John Kerry: "I'd happily debate [George Will] any day on this question so critical to our survival."

This is from the Huffington Post. One can only hope that Kerry will follow through. For a quick primer on Kerry’s grasp of climate science, see this WUWT article: Kerry Blames Tornado Outbreak on Global Warming and a rebuttal Increasing tornadoes or better information gathering? I get a kick out of Kerry’s line “This has to stop”. Okay then, please debate Mr. Will, put a stop to it Mr. Kerry! –  Anthony

John Kerry

Posted February 27, 2009 | 04:47 PM (EST)

Facts Are Stubborn Things: George Will and Climate Change-

To paraphrase the conservative columnist’s favorite president, “There you go again, George.”

George Will has been one of my favorite intellectual sparring partners for a long time, a favorite more recently because he had the guts to publicly recognize the disaster that was George W. Bush’s presidency.

But in his latest Washington Post column, George and I have a pretty big loud disagreement.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m happy to see Will embracing the idea of recycling, but I’m very troubled that he is recycling errors of fact to challenge the science on global warming.

I’m even more troubled that Will used his February 15th column not only to cast doubt on sound science, but also to denigrate the work of two fine scientists.

Let’s be very clear: Stephen Chu does not make predictions to further an agenda. He does so to inform the public. He is no Cassandra. If his predictions about the effects of our climate crisis are scary, it’s because our climate is scary.

Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country. Pulling out one minor prediction that he had some unknown role in formulating nearly three decades ago, as Will did in his February 15th column, and then using that to try to undo his credibility as a scientist may be a fancy debating trick, but it’s just plain wrong when it comes to a debate we can’t afford to see dissolve into reductio ad absurdum hijinx. (A side note: The incident in question occurred in 1980, which, as I recall, was just about the time Ronald Reagan made the claim that approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation and that, consequently, we should “not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources.”)

Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. Except perhaps a bankrupt flat earth crowd. I hate to review the record and see that someone as smart as George Will has been doing exactly that as far back as 1992. And it’s especially troubling when the very sources that Will cites in his February 15th column draw the exact opposite conclusions and paint very different pictures than Will provides, as the good folks at ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America have demonstrated so thoroughly.

This has to stop. A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, but it doesn’t change the verdict: the problem is real, it’s accelerating, and we have to act. Now. Not years from now.

No matter how the evidence has mounted over two decades — the melting of the arctic ice cap, rising sea levels, extreme weather — the flat earth caucus can’t even see what is on the horizon. In the old Republican Congress they even trotted out the author of Jurassic Park as an expert witness to argue that climate change is fiction. This is Stone Age science, and now that we have the White House and the Congress real science must prevail. It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change.

This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome, but time is not on our side. We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists when we need to be debating everything from how to deal with the dirtiest forms of coal as the major provider of power in China to how to vastly increase green energy right here at home.

“Facts are stupid things,” Ronald Reagan once said. He was, of course, paraphrasing John Adams, who could have been talking about the science on global change when he said, “Facts are stubborn things.”

Stubborn or stupid — lets have a real debate and lets have it now.

I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion — but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.

Advertisements

264 thoughts on “John Kerry: "I'd happily debate [George Will] any day on this question so critical to our survival."

  1. BRING IT ON !
    I want to see a Kerry/Will debate on Global Warming on prime time television.
    This text by Kerry is a nice summary of all the pro-AGW arguments: science-is-settled, this-has-to-stop, sea-level-is-rising, artic-is-melting, big-oil-conspiracy, and so on.
    I’ll even pay 10 bucks to see the debate on Pay-TV.

  2. “We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists”
    How can you have an intelligent debate when you ask the opposition to concede the point they are arguing because there is just no time to debate it. We see what this kind of ‘honest debate’ gets us in economics: two bills over $700 billion dollars with nothing to show for it because ‘we don’t have the time to debate, we must act now’.

  3. Kerry:
    “This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome, but time is not on our side. We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists…”
    and later Kerry states
    “…..but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.”
    Kerry is already contradicting himself, and the debate has not even started.

  4. Hard to believe that not only has Mass. given us Barney Frank – Primary Architect of the collapse of Freddie and Fannie costing taxpayers a measly 400 Billion to date, and Primary Figure in the Witch Hunts in Washington Read Misplaced Anger on my Blog – but also John Kerry.
    I have nothing against the fine people of Mass., but people PLEASE do us all a favor next election cycle.
    As far as the debate goes, it will be a successful as any other on the subject, Kerry will lose and it will be hidden on back pages and blogged about with statements of biased mediation, poor format, un-substantiated claims, lack of scientific knowledge, etc etc.
    If this is going to have any sort of merit it needs to be big and “sanctioned” just like a boxing match. There needs to be set rules and strict enforcements including two breaks for fact checks during the debate by a panel of respected Journalists and Researchers without obvious bias.
    Too many times this boils down to a “big oil” + lobbyists + money + political ideology affair.
    Other than those reservations and suggestions I say “bust him up George”

  5. There is no way John Kerry wrote this. Let’s have the debate as soon as possible. There is nothing I would personally enjoy more than Kerry getting his narcissistic ego crushed – again. This is pure bravado on Kerry’s part.

  6. I’m not real interested in seeing politicians or the media debate global warming or climate change or the lochness monster. I want to see a televised debate between scientist.
    Mann Vs McKintyre
    Hansen Vs Watts

  7. Let me get this straight. John Kerry is denigrating Michael Crichton’s scientific knowledge? That is like Jessica Simpson saying that Steven Hawking is weak on astrophysics.

