unequivocally is not.

  21. I do not watch TV (or even have one), if this ever makes it to where it can be watched over the net someone please post a link.

    I’ll check the fox site for links as well.

    Cheers.

  22. For UK viewers of Fox News on Sky Satellite, according to the EPG Stossel is on at 2am Saturday and another at 3am Sunday, also looks like repeats follow three hours later on both days. The info button has no details. Set the PVR to record both days. :)
    UK summer time cuts in on Sunday morning thus maybe explaining why there is an hour difference to the start time between the two days.

    Mick.

  23. Gavin and Bill O’Reilly, My Favorite Political commentators! Big props to Gavin for agreeing to participate.

  24. I take it as a positive when we see Schmidt’s acceptance of Stossel’s invitation to participate in a show that will also include Spencer and Ridley; to be a positive sign that climate science dialog is becoming more open and balanced.

    Perhaps there is some possibility that better blog principles will be applied soon at RC that could override Mann’s innate hostility and offensiveness.

    John

  25. Seems that all the ‘respect’ for gavin was a little premature. he’s in the studio but refuses to speak as long as it’s “not a debate”.
    Which has just had the ridiculous situation where Dr Spencer has been sent off set so gavin can come on and talk. Frightened to death of having his assertions questioned?
    And he’s joined the rest and moved on to ‘extreme weather events’ rather than the actual science. The man is a deluded charlatan.

  26. Leo Geiger says:
    March 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    REPLY: Why not watch before bloviating about it Nick? – Anthony
    ….It doesn’t matter if you agree with the opinion expressed in the title or not. If you asked 10 chiropractors to appear in a segment called “Chiropractor Tyranny”, it would not be surprising if 8 are reluctant.

    Good for Gavin Schmidt to look past it.
    ++++++++++++++
    Your point sounds good on the face of it. But it does not past muster. It would past muster if Chiropractors were forcing governments to levy my tax money to force Chiropractic upon the masses. So Tyranny is in fact what it is to me and all the tax payers who are forced to cough up money and forced to take the products to save us from some non existential doom. If you could come up with a better analogy, I will retract my statement here. See, I’m open to being wrong.

  27. JDC says:

    March 28, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    I’m really suprised (sic) the liberal hippie lefty loonies in NYC have NOT, in fact, burned him at the steak (sic) yet. (Oh wait, they DON’T eat STEAK, that’s why!)

    It’s “stake” and plenty of leftists eat steak, hence the thriving steakhouses that permeate the city. Also, don’t refer to them as liberals, as they are anything but. I’m a liberal and wouldn’t be caught dead spouting the nonsensical shit they too commonly regurgitate. A liberal is someone who believes in both social and economic liberty. Don’t let them bastardize the term into something that it unequivocally is not.
    ============
    “Let them eat cake.”
    (I’m almost starting to understand the meaning of that phrase).

  28. For a brief period today, I felt a degree of admiration for Gavin Schmidt becasue of his willingness to go on the program. But now, having watched the program, my prior opinion of the man has returned. What a schmuck. He actually required Roy Spencer to leave the set before he would come on. Gavin came across looking like a total tool.

  29. Watched it and agree with zoot and Bob. Gavin was an a-hole. And he was dressed like he had just come to the studio after working on his car. Roy looked professional.
    Does Gavin really believe that if we wreck our economy (more) with Green Tyranny, the Chinese and Indians are going to follow our lead?

  30. I am thoroughly disappointed by Fox Business’s/John Stossel’s presentation tonight.

    There was no mention of two crucial facts in the debate:

    (1) There has been no warming at all, but rather cooling, since 1998, and overall temps are lower now than at any time since 1978, and much lower than the warmest period of the last century (actually since 1850), the 1930s; besides which there have been past eras with higher temps and low CO2, and vice versa, all through history and prehistory – ZERO CORRELATION between CO2 in the atmosphere and climate. – the histotical and paleontological records PROVE this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    (2) An overwhelming majority of scientists REJECT the AGW hypothesis. If you count the ~ 70 hard-core fanatics in the IPCC versus the 31,000+ signers of th4e Oreegon Petition, the skeptics outnumber the believers by about 450 to 1. I suspect the scientists who haven’t spoken up outnumber the other ethically compromised “scientists” pushing AGW in similar proportion.

    A huge opportunity to present the real truth about global warming was missed in this presentation.

  31. “Let them eat cake.”
    (I’m almost starting to understand the meaning of that phrase).

    Keep working, haha.

    @ Chad – Stop it. The vast majority of climate scientists (not engineers, not scientists in other fields, but actual climate scientists who are actively working in the field) accept the AGW theory. The theory being debated is CAGW and how to approach the issue from a policy standpoint. Your statements about the temperature record are in direct contrast to the historical data.

  32. I was disappointed, Dr. Spencer did not have a chance to respond to Schmidt’s bloviating and hand-waving. Schmidt was the [snip] we’ve all come to expect from (Un)real Climate. That Schmidt refused to be on the same set as Spencer and debate him was embarrasing and showed Schmidt’s cowardice like most of the global warming gang.

  33. Oh, forgot to mention the rank yellow cowardice (not to mention discourtesy and unprofessionalism) displayed by all the alarmies who refused to appear on the show, and by the one who did show and refused to debate.

    Of course they knew they’d be picked apart if they did debate. And the blatherskite from the electric car company was a wonder to behold, claiming that we aren’t subsidizing his uneconomic, unfunctional and higher-emitting toys because the federal government is picking up the subsidy tab – and of course, all he did was deny the actual figures without offering any proof they were incorrect, with the usual idiocies about “assumptions,” “bias” (!). My, what chutzpah! Hey, Mr. What’s-your-name, just whose money do you think that is, that the feds are subsidizing you with? $7,000 out of the taxpayer’s pocket so rich lefty celebs like Justin Beaver can pay less for a worthless gadget, hey?

    I’d be hard put to think of a more obvious and disgusting and venal example of profiteering from AGW scaremongering than this.

  34. James Hansen is willing to undertake civil disobedience to call attention to his concerns, but he shrinks from an opportunity to debate. He gives civil disobedience a bad name.

    I thought Gavin did a nice job succinctly stating his points in the face of a series of interruptions from Stossel. I also thought Spencer struck at the heart of the matter saying that no one can quantify what degree of warming is due to carbon dioxide. Gavin’s argument is a little simple. He states, the climate isn’t changing because of volcanoes, it isn’t changing because of the sun, it isn’t changing because of orbital changes, therefore CO2 must be the culprit. Another well moderated debate would be very helpful. The way things are now warmers are hiding behind the skirts of their journal editors. They’ll be ignored if they pass up opportunities to appear on television.

  35. Two things come to mind.

    1. Hoist with own petard

    2. give them enough rope.

    The debate is not nor has ever been about the “science” but about the politics of control. Time to wrest control back to the People.

  36. I take it as a positive when we see Schmidt’s acceptance of Stossel’s invitation to participate in a show that will also include Spencer and Ridley; to be a positive sign that climate science dialog is becoming more open and balanced.