  8. John Kerry, were he quoting Scientific Fact and not using as his source more than dubious computer modeling, would to a lot of people seem to have the upper hand in the debate about Man Made Global Warming, or Climate Change and even more recently Climate Shift. Whatever happens, now that AGW is a quasi religious Faith, there will be blind adherence to the mantra and no chance of persuasion of the opposing logical view, whatever proven peer reviewed Facts are presented.
    So in my humble opinion John Kerry is a dumb politician and will always be so. CO2 is not a poison/pollutant JK.
    “Where there’s a Will there’s a way!” I hope Will verbally slaughters the man.
    Kerry’s Huffington rebuttal has the odour of Gore about it. I get a whiff even here in Merry Olde England………

  9. John Kerry wrote: “A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, but it doesn’t change the verdict: the problem is real, it’s accelerating, and we have to act.”
    The IPCCs graph illustrating an acceleration of trends over the past century employs two natural variables to create the myth:
    http://s5.tinypic.com/vowo7c.jpg
    The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation “added warming” to the Northern Hemisphere temperatures from the early 1900s to the 1940s, cooled them through the late 70s, then warmed them again until approximately 2005.
    The other variable was volcanic aerosols, which lowered global temperatures in the 1960s and 70s, adding to the 50 year trend. Volcanic aerosols from El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo also lowered global temperatures in 1982 and 1991 which increases the trend for the last 25 years.
    It’s just smoke and mirrors. The IPCC is relying on the gullibility of the public. John Kerry fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

  10. “A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time”
    WHERE? Someone tell me where I can get some of this dosh!
    DaveE.

  11. “I’m not real interested in seeing politicians or the media debate global warming or climate change or the lochness monster. I want to see a televised debate between scientist.”
    Mann Vs McKintyre
    Hansen Vs Watts
    I couldn’t agree with you more. The main reason I am so skeptical of AGW theory is that the main proponents of it are anything but scientists. Most are some form of self-identified environmentalist, with little or no scientific training in weather or climate. Look at Al Gore and John Kerry. They are both attorneys who later became career politicians. How does that make them at all qualified to lead a discussion on climate change? I have talked to people with better scientific credentials than either one of them has at my favorite local pub. And you know neither Gore or Kerry would ever buy a round of drinks. They are only looking to take our money.

  12. Fred from Canuckistan . . . (08:49:40) :
    The very, very scary aspect of Kerry is that he came so close to being President.
    ———————————-
    Yep, possibly even more scary than Al Gore being President.
    Since, if by some remote chance, Kerry does follow through with having his behind handed to him, I’m expecting the phrase “peer-reviewed” to be repeated ad nauseum. Perhaps, given the importance of the occasion, the journals could let us (i.e. George Will) know some of the peer-reviewers. I think we would all be particularly interested in knowing who reviewed (badly) Steig et al., for Nature.

  13. Mac (08:49:34) :
    I’m not real interested in seeing politicians or the media debate global warming or climate change or the lochness monster. I want to see a televised debate between scientist.
    Mann Vs McKintyre
    Hansen Vs Watts

    Now those I would pay to see!!!

  14. “I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.”
    ======================
    Our survival?
    What the hell is that loony talking about we are endangered species like the Polar bears now too?
    Somebody closed the mental hospitals or something…

  15. Here’s another Will, John Kerry can debate.
    Washington, DC — Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken” and noted that the Earth was currently in a “CO2 famine now.”
    http://tinyurl.com/cj63tt

  16. Kerry didn’t write that and there will be no debate.
    This is an any-means-necessary campaign reacting to the growing collapse of the AGW story line.
    That was a well crafted political hit piece by and for the AGW crusade with only a pretense of a willingness to debate in order to distribute more of contrived confidence and reliability which AGW supporters no longer have.
    And with the current state of how debate travels the information global highway the debate is underway and unstoppable. .
    Kerry is simply assisting in the attemp to obscure it from public comprehension.
    This sort of thing is clearly panic driven and without any honest intentions.
    With so many people taking part in this wider deabte there can be no AGW stone unturned.
    Despite Kerry et al trying to stop it.

  17. I agree with MAC, we need a full blown debate with credible scientists from both sides. However, I don’t believe it will happen because the AGW people have too much to lose. like all that funding!
    Bill

  18. Senator Kerry vs. George WIll in a debate on Global Warming during Primetime would be one of the most important moments of this generation. All the hypocrisy and poor science of AGW alamists would be displayed for all the public to see.
    I hope that it happens!

  19. Bernie,
    That was the first thought that entered my mind:

    Kerry wrote this!? Git out …”

    George Will will recognize that this is a ‘proxy fight’, and it will suit him just fine to continue the exchange through the media … where it will do the most good.
    Watch the next public opinion poll, to see how well the “there is no debate” argument is serving the AGW camp. This sort of extremism is exactly what’s contributing to their decline.
    We have the expression “Devil’s Advocate”, precisely because we have recognized all along that any position can be debated.

  20. Re: California
    I warned about ominous drought patterns back in 2007 –
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/24/213213/264/398/294550
    At a time when water officials pooh-poohed the idea.
    Now California has seen near-record February rainfall –
    With plenty more rain on the way for March –
    And BuRec has informed agricultural users they will receive ZERO water this year.
    It seems like water officials – both state and federal – in California seem to always be too little, too late. Whether it’s recognizing the signs of water shortage, or acknowledging a major increase in water supplies.
    Sorry, Sec. Chu – but you really did go off the Cassandra cliff.
    California can ill afford the destruction of its agricultural sector at this time of all times; yet, it seems some are intent on doing it. It wouldn’t be a case of meeting one’s own expectations, would it?

  21. Let me echo BRING IT ON. I would happily pay 100 dollars to see this debate on PayTV. However, it is desparately important to make sure there is a level playing field. There are few organizations that are neutral on AGW.

  22. Is that Kerry’s idea of persuasive writing? It sounds like a recitation of things he has been told by snobby liberal know-it-all friends at cocktail parties. It isn’t a scientific argument, it is a laundry list of beliefs that are to be embraced without question if one wants be accepted member of the liberal elite and not be talked about in harsh condescending tones at the aforementioned cocktail parties.
    George Will should accept his challenge immediately. Bring it.

  23. lekowitz said, “”We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists”
    How can you have an intelligent debate when you ask the opposition to concede the point they are arguing because there is just no time to debate it.”
    Because scientists have been debating this for decades and there isn’t any serious debate left among legitimate scientists.
    It is not up to politicians to debate whether AGW is real, because they aren’t scientists. It is up to politicians to debate about whether we are going to respond to the warnings of the scientists, how to implement them, and if we don’t act, then what the implications of that will be. This is the role of politicians.