    Perhaps there is some possibility that better blog principles will be applied soon at RC that could override Mann’s innate hostility and offensiveness.

    John

    I retract my above comment about it being a positive that Schmidt was going to appear on Stossel.

    I retract based on critiques of Schmidt’s behavior / talk that have been made by some commenters here (mpaul, zootcadillac, Bob, and Tom in Texas) who saw the Stossel’s Show with Schmidt.

    John

  37. WUWT TV opportunity knocks!

    Dr. Roy, Matt, and Gavin,,,,,, are you willing to put it up on an award winning blog via Skype?

    It would be a great and transparent thing to be able to ask you all questions too boot>.

    Just sayin, stand up and make your case for all to see, and potentially interact with, in real time……..

    No pressure Anthony :-)

  38. Tom in Texas says March 28, 2013 at 7:15 pm

    Watched it and agree with zoot and Bob. Gavin was an a-hole. And he was dressed like he had just come to the studio after working on his car.

    He isn’t going to be depending on the “drunk defense” for his poor performance, is he? Wearing disheveled (untidy; disordered appearance, “looks like he slept in a dumpster last night”) sets the stage for it …

    .

  39. zootcadillac says March 28, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    an addition to my previous post. I have just found this when searching for ‘Fox Business live video’.

    http://live.foxnews.com/

    Interesting that it shows to a UK IP address, these things are usually restricted for licensing reasons.

    One of those ‘regional’ things; the same URL can return different IP addresses on occasion, esp, for high-volume content delivery organizations.

    On a trace route my last step is:

    a23-8-35-153.deploy.akamaitechnologies.com [23.8.35.153]

    The IP geolocates to a site in the US in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/23.8.35.153

    .

  40. Mario Lento says:March 28, 2013 at 6:57 pm

    So Tyranny is in fact what it is to me…

    That is the point.

    If a person is deciding whether to participate in something, they have to ask if anyone will actually listen to what they say, and whether or not the event is designed to favour one point of view over another. For example, if the title of a show is “Green Tyranny” and you are a climate scientist, you might pause to wonder about those things…..

    If they conclude that many people are watching just so they can see ‘their side’ take down the “green tyranny”, “liberal hippie lefty loonies”, “deception”, “watermelons”, “stupidity” (to borrow words from just this comment thread), the person might reasonably conclude that those people are not really “open to being wrong” and won’t actually listen to them. Their minds are made up. Once they have accounted for those people, they then have to ask if enough people remain who might actually listen, ie, be willing to question their own opinions enough to make it worthwhile.

    Declining to participate in many situations is not about being ‘afraid to lose’. It is just an assessment of whether or not it would be a waste of time.

  41. Leo Geiger says March 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    For example, if the title of a show is “Green Tyranny” and you are a climate scientist, you might pause to wonder about those things…..

    Declining to participate in many situations is not about being ‘afraid to lose’. It is just an assessment of whether or not it would be a waste of time.

    The words of Leo Geiger, “Apologist at Large“? <grin>

    .

  42. JDC – Wrong! The ONLY “scientists” whoreally believe AGW are the ones whose politics has compromised their integrity. To this I would add that neither what passes for “climate science” nor “climate scientists” in the envirofascist colmmunity deserve those names. Sure,you can claim a majority – but it is a majority of a well-defined bunch of charlatans characterized by perverse motives, greed and amorality. That, unfortunately, wis what is advertised as “climate science” today, with zero relation to the genuine article.

    Merely declining to categorically deny AGW doesn’t signifiy either a belief in it or the conviction that it is dangerous. Most likely, unbeolievers refrain from categorically denyiong for two reasons: very few things in science are absolutely certain (although the untruth of AGW comes as close to certainty as anything) and bewcause they don’t want to have a lot of crap thrown at them by the alarmies and their grooupies in the media. It is poerfectly understandable for hoinest scientists to not take an absolute position on something like AGW, but that should not be taken to be belief in it.

    So, JDC, I am not going to “stop it,” no matter what you say or think. I suppose you deny the MWP, the Romnan Optimum, the Hittite-Minoan-Mycenean warming? The AGW zealots would have to destroy all the historical records in almost every library on Earth to get around those. And what about the Oligocene glaciation, when therre was demonstrably much more CO2 in the air than now? I rthink 3,800 years of historical records and 40+ million years of paleontological evidence should be enough to shut the fanatics up once and for all.

    I for one am not going to sit idly by while these genocidal maniacs mount their campaign to kill off the world’s poor people and destroy civilization. It’s the 1930s all over again, bro, and the envuiros are today’s Nazis..

  43. Leo Geiger says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    ++++++
    Well you have presented your point cogently. You make sense. And – I also think it makes sense that the title is boldly and contentiously correct. At this time, I think it’s OK not to shy away from being brutally honest about the tyranny. It’s up to the alarmists to have to prove their beliefs, not the other way around any more. Recall, it used to be that AGW proponents did the same thing calling us flat-earthers and anti science. They just assumed everyone would get in line (which many did) with the mantra that we were going to hit a tipping point and boil over. So now it’s time to eat crow for them.

    But again, your point is taken, and given that context, it passes muster.

  44. “natural climate change deniers” — Dr. Roy Spencer’s phrase to describe global warming alarmists

    Dr Spencer! You have hit upon a most AWESOME phrase. I look forward to using it moving forward. Might be cute to do an April 1st event where all links to alarmist websites are labelled or categorized as D-E-N-I-E-R websites … this will be tremendously fun

    Remember Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”
    Rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    Rule #6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
    Rule #8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance.

  45. JDC:
    You say “……… the vast majority of climate scientists ……”.
    Please can you provide a figure or a percentage with a link to the origin of this claim?

  46. Seems to me that Gavin did a great job… for the skeptics. My wife, who doesn’t know who any of these people are, could not believe the guy would not debate Roy Spencer… or even sit down next to him. I know it’s a small sample size (n=1), but I think her reaction is probably fairly indicative of what a lot of non-scientists thought about this. I would also imagine that the “Team” members who watched this had to know how utterly childish he looked… it was very awkward, and Stossel made hay with that awkwardness. I think that, in the future, they know they either have to actually debate face-to-face or just not show up at all. Last night, they would have been better off with the latter.

  47. Leo Geiger says:
    March 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    “If they conclude that many people are watching just so they can see ‘their side’ take down the “green tyranny”, “liberal hippie lefty loonies”, “deception”, “watermelons”, “stupidity” (to borrow words from just this comment thread), the person might reasonably conclude that those people are not really “open to being wrong” and won’t actually listen to them. Their minds are made up. Once they have accounted for those people, they then have to ask if enough people remain who might actually listen, ie, be willing to question their own opinions enough to make it worthwhile.

    Declining to participate in many situations is not about being ‘afraid to lose’. It is just an assessment of whether or not it would be a waste of time.”

    As to whether my mind is open or not, yes it is. It is Good Friday and 5 cm of fresh white snow are outside my window and I’m living south of the Polar circle; my mind is open enough to accept that fact as objective truth and juxtapose it against the failing predictions of the Global Circulation Models.