  24. Politicians are different from us. They can mouth off on something they know very little about with confidence and bravado. More irritatingly, when proved wrong later, they are rather blase about their mistakes. Their attitude is to move on. There is very little satisfaction from proving them wrong as that is nothing to them. The only punishment they understand is losing an election, but that is very rare. Kerry and many members of the senate have been there 20, 30, or even 40 years. Unfortunately, we deserve the politicians we elect. Urgh!

  25. “It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change.”
    LOL, the Leftys just cannot debate without resorting to absolutely unrelated name-calling and ad-homs. What is the cause of this? Is it because they don’t have enough facts on their side? Don’t they know better? Are they angry people? I dunno. But I do notice that George Will never resorts to these tactics.

  26. This has to stop. A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time,…
    This will be an excellent place to start. I can see George Will open his remarks with this quote and then immediately giving up the remainder of his time to Sen. Kerry substantiating this claim. The sputtering and stumbling on Kerry’s part would be worth the price of admission alone.
    Notice that Sen. Kerry used “global climate change.” That’s going to be a sticking point as I don’t know of anyone funded or otherwise who denies there are climatic changes occurring.

  27. Kerry:
    “This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome…..”
    Typical Liberal politician……The conceit and arrogance thinking that he has the ability to control…….the weather, err, uh…..”climate”.
    For his next trick, he’ll blot out the Sun!
    He’ll be here all week folks.

  28. Kerry should be commended for being willing to debate.
    The even greater practitioner of fear-mongering, Mr. Gore, will likely never agree to do so, for, as we all know, “The Great Oz has spoken!”
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
    etc.

  29. “This has to stop.”
    I find it troubling that a person who says that scientific debate has to stop is in a position to pass laws to stop it.

  30. Not sure what “Sound Science” he is referring to.
    The “Science” was settled but now the truth is out and spreading fast.
    AGW is about to fade into history, but not without a fight I’m sure

  31. Agree with Bernie, I can’t imagine that Kerry even wrote this piece.
    George Will as an “intellectual sparring partner?” Kerry was the only C student in the 04 election who had a lower GPA than President Bush. He’s a talker and has a wealthy wife, he is not exactly a thinker.
    I can’t wait for the debate.

  32. I wouldnt mind seeing Kerry debate if he was required to give citations to his arguments, rather than just making sweeping unsupported generalizations and hyperbole.

  33. a scientist-to-scientist debate, while enjoyable to folks here who are educated about the matter (or, like me, gaining an education from the posts and cross-talk), would miss a lot of the target audience. Although Will and Kerry as standard bearers would not have the intimate details, they are more accustomed to speaking to a populist audience. I’m unsure about which method would get better ratings.

  34. Ha! He’ll never show up!
    Most of these alarmists have especially big mouths. But hightail it when challenged to debate.
    Cowards like Kerry open their traps only when they know they’ll get cover from the media.

  35. Reflecting on this post I am truely scared. For a Senator like John Kerry to come out so strongly on this issue indicates that he feels the issue is settled and more importantly that goverment will act to control global warming.

  36. Mac,
    Debating is an art in itself. Not only must you have an impeccable grasp of the subject, you also need to be a master in debating.
    The latter actually decides whether you win or not. One slip-up, and you can blow the whole thing. I don’t know how good Anthony is in a debating forum.
    Lindzen, Crichton and Stott performed superbly against Schmidt and Co in the NPR debate in 2007.

  37. In case no one as been watching over the past years, the term ‘debate’ has drifted the way of ‘marrage’, ‘rights’, and ‘SCIENCE’. Where would this ‘debate’ be held? Network TV? Good luck with that. Who would the moderator be? Bill Moyers? Again, good luck. There has not been a substantial debate of any political issue since the taverns of the pre-revolution 18th century. And rest assured, this is NOT and scientific debate, it is pure politics.
    We no longer live in an age of ‘Reason’. Debate is no more than and exchange of sound bites followed by a parade of spin-meisters. I year or so ago I participated in a ‘Community Discussion’ sponsored by our local newspaper. The topic, “What are your thoughts on Global Warming?”, moderated by a local ‘Conflict Resolution organization’. ‘Deniers’ were representeed by myself (Sorry, no degrees) and a local ‘La Rouchey”. AGW was represented by 3 PhDs in climate associated fields, a handful of researchers (including a local nemesis of mine), and a political hack.
    The rules were fair and we managed to hold our own, no minds were changed, that I know. During the event my nemesis pointed out that he had attended a public ‘Scientific Debate’ between two champions (sorry, I forget the names, but you would recognize them). He expressed the concern that the public was too ill-informed and lazy to be capable of rendering a rational decision on the topic. Why? because his side lost in measured public opinion (fewer ‘believers’ after than before the debate), even though they had obviously (in his opinion) decimated the logic of the denier.
    There has been no such debate since, that I am aware of, nor is there likely to be. This cause is no longer working in the court of public opinion. They have taken it upon themselves to save us from our dillusion. God help us.

  38. John F. Kerry debating the science is a joke in itself.
    Other than a few polemic soundbites, what knowledge does he posess of the science? He’s nothing more than a blowhard politician on the subject.
    This issue is best debated among scientists. Politicians ought to stay out of this as they’ve messed things up enough already.

  39. Its good to see these arguments going on in the media. The debate still raises lots of interest and therefore it is in the media’s interest to keep a spotlight on it.
    Given that conversions are happening almost entirely in one directions, alarmist sympathizers converting to skeptics once they understand all the issues involved, then the more exposure this gets the better.

  40. Remember how they used to say.. George Bush is in the pocket of Big-Oil?
    Maybe Obama and JFKerry are in the pocket of Big-Wind?
    Isn’t Jeffery Immelt (CEO of GE) on the presidential advisory board?

  41. Jepe makes a good point: Kerry has already contradicted himself in his article. But his claim that we “can’t waste” any more time debating is a ridiculous one anyway, especially when we’re debating such a far-reaching and important issue such as this one.
    Of course, I would also love to see such a debate. I suspect, however, that much of what would come out of Kerry’s mouth would be a rehash of the sorts of claims he makes in the article – melting ice caps, “severe” weather, etc. – which coincidentally are not “evidence” of global warming at all, even were all those things unambiguously true.

  42. Shoot, I’ll debate John Kerry. Any time, any place… How to be so lucky to have the opportunity to put that jerk in his place!

  43. Stubborn or stupid?
    Kerry said:
    “In the old Republican Congress they even trotted out the author of Jurassic Park as an expert witness to argue that climate change is fiction. This is Stone Age science,…”
    In addition to being an asinine, illogical smear tactic against Michael Chrichton, to equate the Jurassic period, some 160-200 mya with the Stone Age, some 600-700 kya is hilariously, mind-bogglingly stupid.
    Our climate is scary Kerry? No, but you and your moronic ilk and your pseudoscience are. You are the ones who must be stopped.

  44. I would be a little less skeptical of the AGW arguments if their prescriptions for solving it were a reduction in government instead of more.
    Kerry and Gore are two pseudo intellectual peas in a pod.

  45. What we truly need is a series of public debates between reputable scientists. We also need to make the general public aware of the unscientific nature of the “consensus” and “settled science” arguments. After all, as Lee Smolin states in his book “The Trouble with Physics” a science is not robust if it does not tolerate dissent.

  46. Timing is something John Kerry, who was in Vietnam, doesn’t yet have a handle on. Most of the other posts criticizing George Will came out not long after Will’s column. Kerry, on the other hand, comes out AFTER everyone learned of the catastrophic sensor error “drift” (chuckle) that was hugely under-reporting the polar ice extent. Not really up on the “stubborn facts,” John.
    Heck, even I could debate Kerry on the subject. I, too, was in Vietnam, though I don’t have as many medals because our outfit didn’t let you write up your own citations.

  47. John Kerry: “Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country.”
    Lubos Motl:” John Holdren is the ultimate example of the pseudointellectual impurities that have recently flooded universities and academies throughout the Western world.”
    http://motls.blogspot.com/search?q=holdren
    Who should I believe, the politician or the prominent physicist?

  48. I’d pay a lot more than $10 to see a debate of Al Gore, Kerry, Will, Dr Spencer and John Cristy.
    Now that would be a cracker !!!

  49. I don’t think a debate between these two would be productive at all. It would be merely political rhetoric on both sides. We’ve had enough of that already.

  50. Fred
    The real scary thing is that a guy from the wilds of Kenya has become president. Lets hope he has forgotten most of how they manage dissenters.

  51. The nightmare of John Kerry’s running for President finally ended when he lost the election. Now I must be dreaming. John Kerry debate George Will on any subject. Oh that it were so. Alas, the alarm that will awake me from this dream will be Senator Kerry’s backing out of the debate.

  52. Kerry was ineffective at fighting off charges of cowardice during his election campaign. That’s irrelevant here, but I watched several videos of the incident where the student was Tasered during his speech. Kerry just stood by and everybody ignored him. My guess is that Kerry suggests this debate only because he knows the MSM will support him. “intellectual sparring partners” — that’s funny. “fancy debating trick” — name calling like “flat earth caucus”, bringing up the convenient demons of “oil executives”, or using ‘facts’ like “highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time”, or dissing Michael Crichton. Yes, I’d love to see this debate, it should be just as much fun as watching WWF.
    But if he really wants a debate I’d suggest that the audience be composed entirely of scientific fact-checkers and that the debate be restricted to the science. My bet is that Kerry would chicken out.

  53. What we truly need is a series of public debates between reputable scientists. We also need to make the general public aware of the unscientific nature of the “consensus” and “settled science” arguments. After all, as physicist Lee Smolin has stated a science is not robust if it does not tolerate dissent.

  54. Ah yes, the classic AGW rhetoric.
    We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists.
    This is just the most outrageous statement. The sky is falling and we must all build umbrellas immediately.

  55. I don’t even want to see a televised debate between scientists. AGW has become an issue on par with religion or politics in general. There are so many bad data, so many tortured statistics and figures, so many specious arguments and emotional appeals, that it’s hopelessly tangled and what little we could know of the truth has been obscured. The only way any side can be proven right is to wait and see, and that’s what hurts agnostic AGW skeptics like myself.
    When it comes to complex chaotic systems, be they markets, crime trends in large cities, or planetary climate, no one really knows anything. We can know subsets of the whole, but the myriad of subtle and almost random effects accumulating and playing off one another makes prediction and sometimes even retroactive understanding impossible. There are lots of interesting scientific endeavors towards understanding these subsystems, but they have little value as predictive instruments.
    So what invariably happens in these types of arguments is that one side gains traction through blustering and yelling and impressive looking graphs and self-serving, cherry-picked data analyses and shuts the other sides out. This is where herding behavior becomes the tyranny of the majority.
    I’m not interested in seeing any debates between or amongst blowhards. I don’t know what the hell’s going to happen with our climate, but whatever does happen, it would take a very thorough, bulletproof argument to convince me that any person or group of persons really understood how and why it happened, or that humans had any significant part in it. I dread cap-and-trade and the fallout from it. I just enjoy watching climate happen.

  56. I know that mentioning religious aspects of AGW and Mother Nature-saving movements is frowned upon here, but apparently even official religions are jumping the greenie bandwagon with carbon-fasting or Carbon Lent:
    http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/02/10-best-ways-to-carbon-fast-for-lent-ash-wednesday-2009/
    commented at:
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/6290/
    And don’t forget, that even having a latte is aparently pernicious, although I would like to know, how a simple cup of latte might transform to 5 gallons of water. Does a latte made at home has the same impact?
    How much water goes into that single Latte you buy on the way to work? 50 Gallons!

  57. Debates across contrasting backgrounds (politician versus journalist) doesn’t work for me. How about this as a dream debate though.
    Kerry, Revkin, and Hansen versus Monckton, Will, and Spencer. I’d replace Will with Andrew Bolt myself though. It’ll never happen, of course, but wouldn’t you pay money to see it?

  58. Speaking of dream debates that’ll never happen Monckton versus Gore is my all-time fave, although that Mann versus McIntyre idea mentioned earlier is pretty tasty. You’d maybe have to hire the Jerry Springer crew to referee that last one.

  59. Frankly, I see these two people who have no real knowledge of the issue argue, not debate, and do it badly as of no service to either “cause”.
    The issue is that the debate has never occured in any substantive meaningful way. All that happens now is sniping such as the article above. The science is far from settled, and those who advocate for AGW act, and meaningfully, as though it is.
    Folks, we have to keep up the fight, but we are way behind the eight ball.