    As to whether the propagandist Gavin Schmidt sees it as a worthwhile use of his valuable propagandizing talents to participate in that TV show, that is indeed up to him. Now you might say isn’t that a bit harsh and closed-minded to call him a propagandist; no it isn’t. I have in fact tried to post comments at Real Climate and can attest that it is a propaganda organization because it does not allow open discussion, and it is Gavin Schmidt himself who is the chief censor at that Fenton communications outfit.

  48. Leo Geiger says: March 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm “That ‘Green Tyranny’ title seemed like a reasonable thing to point out in the context of comments about the apparent reluctance of scientists to appear.”

    Interesting that Leo equates Climate Scientists with Green, I thought they were supposed to be Scientists first and foremost.
    So was the programme about Green or Climate or both?

  49. Chad Wozniak says:
    March 28, 2013 at 7:24 pm
    “I am thoroughly disappointed by Fox Business’s/John Stossel’s presentation tonight.”

    Then write to Stossel and Fox Business and tell them your views and why? They rely on their ratings to keep going and if they get enough feedback expressing similar views they will adapt. If you don’t tell them they will never know.

  50. Leo Geiger says:
    March 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    REPLY: Why not watch before bloviating about it Nick? – Anthony

    How exactly was Nick Stoke’s comment ‘bloviating’?? That ‘Green Tyranny’ title seemed like a reasonable thing to point out in the context of comments about the apparent reluctance of scientists to appear.

    It doesn’t matter if you agree with the opinion expressed in the title or not. If you asked 10 chiropractors to appear in a segment called “Chiropractor Tyranny”, it would not be surprising if 8 are reluctant.
    ===================================

    So basically you are saying the Climate scient/scientists and “Green” are interchangeable terms. Frankly that very revealing, and also get right to the heart of the title of “Green Tyranny” in a way you never intended. Here’s a clue for you, “Green” is a political movement, and a very tyrannical one at that in that it wants to dictate how every one else lives and uses energy. And that’s what you equate climate science to. As I said, very revealing.

  51. Spencer’s comment, “At least Gavin knows what he’s talking about…”, should give everybody considerable pause. If this is in fact a true statement, then his (Gavin’s] professional opinion that he presents through RC and and his position at GISS would indicate that he is deliberately misleading the public and obfusticating facts. For a civil servant, this would be a criminal act in most jurisdictions. Its one thing to be wrong out of ignorance, it’s something else to purposefully misrepresent the scientifc evidence for a private agenda. Now, since Hansen heads that organization, Schmidt is either culpable along with Hansen, or the agency itself is corrupt, and both are simply fulfilling the agenda of the government, since the agency answers to a higher authority than either Hansen or Schmidt, or, in the alternative, both are truly rogue, and are accountable under a variety of statutes.

  52. About Green Tyranny. Now, declared goals of Greenpeace are
    a) abolishment of all nuclear technology. As they don’t mention an exemption for medical uses I guess that’s that for cancer treatment.
    b) abolishment of all gene modification technology. Well not much to say about that, except we won’t get some super algae that would be better at turning CO2 into oil, not that I think CO2 is a problem or peak oil.
    c) Of course, abolishment of all fossil fuel use. So we don’t even have to think of the peak oil problem anymore as we won’t be allowed to use it.

    So into which epoch of history would this warp us back? It will very likely not be possible to produce more wind turbines and more solar panels without fossil fuel or nuclear energy – there are no cranes that run on batteries, there are no steel mills driven by solar cells etc. Solar panels BTW would shoot up in price, as making them is energy intensive, and that energy currently comes from Chinese coal power plants.

    We would end up somewhere in the 17th century, shortly before the industrial revolution, when Dutch merchants were running the world trade across the oceans. Shortly after the 30 year war.

    But how would Greenpeace make sure these prohibitions are obeyed by all nations and by all people in these nations? This would require some kind of global supression regime; as anyone who would use the technologies abolished by Greenpeace would gain an enormous advantage. They could of course make an exemption for their own police state use; otherwise, how would their green police fight against say a helicopter owned by criminals; on horseback?

    We basically arrive pretty much automatically at the concept of tiranny given Greenpeace’s stated goals.

  53. A C Osborn says: March 29, 2013 at 4:39 am

    Interesting that Leo equates Climate Scientists with Green, I thought they were supposed to be Scientists first and foremost.

    John Endicott says: March 29, 2013 at 4:58 am

    So basically you are saying the Climate scient/scientists and “Green” are interchangeable terms.

    No, I don’t think that. But since other people unfortunately think along those lines (like many commenting here… see the first paragraph Chad Wozniak’s post at March 28, 2013 at 9:14 pm for a fine example), it would give a climate scientist invited to appear on a programme with such a name good reason to think it might be a waste of time. It’s almost as if they have been invited on a programme about Green Tyranny to represent the ‘Tyranny side’ for balance…

  54. Several years ago I debated Michael Schlessinger, a big name climate modeler, at a local college. At the beginning he would not shake my hand or even make eye contact. I put my hand out and he turned away. During the debate he had an overly simple diagram of the radiation budget and gave a simplistic talk, including pulling out the Nobel Prize Winner trope (I kid you not). I actually have about the same number of publications as he does, but when I referred to him during the debate as “my colleague Dr. Schessinger published this..” etc he retorted “we are not colleagues”. he would not obey the moderator’s time limits or directions, would not address any of the points I made, was a total ass, and I won the debate according to the audience poll. There is a reason these guys won’t debate: there is not enough oxygen in a lecture hall for them and anyone else at the same time.

  55. JDC says….

    “The vast majority of climate scientists (not engineers, not scientists in other fields, but actual climate scientists who are actively working in the field) accept the AGW theory.”

    How many scientists is that JDC? Source please. (ha ha)

  56. HankHenry says:
    March 28, 2013 at 7:44 pm
    Gavin’s argument is a little simple. He states, the climate isn’t changing because of volcanoes, it isn’t changing because of the sun, it isn’t changing because of orbital changes, therefore CO2 must be the culprit.
    ============
    so Gavin is denying that climate changes naturally. He is a natural climate change denier.

    Problem is most people are too young to remember the ice ages.

  57. I wonder how on earth Gavin could debate from such a weak position. Surely there is no discernible signal in the climate trend, temperatures are far below what their models predict, there is no mid tropospheric hotspot showing extra evaporation from positive feedbacks, satellite ERBE MSU shows that OLR goes up with surface warming, There is no sea temperature increase and no sea level rise increase.
    The Mediaeval Warm Period was hotter than today and global (CO2science.org) Solar/Lunar/orbital and oceanic cycles seem to correlate with climate trends e.g. 11 and 60 year etc cycles and CO2 lags behind temperature by 800 years and while contributing, once released from the ocean in a warming phase does not lead to a runway effect.