  60. Kerry will never debate Will. He doesn’t have the testicular fortitude.
    If he did debate him, he might finally earn a real purple heart.

  61. ‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming
    The new bill will spend billions to adjust data to “prove” the fallacy that humans are responsible for global warming.
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stimulating-scientists-into-proving-global-warming/
    Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: 28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals.
    The new Wreak-America Bill will throw billions of dollars more into global warming research, a field in which data cooking has become an open scandal. Once again, the data is being adjusted to confirm the establishment theory: humans are responsible for global warming. In actual fact, satellite observations show that the Earth is now cooling, and has been cooling for about 10 years. This confirms the anti-establishment theory that the Earth warmed prior to the late 1990s due to the then-increasing number of sunspots, and is now cooling due to the now decreasing number of sunspots. The Wreak-America bill contains funds to “adjust” those pesky satellite observations, so that the data will confirm what powerful politicians wish to be true.

  62. If there’s a debate to be had I’d love to watch George Monbiot (Moonbat as he is better known) try to defend his views and the views of those who support him. Read one of his columns here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/27/climate-change-deniers-sceptics
    An extract from one of the comments is reproduced hereunder to give you some idea of the ‘flavour’ of Moonbat’s supporters:
    “Climateaudit and wattsupwiththat consist of the generic mix of smear and pseudoscience offered by all disinformation efforts.
    There’s an interesting division of labour between them, though.
    Wattsupwiththat concentrates on smearing Hansen (and occasionally Pachauri) whereas Climateaudit concentrates on smearing Mann (and his various coworkers).”

  63. Mikey (11:11:55) :
    Kerry, Revkin, and Hansen versus Monckton, Will, and Spencer. I’d replace Will with Andrew Bolt myself though. It’ll never happen, of course, but wouldn’t you pay money to see it?

    I’d prefer Christy over Spencer, mainly because I’ve seen him debate before and he has his act together.

  64. Jepe (08:40:33) :
    Kerry:
    “This is a fight we can win, a problem we can overcome, but time is not on our side. We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists…”
    and later Kerry states
    “…..but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.”
    Kerry is already contradicting himself, and the debate has not even started.
    ———————————
    Kerry has always been a one-man debate. Remember he was for it before he was against it – the decisiveness needed in our political leadership.

  65. ew-3 (11:39:07) :
    If he did debate him, he might finally earn a real purple heart.

    That was a pretty cheap shot. What evidence do you have that he didn’t earn his awarded medals?

  66. Climate Heretic (08:46:43)
    “Hard to believe that not only has Mass. given us Barney Frank – Primary Architect of the collapse of Freddie and Fannie costing taxpayers a measly 400 Billion to date, and Primary Figure in the Witch Hunts in Washington Read Misplaced Anger on my Blog – but also John Kerry.”
    ———————————————————
    You are slighting Massachusetts by neglecting Senator Kennedy who “hatched” the “egg” of the immigration Albatross that now hangs around the neck of Uncle Sam.

  67. I think I’ve got it. The World economy is melting down in an unprecedented debacle and those ultimately responsible in governance are lurking around for good cover causes.
    It seems that Mr. Kerry is not as adept as Mr. Gore at the art of personal obfuscation for the personal benefit of elective office preservation…,

  68. Be cautious in your wishes for a debate between George Will and John Kerry. The moderators in political debates have influenced the outcomes of those debates. Consider the outcome of this debate: Global Warming; a debate between Columnist George Will and Senator John Kerry; moderator NASA scientist James Hansen.

  69. Jeff Alberts (11:59:39) :
    No cheap shot.
    Fact is his first purple heart was “earned” after only 24 hrs in country. There are no medical records to support his injury and the senior officer on the boat didn’t file an AAR that indicated any enemy contact. The commander of that unit never approved the purple heart nor does he recall Kerry getting one.
    The other two are just as suspect.
    For all three purple hearts he spent a total of 24hrs off duty.
    This is why he has never released his records.
    Reason I know him so familiar with him, is that he’s my senator. And while I was serving on boats in the same region (An Thoi) he served he was wearing fatiques and bring false witness on this comrades in arms in DC.

  70. I have come to the conclusion that the global warming fight doesnt have anything to do with science anymore. It is simply a funding ploy now in the form of cap and trade. Obama has set forth his budget, dependent on the cash flow from what will become the US version of cap and trade to fund his programs over the next 10 years. Its hard to fight a major funding opportunity.
    Remember to call your congressmen and women on March 2nd to counter the ‘no more coal’ marchers.
    As for the debate, I would like to see Hansen, Mann and Chu against any three reputable scientists in the fields of geology, physics and astronomy. It wont happen though, because they (awg) have too much to lose and a debate might decrease the ‘disaster’ /panic quota used to get so much bad legislation passed these days.

  71. philincalifornia (09:10:27) :
    Fred from Canuckistan . . . (08:49:40) :
    The very, very scary aspect of Kerry is that he came so close to being President.
    ———————————-
    Yep, possibly even more scary than Al Gore being President.

    ——————-
    Yes, but neither as scary as Obama being President.

  72. Actually, I would love to see the power shut off to Washington, DC.
    It is a shame that they didn’t make Kerry’s BCD public.

  73. So this is “the debate is over” phase of AGW? In that case, I can hardly wait for the debate to re-start.
    We are witnessing an historic event: The Internet blogs are destroying the greatest scientific scam ever seen. Meanwhile, the MSM are in their death-throes. There will be metaphorical blood – and it won’t be the sceptics’.

  74. This just goes to prove that Al Gore is indeed smarter than John Kerry. Gore is smart enough never to debate because not only might he *sigh* his way to losing, he knows he would appear something less than the Goreacle if he should come down to a shared stage to defend himself.
    Kerry isn’t smart enough to realize that by even agreeing to debate he concedes the “there is no debate” high ground his side clings to.
    Which is the same reason you’ll never see a Mann vs. McIntyre debate or any of the others that have been suggested. The AGW scaremongers have the media on their side. Debating — and losing — would force the media (eventually) into reporting what both sides say, rather than just reporting the AGW scaremongers side and launching ad hominems against the skeptics.

  75. stephen richards (10:44:30) :
    Fred
    The real scary thing is that a guy from the wilds of Kenya has become president. Lets hope he has forgotten most of how they manage dissenters.