    So it seems that the ‘warming’ theory has no basis in empirical fact due to the overwhelming evidence of negative feedbacks.
    It seems that their new focus is climate circulation anomalies caused by CO2. They claim that CO2 may contribute to sudden stratospheric warmings that affect the polar vortexes causing a chain affect to the ocean influencing circulation and perhaps upsetting the ‘achilles heel’ of the Atlantic current salinity conveyor belt.
    They of course thus blame all ‘extreme weather ‘ on this, but studies show that extreme weather events have not increased, that SSWs have always been naturally occurring at 2 year intervals and that the mechanism for CO2-induced SSWs has not been proven nor fully realised as a model considering the relatively small heat transfer and large volume of water involved.

    Anthony, I think it would be a great idea to have a ‘State of the Debate’ page, where the key points of contention are listed and the latest status describes what the evidence says after collating and analysing all the scientific literature (with links)
    For instance categories such as ‘the climate trend’ and what the satellite data and land data says.
    ‘The tropospheric hotspot’, ‘previous warming periods and the role of CO2′ “Arctic and antarctic ice coverage now and historically’ ;sea levels and sea temperatures etc

    Your site is amazing and comprehensive but something in a format similar to Dr Evans’ ‘The skeptic’s case’ would be great where the key points of contention can be broken down and the alarmist case debunked point by point.

    Thanks

  58. “natural climate change deniers”

    I have used terms like this in the past and while accurate I think it just turns the discussion into a name calling event. What I now use is a more accurate and more powerful term … climate bullies. Think about it. Bullies use name calling, they’ve gotten people fired, they’ve threatened anyone who does not line up with “the cause”.

    Given the emphasis (at least in the US) on bullying these days I think using that term could be extremely powerful (as well as extremely accurate).

  59. The behavior of Schmidt toward the presence of Spencer on stage at Stossel’s show is what the Chinese (in Mandarin dialect) would call ‘shao ren’ behavior. The literal translation is ‘little man’, but the Chinese mostly do not use the term wrt physical size but wrt a person having a low / small character.

    Schmidt acted as a ‘Shao Ren’.

    John

  60. re Poorly Titled
    When the elderly in Europe are literaly freezing to death in an extremely harsh winter at the same time as energy shortages are looming because the coal fired power plants are being shut down because “the globe is heating up” Im not sure why the title “Green Tyranny” isn’t completely appropriate. The office of the President of the United States uses ignorance/lies (take your pick) about weather events to promote a new tax on people in the name of saving the planet and name calls anyone who dissagrees with them. Et cetera, et cetera.
    The fact that the title “Green Tyranny” seems unusual or obtuse to people shows only how pervasive the green religion has become.

  61. In my opinion JDC outlined the whole problem, both with AGW and most other huge problems we face, the term “liberal” has been hijacked and now means the opposite, while me might well win the AGW skirmish we wont win the war without disconnecting normal people who consider themselves liberal from the fascist lunatics who are destroying the west under the Liberal banner.
    Unless I am mistaken and the word “libera” comes from “libertine”!

  62. Nick Stokes says:
    March 28, 2013 at 3:04
    Are you really surprised that scientists are reluctant to join in a segment called (in a fair and balanced way) “Green Tyranny”?

    ##########################

    There are a couple ways to look at this. First, I have some empathy for scientists who are invited to debate with people who have called them frauds and crooks and cheats.
    On the other hand, let’s turn the situation around.

    Instead of right leaning Stossel, lets have left leaning Romm.
    instead of right leaning Fox, lets have left leaning MSNBC
    Instead of “green tyrranny”, lets title the show “Oil Shills and Conspiracy Nuts”

    Question? If invited would Spenser appear? McIntyre? Monckton?, Anthony?

    I dare say that all 4 would appear primarily because the have the strength of their convictions and they are not put off by stupid claims about being Oil shills or conspiracy nut jobs.

    Green Tyranny. well if its a true description , then I can understand the reluctance to appear. If false, most folks I know would relish the opportunity to deliver a smack down.

  63. Craig Loehle on March 29, 2013 at 6:42 am

    Several years ago I debated Michael Schlessinger, a big name climate modeler, at a local college. At the beginning he would not shake my hand or even make eye contact. I put my hand out and he turned away. During the debate he had an overly simple diagram of the radiation budget and gave a simplistic talk, including pulling out the Nobel Prize Winner trope (I kid you not). I actually have about the same number of publications as he does, but when I referred to him during the debate as “my colleague Dr. Schessinger published this..” etc he retorted “we are not colleagues”. he would not obey the moderator’s time limits or directions, would not address any of the points I made, was a total ass, and I won the debate according to the audience poll. There is a reason these guys won’t debate: there is not enough oxygen in a lecture hall for them and anyone else at the same time.

    - – - – - – - – -

    Craig Loehle,

    Do people with a tendency toward such low character behaviors have a tendency to migrate toward ideological movements like alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels or does that kind of movement create a tendency for the development of low character behavior?

    I tend to think the latter is the more dominant.

    John

  64. It is interesting reading through this post and comments.

    From the initial praise for Schmidt on the basis of his apparent agreement to participate, to the realization that in fact he had no intention of participating but was there to maintain the orthodox line in a manner that could not be directly challenged.

    Whilst much of the initial praise might be attributed to encouragement to Schmidt and others to openly engage with the issues, or might just be good manners, was there ever any basis for having any confidence in this person?

    As I understand it, his primary function and profile is based on being a “frontman” for the orthodoxy of CAGW. If he has appeared more amenable to reason in demeanor or on points of fact in the past than some of his more obviously rabid counterparts, is this the basic justification for being inclined to want to view him as capable of entertaining alternative interpretations?

    Surely it is apparent that the advancement of any ideology has always been done by a variety of types of presentation?

    How is he not first and foremost simply a salesman?

  65. Gavin refusing to debate? I thought they had mountains of peer reviewed evidence and a consensus. Gavin should now ask himself:

    “How did my actions look to the AGW undecided?”

    “How did my actions look to the AGW convinced?”

  66. Leo Geiger says:
    March 29, 2013 at 6:31 am


    “So basically you are saying the Climate scient/scientists and “Green” are interchangeable terms.”

    No, I don’t think that. But since other people unfortunately think along those lines “

    Now, maybe that is because we know what Climate Scientist James Hansen had to say about coal trains; or because we read the Great Transformation plans of Climate Scientist Schellnhuber and his goons of the WBGU.

    Please explain how the views of James Hansen, boss of GISS, or the views of Schellnhuber, boss of PIK, are not representative of Climate Scientists in general.

  67. This is a simple debate and its being settled now. Are the sun, oceans and stochastic factors ( I call them the triple crown of cooling) the controlling factors of climate over a gas that admittedly does contribute .4 to .7 C to the essential 33C the so called GHG’s ( I still dont see how a gas blanket who’s density increases closer to the the earth can become a trapping pane, and neither does the actual data, but people get mad at me… so I guess we stick with the misnomer) but can really do mo more? Unlike a weather debate, where the answer comes quick, and I always can see the other guys idea before hand, in this debate the answer is over the coming decades, and the more I study the position of my opponents, the more I can not even understand why this is even a problem. And its not arguing the benefits of warming that should be a question, its the horror of the cooling that I and many others think is now starting!

    The assumption that the earth is going to warm is questionable, if not just plain wrong and opposite of what is starting to happen!

    This is a simple test. What will the temp be in 2020, 2025,2030. I have been advocating a stand back and actually measure what is going on position to see what is right and wrong for years. I cant understand how all this yelling over the fence even has merit unless it is to someones benefit to continue an argument that is wasting time and money and causing misery to men all over the globe.

    I believe that most of the people on the opposite side of my argument love this. The delay tactic allows them to continue to push through policy that people will be forced to adhere to. It also gets them grants, and continues to cause a cult of worship that takes the place of hard science. In addition, issuing a forecast with bombastic proclamations that can ever be verified, or worse, can simply be adjusted to whatever you wish them to be, seems to be a pretty cozy set up if you are in on it.

    With each passing day, the joke this whole debate is becomes more obvious to me. Its like a train wreck you cant get away from, each statement opposite of what was said to watch for several years ago, being attributed in a grander fashion to their idea. The strategy is not unlike lies told by propagandists in despotic Europe in the 30s.. so bold, so grand, that the uninformed believes them because they assume no one would tell a lie that big.

    When this is over, it was never about the science.. Science was tool, and we were the fools

  68. Gavin confirms the obvious, all that is necessary to expose the cause, is sunlight focussed upon the faithful.

  69. Steven Mosher on March 29, 2013 at 8:02 am

    Nick Stokes says:
    March 28, 2013 at 3:04

    Are you really surprised that scientists are reluctant to join in a segment called (in a fair and balanced way) “Green Tyranny”?

    [ . . .]

    Green Tyranny. well if its a true description , then I can understand the reluctance to appear. If false, most folks I know would relish the opportunity to deliver a smack down.

    - – - – - – - -

    Steven Mosher,

    Appreciate your circumspection about attending shows / debates where there is a perception by some potential participants of hostility / bias against them.

    Yet, Schmidt did attend Stossel’s show. The interesting aspect is he attended either by his sole free and voluntary idea / decision or he was assigned / directed to attend by one of the following: a) by his boss Hansen of NASA GISS; b) by CSRRT’s Four Matchmakers; c) by the inner circle at RC; d) by the inner circle at John Cook’s blog; e) by directive from Mann; f) by someone higher than Hansen in the NASA hierarchy.

    His behavior had a reluctant quality to it which I take as supporting the idea he was not there of his own free choice.

    The reluctant soldier under orders? N’est ce pas?

    John

  70. @David Jones, re disappointed in presentation –

    Point well taken, and I will take your advice and write to Stossel and Fox Basiness Network. The decline in temps and the majority of scientists rejecting AGW are critical points that the public needs to see.

    I’m probably as guilty as anyone here of preaching to the choir, and we do need to get the word out to people who aren’t posting on WUWT.

    By the way, JDC, can you show me 31 ,000+ scientists who accept the AGW theory? The signers of the Oregon Petition make no bones about AGW being false – they don’t accept it in any way, shape or form. Read their statement if you don’t think this is the case (Google). And I’m willing to bet you can’t find many more than those 70 smarms in the IPCC cesspool that really do buy into it.

  71. Re: “natural climate change deniers” — Dr. Roy Spencer’s phrase to describe global warming alarmists. When I first scanned this I saw the adjective “natural” as modifying “deniers”. It might flow better as “deniers of natural climate change” (or variability).

  72. Joseph Bastardi on March 29, 2013 at 8:46 am

    This is a simple debate and its being settled now. Are the sun, oceans and stochastic factors ( I call them the triple crown of cooling) the controlling factors of climate over a gas that admittedly does contribute .4 to .7 C to the essential 33C the so called GHG’s ( I still dont see how a gas blanket who’s density increases closer to the the earth can become a trapping pane, and neither does the actual data, but people get mad at me… so I guess we stick with the misnomer) but can really do mo more? [ . . . ]

    - – - – - – - -

    Joseph Bastardi,

    Cheer up.

    Will a host of individuals independently acting and independently reasoning prevail by sticking with observations verifying the results of scientific processes?

    As long as there is free speech that is broadly accessible to most of earth’s population, then they prevail against an ideology like alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels.

    The key to prevailing is the media’s treatment of open debate. The ideologists inherently look irrational in an open dialog through the media.

    When the traditional MSM fails, it is required for freedom’s sake to create a new MSM with better principles. Anthony is doing pretty well creating one. : )

    Take care.

    John

  73. John Whitman says:
    March 29, 2013 at 9:14 am
    …d) by the inner circle at John Cook’s blog; e) by directive from Mann; …
    ————–
    :) I’ll be chuckling about this for the rest of the afternoon. Thanks John!

    You know, the fact that I’m paranoid doesn’t prove everyone isn’t out to get me.

  74. Joseph Bastardi says: March 29, 2013 at 8:46 am

    Dittos, and better said than I could have.

    When I first started to follow WUWT (6 years ago or so) there were few comments on the political aspect of this debate. Unfortunately, it was never about the science; it was always about the politics. THAT is now understood and there may be a chance for our children to have a prosperous future.

    Thanks to Anthony for all that he does!

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  75. To all those questioning my statement that the overwhelming majority of actively publishing climate scientists accept AGW, allow me a retort:

    Can you name any climate scientists who have published in peer-reviewed literature over the past 5-10 years who don’t accept it?

    For reference, Lindzen does believe the theory to be correct. Spencer believes the theory to be correct. Christy believes the theory to be correct. So does Curry. So do Pielke, Maue, Lomborg, etc.

    In fact, I don’t know anyone off the top of my head who outright rejects GHG warming.

    I now turn it over to you to prevent your names that argue to the contrary.

    For reference, as I’m sensing a few here misinterpreted my own position, I don’t see AGW as being a big issue and believe ECS to probably lie between 0.5-2.0C which, when combined with the advent of new technologies, would render political action rather unnecessary. At the most a slight carbon tax to encourage alt fuels or CCS would do the trick.

  76. JDC, “AGW” and “GHG Effect” are not synonyms. And neither is CAGW.

    Since the word “Catastrophic” is the one crucial word that doesn’t just imply but -demands- political action, that -is- the debate.

    Mischaracterizing one’s opponents position is sloppy. But typical of arguing based on polling.

  77. JDC on March 29, 2013 at 11:57 am

    To all those questioning my statement that the overwhelming majority of actively publishing climate scientists accept AGW, allow me a retort:

    - – - – - – - -

    JDC,

    Surely we do not need your claims. We have seen here at WUWT the references to the research and articles by most of the those scientists. It is well known here as several participate in various ways here.

    The point is there is a major open and independent scientific discourse on whether there is a discernible net effect or if discernible there remains substantive doubt of significance in its comparative magnitude to natural phenomena. The estimation or observational calculation of the effect is continuing to be researched at an accelerated pace now that the IPCC’s ‘sensitivity’ assessment exaggeration is firmly exposed. The trend in the estimates and calculations look like it is potentially at a value significantly less than 1. Time is on the skeptical side. : ). The 25+ years if bias is being stripped away . . .

    John

  78. @ JDC says: March 29, 2013 at 11:57 am

    I’m curious.