    “a guy from the wilds of Kenya”? Be careful, you’re ethnocentric ignorance is showing.
    Reply: I have to agree here. I was hesitant to let the first comment through, but I had to deal with over 100 comments at the time and was a bit rushed. ~ charles the moderator

  76. ew-3 (12:33:04) :
    Kerry’s own records are irrelevant. The Navy’s records would be what you need to look at.
    I received a Good Conduct medal, and an Army Achievement medal during my very brief 3-year stint in the early 80s. The only “records” I have are the certificates and the medals. Neither indicate what was done to achieve them apart from some vague wording.
    If the Navy awarded Kerry three Purple Hearts, then your issue is with the Navy, not Kerry.
    As to his shenanigans at home while in uniform, those are certainly something to be concerned about.

    • Jeff Alberts
      Kerry’s permission is required for the Navy to release his medical records. That is the issue of debate.

  77. Since this is the same guy who helps fund James Hansen, I find hilarious that AGW proponents claim that so much as looking at anyone who has ever been involved with the fossil fuel industry, save for giving them the evil eye, would make a scientist so biased as to never be credible again for the rest of their lives. Regardless of what the “sound science” is, it certainly does not automatically dictate any particular policy, as they would so like to make it sound, especially when it seems so obvious that those policies will simply generate a lot of new tax “climate” revenue while doing little, or, most likely, even nothing to actually reduce CO2 emissions.

  78. “I would prefer the debate between Monckton and Gore.”
    I’m afraid that Albert vs. the Viscount would be too much like Bambi meets Godzilla. 😉

  79. This quote is from a mathematical physicist at Tulane:
    “Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: 28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals.”
    Anyone know of a reference for these admissions that Prof Tipler cites here?

  80. Mark (09:30:35) said:
    “Because scientists have been debating this for decades and there isn’t any serious debate left among legitimate scientists.”
    The only way for this statement to be true is to automatically define any scientist who questions the AGW hypothesis as not “legitimate.” Which, of course, is exactly what people on the AGW side do.
    This is the typical tactic of a lot of people on the left of the political spectrum. People who doe not agree with their positions are “illegitimate” or “wignuts” or a “fascist” or take your pick of any of the pejorative adjectives in common use by the left today.
    Telling people to listen to their “betters,” weather they be politicians or AGW “scientists,” and not think for themselves is a dangerous path to travel as anybody who knows history will tell you.
    So I am sorry Mr Kerry (and Mark), but I have looked at both sides of the debate and found the AGW argument lacking in many ways. And I refuse to change the positions I have come to in a logically and rational manner just because you tell me to.

  81. In the old Republican Congress they even trotted out the author of Jurassic Park as an expert witness to argue that climate change is fiction.
    If you visit the web site of that Jurassic Park author, http://www.crichton-official.com/ you will find a videoed debate in 10 parts in front of a live audience. Two of the participants are Michael Crichton and Gavin Schmidt, the outcome is interesting. This to my knowledge is the ONLY live debate on global warming any of the big guns of AGW have dared to take part. If you view this video you know the reason why these AGW fanatics dare not take part in another debate with audience participation on the same subject.

  82. Jack (12:56:33) :
    We are witnessing an historic event: The Internet blogs are destroying the greatest scientific scam ever seen.

    I agree. It will be written in the history books.
    Well chosen thread, Anthony 🙂

  83. Politicians are generally spineless, and they follow the money.
    I thought during the process of debate, you could always argue the opposuite side. even if your beleif isnt in it.
    It would be interesting to see what would happen if kerry had to argue the opposite view. But it will all be sound bites and ad-hom attacks. Which would make everyone look bad. But we can dream can’t we.

  84. Jeff Alberts (11:59:39) :
    That was a pretty cheap shot. What evidence do you have that he didn’t earn his awarded medals?
    You are right about the cheap shot. I would prefer we left them out but to answer your question. Kerry’s Purple Hearts were well covered during the campaign and what made him look bad to so many was that in all three cases none of them even required a band aid and that he had to pressure the doctor who looked at one of them to put it in for a Purple Heart because the Doctor thought a minor scratch did not qualify

  85. I would prefer to see professional politician and flip-flop artist John Kerry debate mere “fiction writer” (oh, and non-fiction writer, and medical doctor and technology expert) Michael Crichton, but…oh darn!… he died the day Kerry and friends took control of the government. What a convenient target for Kerry’s condescending response…

  86. Fred from Canuckistan and PhilinCalifornia
    I’m sure it’s scary to think of Kerry or Gore as president. But that’s nothing compared to what coming down the pipe: just keep your eyes on Mr Obama’s moves over the next few weeks, using the EPA to get what not even a Democrat dominated Congress will give him: the power to declare CO2 a pollutant dangerous to human life. Now that’s really scary..

  87. Jeff Alberts (11:59:39) :
    ew-3 (11:39:07) :
    If he did debate him, he might finally earn a real purple heart.
    That was a pretty cheap shot. What evidence do you have that he didn’t earn his awarded medals?
    Most folks who’d been there would say that 3 purple hearts in that short a time would be pinned to the flag on your casket. It apparently took 3 to go home, so he got 3, somehow.
    But it’s a moot point –
    He said, and I take him at his word on this, that he threw his medals over the White House fence in protest of the war. Since he returned his medals, he no longer has them.
    (ew-3 – I’ve been to An Thoi, nuoc mam capital of Vietnam. 8 ft tall vats of foaming brown fish sauce ripening in the sun. Mmmmm…)

  88. The reason Kerry, or his stand-in writer, react with such venom and vehemence is that the issue really isn’t about climate change, or the science behind it.
    I just read this morning a breakdown the of proposed national budget. The Obama administration is counting on net revenues of $112 billion (yeah that’s with a b) from the cap-and-trade shell game. Kerry is fighting for those immense dollars and the strangle hold it will put on the energy industry. He couldn’t care less about the science, etc. It’s all about the money.

  89. Please; no more debates where the biggest liar with the deepest voice and the best hair wins.
    What I want to see is a trial in a court of law with scientists under oath and the threat of a perjury conviction for fudging the truth.
    This was done in England where the movie An Inconvenient Truth was ruled to be a piece of political propaganda.
    The upcoming carbon tax will make everyone an injured party. Now who will pay the hordes of lawyers?