    For the couple of years I have been following this issue with any real attention I have read countless exchanges between those who willingly volunteer their opinion as to actual implications of CO2 concentrations on climate and quote a preferred range of sensitivity as you do. Every proponent proffers their reasons which cover a gamut of influences.

    Initially I thought there was something going on with these discussions. That is, issues resolved, clarity being gradually obtained. But that is not the case.

    It seems to me that the reality is that no-one , and I do mean NO-ONE, can actually point to any specific evidence as to whether CO2 has this net effect, that net effect, or no effect at all.

    This “acceptance” by most that it surely must have some has all the appearance of a group of people who think this is a reasonable balance in the face of an extreme ambit claim.

    I am not at all singling you out for particular comment, so I apologize if this seems to be the case. As I have said, there have been and no doubt will be any number of occasions (and people) to which I could direct this. Perhaps because this thread is not specifically about such things it seems less intrusive now than it might be otherwise.

    My question is this.

    Do you honestly believe that you can proffer observable EVIDENCE that supports your contention as to the net effect of CO2 that also negates different conclusions?

    Please be aware that I am not asking you to present a case. I’m just asking for an honest statement as to whether you (or I would suggest, anyone) can DEMONSTRATE the validity of such a conclusion, or whether this, as others, exist at this time as one of a number of things postulated.

  79. JDC,

    So then, you are admitting that CAGW is a phony problem?

    Are you admitting that over the now 25+ years of this scam being promoted, Billions and Billions of dollars have been wasted on a phony problem (for political and monetary gain) and a lot of people have died because of it?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html

    Do you admit that a shorter growing season is a much bigger worry than a longer growing season?

    Otherwise, what sort of “points” are you trying to score here?

  80. JDC says: March 28, 2013 at 7:36 pm
    “The vast majority of climate scientists (not engineers, not scientists in other fields, but actual climate scientists who are actively working in the field) accept the AGW theory. The theory being debated is CAGW and how to approach the issue from a policy standpoint.”
    ——————————————————————————–
    This is true of all religions. If you poll only priests, they will agree that Catholicism is the one true religion. If you poll only Rabbis, they will agree that Judaism is the one true religion. If you poll only astrologers, they will of course point out that astronomers or engineers are not qualified to judge astrology.

    The issue here is the lament that many western governments have adopted CAGW as the official state supported religion.

  81. [b]Alan S. Blue says:
    March 29, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    JDC, “AGW” and “GHG Effect” are not synonyms. And neither is CAGW.

    Since the word “Catastrophic” is the one crucial word that doesn’t just imply but -demands- political action, that -is- the debate.

    Mischaracterizing one’s opponents position is sloppy. But typical of arguing based on polling.[/b]

    AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. All of those I listed accept that humans warm the climate through burning of fossil fuels. All of them accept AGW. They dispute CAGW, as do I. I have not misconstrued anything.

    @ jc

    A doubling of CO2 as per physics should create one degree Celsius of warming (emphasis on should, I’m not saying it is undeniably correct, just that it is accepted unanimously by those in the field, including skeptics). Of course, the Earth itself is not a laboratory and feedback factors will come into play, whether to amplify or mitigate the expected warming. I cannot [i]prove[/i] anything, just saying what I believe based on observational data. I can, however, prove that the comments about the temperature record made by the commenter above are bollocks, as could anyone with available internet. I get annoyed out repeatedly disproved claims being thrown out as reasons why AGW is a hoax. If you are suggesting that AGW is overstated and not a real problem, I have no issue with that comment. That may very well prove to be absolutely correct.

  82. @ Robert – “Admitting” is defined as: (confessing) to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance. So no, I’m not admitting anything, seeing as how I have never said CAGW was anything more than a fantasy in the first place. I’m also unaware as to why you think I support green subsidies and other wacky attempts to mitigate warming that have been implemented, as I certainly don’t. I’m not trying to score any “points.” Just correcting blatantly wrong information.

  83. I found the slavery argument less than compelling and in fact insulting to those whose ancestors paid a price to end slavery.

  84. JDC says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:57 am
    “For reference, as I’m sensing a few here misinterpreted my own position, I don’t see AGW as being a big issue and believe ECS to probably lie between 0.5-2.0C which, when combined with the advent of new technologies, would render political action rather unnecessary. At the most a slight carbon tax to encourage alt fuels or CCS would do the trick.”

    So this guy thinks of himself as a moderate…a “slight” carbon tax – meaning government control about every combustion process – and CCS – meaning a doubling of electricity prices, as CCS typically consumes half the energy produced in a coal power plant, not mentioning the unsolved question of where to safely deposit the CO2 – would do the trick…

    So if that’s the “moderate” position, I guess the extreme positions are
    a) Greenpeace style return to technology of the 17th century and eternal policing against any progress
    b) full blown geo engineering or blocking the sun with giant sunshades orbiting the Earth…

    BTW, the income tax was also only a slight taxation when it started.

    At the moment I’m hoping that the collapse of the EU will show the rest of the world that it’s a stupid idea to cripple one’s own economy through high energy prices and government imposed control of combustion processes.

  85. To update folks, Stossel is now listed on FNC at 8pm and 11pm, Mountain time on both Friday and Saturday evenings.

  86. @ Dirk – I don’t even think a carbon tax should be implemented until sensitivity is constrained (hopefully within the coming decades, not years), and even then it would only be to internalize market externalities. The alternative solution (unless you consider asking nicely to be a solution) is to have each individual group file lawsuits against those emitting CO2 for damage done (if damage were indeed done) and would be a painstaking process that would be incredibly less efficient than a carbon tax. As I mentioned, this is merely hypothetical as we don’t have anywhere near the proper understanding of future consequences (or even benefits, let’s be honest) to set an accurate price at present. CCS is also a technology in progress, so I wouldn’t advocate installing current mechanisms as is until they are significantly improved, if ever (depending upon better sensitivity estimates they may well prove unnecessary).

    As for the income tax, I want it to be entirely abolished and replaced with a marginal, uniform VAT. Considering I’m about as right-wing economically as one is likely to find outside of anarcho-capitalists, I think you are seriously barking up the wrong tree here. I believe all education, medical care, fire departments, etc. should be 100% privatized and even substantial portions of the police/courts/military, though those would be just about the only things with a state component. Again, if you are more economically liberal than I am, congratulations, you’re a severe outlier. That being said, I highly suspect that to not be the case.

  87. Mark Bofill on March 29, 2013 at 10:29 am

    John Whitman says:
    March 29, 2013 at 9:14 am

    …d) by the inner circle at John Cook’s blog; e) by directive from Mann; …

    :) I’ll be chuckling about this for the rest of the afternoon. Thanks John!

    You know, the fact that I’m paranoid doesn’t prove everyone isn’t out to get me.

    - – - – - – -

    Mark Bofill,

    Hey, you are welcome.

    It seems arranged, but Schmidt being perceived as taking initiative to arrange appearance in Stossel’s show makes good ‘pro-consensus’ press . . .

    John

  88. JDC says:
    March 29, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    “@ Dirk – I don’t even think a carbon tax should be implemented until sensitivity is constrained (hopefully within the coming decades, not years), and even then it would only be to internalize market externalities.”