  90. Kerry:
    …we need to be debating everything from how to deal with the dirtiest forms of coal as the major provider of power in China….
    Debate point: if Kerry wants to debate Wills, then he better realize that he just admitted that China’s use of coal is valid!
    In fact according to Kerry, the debate is over as to the use of coal anywhere as a source of energy, even considering AGW disasterizing – if China, and India, etc., can right on ahead with using massive amounts of less dirty/clean forms of coal to validly address their needs, then so can everyone else.
    In fact, taking Kerry’s lead, the whole AGW debate is over, and we can get back to “dirty” pollution as the real concern involved with coal use. Hosanna!

  91. My response at HuffPo:
    John Kerry, you will NEVER debate George Will or anyone else on this issue. Neither will Al Gore, James Hansen or any other alarmist. So quit pretending you could muster any scientific evidence to support your position when $50 billion of wasted money has so far failed to do so. You would fail miserably in any such debate and you know it.
    To debate any climate realist will be suicidal to your cause (taxation and centralized government) as the science proves any temperature increases due to CO2 (if any, after accounting for feedbacks) will be minuscule if even detectable. So far there is no detectable temperature increase due to the greenhouse effects of CO2 and real world evidence (as opposed to manufactured climate model projections) suggests that the negative feedbacks are extremely powerful and robust, whereas positive feedbacks are bit players, at best. The water vapor CO2 +feedback link, not surprisingly, has never been observed in nature, except that evidence shows it operates in the opposite direction of AGW theory. Without it, the entire AGW gravy train goes off the tracks (crashing head-long into the alarmists).
    it’s time to read and understand the science before you do more political damage than has already been done to science by shoddy work and “pay for play” “research”.
    Prove me wrong. Schedule a debate with George Will, or remain a scientifically challenged hand waver. Better yet, debate any real climate scientist without an agenda. Good luck with that.
    I’m waiting.

  92. Maybe a television debate Will/Kerry would force Al Gore to stand up too. In case Kerry dare go up against Will it would put Al Gore in a very bad light afterwards if he´d still refuse participating in another open debate. We just need a big name on the skeptics side to challenge Mr. Gore openly and repeatedly.
    Maybe Monckton. I´d love to watch that!

  93. There are times when I like to pretend that climate-change skeptics are honestly searching for truth and then there are times like this when I realize a lot of them are just anti-liberal in everything they do and to hell with the truth. What on earth has Kerry’s war record got to do with anything? At least he went there in the first place – as did Gore. They didn’t get their daddy to keep them in Texas like Bush Jr. Where’s your search for objective truth here? Gone Awol just like Bush?
    Reply: Because this is a post on Kerry, I have allowed the general political thrashings, but JamesG’s point is valid. Staying more on topic and a little less stereotype right vs. left is a good idea. ~ charles

  94. Kerry’s Purple Hearts were well covered during the campaign…
    during which campaign the Post Office suddenly started publishing stamps with purple hearts on them. So I immediately “got me” some.
    [Kerry as ethnic redneck during the campaign: “Where can I get me a huntin’ license?” He also alleged that he hunted deer by crawling around on the ground like a snake with his trusty 10 ga. shotgun! Well, it’s possible.]

  95. “A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, ”
    Hey, what do you mean well-funded? Where’s my funding?

  96. “Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country.”
    While Holdren may be a friend, he does not follow the principles of the scientific method. He is to science what Ashlee Simpson is to a live singing performance.

  97. John Kerry is a person of only average intelligence. He graduated from a 3d tier law school because his LSAT score was too low to gain admission to better schools. He is credited as being a nuanced thinker. In his case nuance is a euphemism for muddled thinker. He is incapable or articulating coherent thoughts and rationale unless he has a teleprompter or is speaking from a prepared text.
    Will will eat Kerry’s lunch if they debate. I am confident that Kerry is incapable of comprehending the subject matter of climate science. He will speak the politician’s language, “slogan”.
    George Will is a clear thinking person. Kerry will suffer from the contrast between the two. Kerry will come across as a buffoon.
    If the debate occurs, it will be good for many laughs.

  98. Then there was this ‘second’ warning from Eisenhower’s farewell address,
    “…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. . . . Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”
    Bring anything to mind? He must be looking down saying “I warned you”.

  99. oops, sorry: George Will, not Wills. This AGW must be cooling my brain. No bull, I’m sitting here actually shivering a little from not moving around enough in my wood heated, low fossil fuel footprint abode, at 58 F., trying valiantly to offset President Obama’s, “Joe 6-pack”, tropical lifestyle. Naw, actually, I’m just trying to be efficient.

  100. “DaveE (09:07:26) :
    “A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time”
    WHERE? Someone tell me where I can get some of this dosh!
    DaveE.”
    No kidding, huh?
    Where was that report I just saw that said there were 4 climate lobbyist for every congressperson? And let’s not even MENTION the $9BILLION, with a freakin’ B, that’s gone to funding this circus.
    Why is it that all these people can do is parrot crap that someone else wrote, and repeat it over and over and over.
    As a reluctant resident of Mass, I apologize to those here. I’ve been trying to get rid of this moron for years, along with Jabba and Barney. Unfortunately, this is a one party state. People here even argue THAT point with me.
    JimB

  101. “John Egan (09:28:59) :
    PS –
    The very, very scary aspect about Dubya is that he was President.”
    If that was scary for you?… you’re about to be terrified. Wait till you see what happens to your 401k and your power bill.
    JimB

  102. JamesG (14:23:03)
    There are times when I like to pretend that climate-change skeptics are honestly searching for truth and then there are times like this when I realize a lot of them are just anti-liberal in everything they do and to hell with the truth. What on earth has Kerry’s war record got to do with anything?
    Some are anti-liberal, some aren’t. So what? There are plenty of liberal skeptics. That alone pretty much blows your theory out of the water. Somebody posted on Kerry’s war record, and you conveniently bash the whole blog because of it?
    Where’s your search for objective truth?