    Survival in winter is an insufficiently internalized externality of combustion processes. To use liberal-speak.

    “CCS is also a technology in progress, so I wouldn’t advocate installing current mechanisms as is until they are significantly improved, if ever (depending upon better sensitivity estimates they may well prove unnecessary).”

    Yeah, just look at wind turbines and solar power – we carefully developed economic solutions before installing any of them. Otherwise, imagine the subsidies we would have to pay. /sarc

    “As for the income tax, I want it to be entirely abolished and replaced with a marginal, uniform VAT. Considering I’m about as right-wing economically as one is likely to find outside of anarcho-capitalists, I think you are seriously barking up the wrong tree here. ”

    Rightwingers in the US as in Europe are eternally in love with a progressive income tax last I checked. Maybe you should avoid using the false left-right dichotomy when talking about economics.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org

    “Again, if you are more economically liberal than I am, congratulations, you’re a severe outlier. That being said, I highly suspect that to not be the case.”

    I’m German and I’m not a collectivist so I’m an outlier.

  89. @ JDC says: March 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    No, I am not saying that AGW is overstated. I am saying I don’t know. I am saying you don’t know. I am saying nobody knows.

    AGW is not equivalent to any effect CO2 may or may not have in itself.

    To be so CO2 would have to act in the manner you claim, and there would have to be no further implications, feed-backs, forcings or whatever else.

    There is no discernible basis for anyone to claim to know what these are or could be, certainly in magnitude and even in substance. The net effect is unknown.

    You claim to base your opinion on observational data, however that is impossible.

    So in reality, you like the sound of what you propose, and you may well be right as to effect, or you may well be wrong. You don’t know.

  90. @ JDC

    Just to make clear what I think can be known, I DO think that proponents of CAGW are demonstrably incorrect. They have demonstrated beyond any meaningful doubt that they do not understand climate.

    That is not the same as saying that CAGW is not possible. However, given the effort over 25 years to demonstrate this, and the realities we see now in global temperature, I consider it highly improbable.

    However, anything is possible. A further certainty is that the current incumbents of the temple will add nothing to an understanding of this.

    In short, develop some decent protocols to actually make measurements that are generally agreed to be robust, get real scientists to look at these things in the normal course of research rather than as “Climate Scientists”, and come back in 20 years. Or 50.

  91. Well, according to Gavin’s twitter posts, it wasn’t his fault:

    “…Link to the video for last night’s segment on Fox: http://s3.amazonaws.com/TVEyesMediaCenter/UserContent/80680/1767920.2030/FBN_03-28-2013_21.43.24.wmv … Note that the musical chairs routine was their plan, not mine…”

    So that means he should have strenuously complained, demanding to be seated at the same time, right?

  92. “Yeah, just look at wind turbines and solar power – we carefully developed economic solutions before installing any of them. Otherwise, imagine the subsidies we would have to pay. /sarc”

    I didn’t argue for subsidies, Dirk.

    “Rightwingers in the US as in Europe are eternally in love with a progressive income tax last I checked. Maybe you should avoid using the false left-right dichotomy when talking about economics.”

    And Obama calls himself black. He isn’t. He’s biracial. Just because someone who supports progressive income taxes calls himself/herself a right winger in economic terms does not make it so. However, you are free to dislike the left/right labels all you want. Point remains that I personally don’t believe the government has a right to tax income and think all government functions should be financed via a modest VAT.

    “I’m German and I’m not a collectivist so I’m an outlier.”

    So I assume that’s a roundabout way of confirming my suspicion that you are more pro-state than myself?

    I’m liberal in both social and economic matters. Don’t think government should have any say in marriage, drug use, religion, etc. nor in taxing income, imposing trade barriers, death taxes (!!!), etc.

  93. henrythethird says:
    March 29, 2013 at 7:33 pm

    Well, according to Gavin’s twitter posts, it wasn’t his fault:

    “…Link to the video for last night’s segment on Fox: http://s3.amazonaws.com/TVEyesMediaCenter/UserContent/80680/1767920.2030/FBN_03-28-2013_21.43.24.wmv … Note that the musical chairs routine was their plan, not mine…”

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Thank you for the link.

    Anyone who watches that video can see a coward and someone who is confident in their position..

    I again will ask if there are “ANY” CAGW supporters that would be willing to do an interview with a polygraph test attached?

    I think not, and they know why.

    Look in the mirror and assess things for yourself ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Opinion will be removed from fact in the end.

    It is inevitable

  94. JDC says:
    March 29, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    ““Yeah, just look at wind turbines and solar power – we carefully developed economic solutions before installing any of them. Otherwise, imagine the subsidies we would have to pay. /sarc”
    I didn’t argue for subsidies, Dirk.”

    So you don’t understand what I wanted to say. Fine. So a little slower. You want to internalize previously uninternalized exteranalities of combustion processes with a slight carbon tax (to use liberal-speak, and yes, I know, you don’t really think it would be all that necessary at all yadda yadda)

    And you don’t want to subsidice CCS (but it might be necessary to have CCS to “do the trick”, i.e. save us from extinction through CO2AGW).

    So what do you think. Would a CCS unit manage to sell its services in a free market. What market? Well a market that doesn’t exist. So you have to create one. An artificial market, Mr. freemarketer, yes, that’s right, just like the carbon trading market! Selling a make-believe product in a make-believe market that politicians, i.e. big government, i.e. the authoritarian extreme in the landscape of the political compass, create through regulation of all combustion processes!

    Now that’s all boring collectivist authoritarian BS and goes down exactly the same crony capitalist ways the artificial wind turbine and solar power markets go. So… you want CCS to do the trick, and you call yourself a freemarketer; well assuming that you are not in fact an ordinary liberal, I would say you’re as much a free-marketer as the average EU commissionner. YES they are all for the free market AS LONG AS they get 50% of all the money (hence the EU countries are in the extreme of the authoritarian axis of the political compass).

    Oh no, of course you didn’t talk about subsidies, we call it a free market these days… A market whose rules WE, the authoritarian cleptocrats, have MADE… and all by inventing a theory about dangerous CO2 backradiation…

  95. Thanks for the link henrythethird,

    But I am pretty sure that Gavin’s

    Note that the musical chairs routine was their plan, not mine…

    That this referred to the chair arrangement and/or how his refusal to debate was presented.

    Not to the form or rules of any debate. It’s typical Gavin-speak, ie to present something cursory with a few words which technically are correct or true, but with the purpose of giving you an entirely different impression.

    And these guys wonder why less and less people are convinced about them having all the answers, the moral highgroundor knowing the future calamities and remedies to fix them!? Probably because they’ve been preaching to another and the gullible for a decade, now hoping to move more poeple towars gullible by preaching more …

  96. I just watched the video of Spencer and Schmidt (thanks for the link). I had never seen or heard Schmidt previously.

    What has happened to peoples capacity to make judgements – even at an instinctual level – about those they come across? In this case are people so blinded by the idea of the Expert that they cannot see at all?

    Even allowing for nervousness – or perhaps the fact of being in the spotlight in an “uncontrolled” environment gives better sight – this Schmidt is a very low-grade being.

    Has he really been considered top-tier in this area? In anything? How is this possible?
    Is he typical of “Climate Scientists” – are they all so palpably second rate?

    It is genuinely disturbing to see this. How did this happen? Who gave such beings the keys to civilization?

  97. Dirk, you’re are massively misunderstanding my position.

    1) I don’t think any measures should be implemented until we know far more than we do. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were. This may take decades.

    2) A carbon tax could be utilized to only pay down the deficit depending upon how it is structured so that there is no middleman pocketing considerable amounts of stolen money.

    3) If you are so against any government intervention in markets, what is your solution to pollution externalities on the global scale (or are you outright rejecting the existence of such externalities altogether? I’d like to note that Milton Friedman and even AnCaps such as Rothbard and David Friedman accept these). This wouldn’t be a case of a company polluting the river that the town folks use downstream. That’d be simple, they’d sue the factory and come to an agreement on the damage costs. Done. This is far more complex and to do everything in this manner would be a clusterf()ck of massive proportions. Would you propose this court approach or do you not believe that people have a right to their own property as is? Would you prefer the approach where people in the Maldives or other areas hedge bets against future SLR as James Annan has continuously suggested?

    4) Please stop pretending I am saying CO2 is super dangerous. I’m not even hinting that I think cranking levels up to 10X pre-industrial would cause humans to go extinct, if it were even possible for us to reach such levels in theory.

  98. @JDC says:
    March 30, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    Dirk, you’re are massively misunderstanding my position.

    1) I don’t think any measures should be implemented until we know far more than we do. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were. This may take decades.

    2) A carbon tax could be utilized to only pay down the deficit depending upon how it is structured so that there is no middleman pocketing considerable amounts of stolen money.

    3) If you are so against any government intervention in markets, what is your solution to pollution externalities on the global scale (or are you outright rejecting the existence of such externalities altogether? I’d like to note that Milton Friedman and even AnCaps such as Rothbard and David Friedman accept these). This wouldn’t be a case of a company polluting the river that the town folks use downstream. That’d be simple, they’d sue the factory and come to an agreement on the damage costs. Done. This is far more complex and to do everything in this manner would be a clusterf()ck of massive proportions. Would you propose this court approach or do you not believe that people have a right to their own property as is? Would you prefer the approach where people in the Maldives or other areas hedge bets against future SLR as James Annan has continuously suggested?

    4) Please stop pretending I am saying CO2 is super dangerous. I’m not even hinting that I think cranking levels up to 10X pre-industrial would cause humans to go extinct, if it were even possible for us to reach such levels in theory.
    ++++++++++++++
    In my opinion, you are all over the place.
    In your point 1) You suggest you mean to do nothing until we know more. Then in your point 2) you suggest carbon tax to pay down deficit spending. These are contradictory, since a carbon tax is by definition what is used to thwart the so called evils of so fossil fuels. Your idea allows government to continue on the deficit spending by taxing the hell out of us all while making everyone poorer. A carbon tax raises the price of energy and food and everything else. You are not misunderstood, you’re confused and speaking from both sides of your mouth.

    In your point 3) you presume that a carbon tax is the only or best way to deal with pollution. When in fact carbon is NOT pollution. Pollution is pollution, CO2 is not, just in case you didn’t understand that. So even though you say do nothing about AGW, you are saying do something which is exactly what AGW proponents want to do.

    Point 4) You don’t say CO2 is “super dangerous”, but your suggested policy of a carbon tax is in fact in line with those who do believe it’s “super dangerous.” In fact, your own words seem full of duplicity at best.

    If you say and want the same things as people who believe in CAGW which is caused by CO2, all while denying that CAGW is certain to be a problem, and then say we must implement policies which directly affect CO2 emissions you should expect to called on your statements. I do not misunderstand you. You want exactly the same things that the CAGW crowd want… all while telling us all that you are not one of them.

  99. @ Mario – You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. I said *if* it is found to be detrimental I think a carbon tax would be the best measure. “If” does not mean I support a carbon tax now, nor does it mean I will ever support one. It means exactly what “if” is defined as.

    If CO2 is found to be damaging, then a carbon tax would seem the best fit. This is not controversial even among those in the skeptical movement, including Montford (Bishop Hill), Richard Tol, etc.

    Feel free to keep blatantly misreading my comments, though.

  100. Well, I finally got a chance to view the actual show (replay).

    Nice Job Dr. Spenser!

    You got to the core of the real matters at hand.

    I found the level of interaction required childish, to say the least……………

    I think the avoidance of debate on the subject is coming to an end.

    Perhaps you could ask Stossel to help get a “willing” debate together?

    I think he might be interested.

    Anthony, could you do a Live debate on WUWT TV via SKYPE in HD ?

    Just look how fun this stuff is! And everybody benefits……..

    I applaud both participants in the below example of what we need more of !

    Step up folks, on both sides of the discussion. It’s time.

  101. @JDC: You wrote:

    “@ Mario – You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. I said *if* it is found to be detrimental I think a carbon tax would be the best measure. ”

    Well perhaps you don’t understand what you wrote. Here is what I am referring to . JDC wrote: “2) A carbon tax could be utilized to only pay down the deficit depending upon how it is structured so that there is no middleman pocketing considerable amounts of stolen money.”

    There was no “if” in any of that entire post.

  102. @ Mario – Here, have some quotes from the above comments section that prove you either cannot read or were too lazy to do so:

    “I don’t even think a carbon tax should be implemented until sensitivity is constrained (hopefully within the coming decades, not years), and even then it would only be to internalize market externalities. The alternative solution (unless you consider asking nicely to be a solution) is to have each individual group file lawsuits against those emitting CO2 for damage done (if damage were indeed done) and would be a painstaking process that would be incredibly less efficient than a carbon tax.”

    “CCS is also a technology in progress, so I wouldn’t advocate installing current mechanisms as is until they are significantly improved, if ever (depending upon better sensitivity estimates they may well prove unnecessary).”

    “As I mentioned, this is merely hypothetical as we don’t have anywhere near the proper understanding of future consequences (or even benefits, let’s be honest) to set an accurate price at present.”

    “I don’t think any measures should be implemented until we know far more than we do. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were. This may take decades.”

    Please retract your accusation and I await your apology.

  103. “At the most a slight carbon tax to encourage alt fuels or CCS would do the trick.”

    ABSOLUTELY NOT. Not even a teeny weeny itty bitty tiny tax. There is absolutely no good that can possibly come from it and only that much more evil that will be done by stealing even more money from hard-working individuals in order to feed the giant insatiable maw run by the non-thinking stooges with bungling hands that is government today. The proper way to encourage the development of alternative fuels is to get the government out of the marketplace and let the free market go for it. Free individuals will sooner find profitable ways to produce energy than trillions of dollars stolen as taxes. Government in its current format does nothing but trample rights, mismanage money and tyrannize the honest and capable. It needs to seriously be put back into its proper box and kept there.

Comments are closed.