  103. “Bill McClure (09:58:33) :
    Reflecting on this post I am truely scared. For a Senator like John Kerry to come out so strongly on this issue indicates that he feels the issue is settled and more importantly that goverment will act to control global warming.”
    Bill?….WILL act?…Sorry…that train has already left the station. It’s now a question of “will they act”…it’s a question of can they ever be STOPPED, now that it’s started.
    JimB

  104. I find it extraodinarily ironic John Kerry uses words like “facts” and “banckrupcty” when he knows so little about the former, and has played such a central role in bringing about the latter for every American citizen. I find it even more ironic he references a myth, Greek or otherwise, while attempting to legitamize the concept of global warming. Of course, if ThinkProgress and Media Matters validates the reality of global warming, then it must be so. I don’t understand why he chose not to include MoveOn.org and George Soros.
    The fact is, George Will could undergo a labotomy and still win a debate with John Kerry on ANY topic. Shame on the voters of Massachusetts for continually placing this mental midget in a position of vital importance and responsibility. John Kerry’s stubborn insistence that global warming is valid, is the best evidence that it is not.

  105. “. Peden (14:23:08) :
    Kerry’s Purple Hearts were well covered during the campaign…
    during which campaign the Post Office suddenly started publishing stamps with purple hearts on them. So I immediately “got me” some.
    [Kerry as ethnic redneck during the campaign: “Where can I get me a huntin’ license?” He also alleged that he hunted deer by crawling around on the ground like a snake with his trusty 10 ga. shotgun! Well, it’s possible.]”
    Actually, the ONLY gun (aside from black powder) that you can hunt deer with in Massachusetts is a shotgun.
    JimB

  106. re: Ed Scott (11:53:26) :
    “Increasingly, government grants are used to defend dogma, not discover new truth: 28 percent of the scientists supported by NIH admitted recently to cooking data to support establishment theory, and 66 percent admitted to cutting corners to achieve the same end. I myself no longer trust the data claims appearing in the leading science journals.”
    OK, I’m a skeptic (denialist?) but Tipler offers no citation for that particular claim. Who would admit to cooking data and who would they be willing to admit it to? (No grousing over my split infinitive, please!)

  107. Hoystory (13:04:21) :
    This just goes to prove that Al Gore is indeed smarter than John Kerry.

    And Bugs is smarter than Elmer.

  108. As a former Mass resident, I can only say in our defense we gave you JFK and RFK and you done shot them both, and Teddy was then controlled . Then JFK Jr’s plane went down in 1999 after he contemplated running in 2000. Barney Frank and Kerry are your curse, you didn’t fall for Dukakis or Romney, but maybe we will foist Patrick on you in 2016.
    Seriously, when politics and science meet, you get pseudo-science and a secular religion where we must have faith in the high priests (scientists) or be deemed heretics (deniers). Just a matter of time before it will be against the law to question AGW, just like Holocaust Denial, which is a crime in Europe.
    I though Kerry’s defense of the scientists was hilarious. Chu is a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology, not a climate scientist, yet as a political appointee he can not be accused of having an agenda, because he is a scientist. Wow.

  109. Isn’t the fact that a two buit politician is willing to debate global warming a proof that global warming is political, not scientific.

  110. JimB: “you’re about to be terrified. Wait till you see what happens to your 401k and your power bill.”
    Wait? My 401K has already become a 201K, and I fear is heading to a 101K.
    I think my power bill is safe though – Carbonless STNP supplies a big chunk of my electricity.

  111. John Kerry, CFR member and Skull and Bonesman politician. George Will, former CFR member and ruling class journalist.
    No thanks. I’m not interested in phony appeasement from a staged debate about the bogus problem behind a political agenda. Just the truth, sometimes discovered by the scientific method.

  112. According to snopes.com, Kerry’s war metals were legitimate:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
    But that has absolutely no bearing on whether he is a right spokesperson for this debate. He’s not because he’s no scientist. Neither is George Will the right spokesperson for this debate. He’s no scientist either.
    As a trial lawyer of thirty years, I have spent many hours of my time trying to get the bar to have a more scientific approach to law. It galls me to no end when lawyers play scientist in the courtroom. It galls me to no end that in many courtrooms, the customary means of attacking an expert is ad hominem rather than getting an expert to challenge the opponent’s expert.
    A Kerry/Will debate would be the same thing. Possibly worse as the rules of debate and argument would be even less restrictive.

  113. i don’t think it would be to any service for the public if a non-scientist with rather poor educational background discusses climate science.
    if kerry is really concerned, he should privately brief lindzen, spencer, monckton, mcIntyre, watts etc. with an open mind.
    you do not have to have an above average IQ to debunk michael mann’s hockey stick and close to everything al gore is talking about, you just need two ears and the ability to listen.

  114. I hope one of our guys like Spencer, Michaels, Pielke, etc. invites Kerry to debate. Talk about fast exits.

  115. The right wing tone mant of the posts here may make you feel good, but they are counter-productive.
    I often refer people to this site as a place to find some good science. When they read all the political remarks, they dismiss the science.
    I’m sure many of the readers here would feel the same if they went to a site purporting to have good scientific discussion and found it was full of left wing inuendo.
    Anthony’s message will be better received if it isn’t linked to matters of war, taxes, media bias etc.

  116. There is no way a good skeptic debater could lose. All that is required is to use the AGWers own charts and few other well accepted charts. … with a little perspective.
    – Show Gore’s carbon chart and then zoom in to the truth.
    – Show the history of Mann’s hockey stick and then what it would olook like by removing a a few BCPs .
    – Show GISS charts 10 years ago vs. now that lower temps a 100 years ago.
    – Show the actual polar bear situation
    – Show the actual ice situation
    – Show the number of deaths due to cold
    – Show the increase in biological growth in the last 50 years.
    – etc., etc.
    Once people saw that they have been lied to again and again nothing else would matter. There would be outrage and the politicians would start looking for scapegoats.

  117. If the topic of the post has to do with a politician, expect a political thread to ensue.
    I also come here for the science, but can spot a political minded thread a mile away. Battling pundits are fine, but I’m in the camp willing to pay cold cash to see a hot debate by those who best represent their side.
    We already KNOW one side can’t afford to be seen to debate, lest they get caught in even the smallest error or stumble, thus perhaps losing a considerable amount of future funding. Therefore, I don’t hold out much hope for an honest science based debate.

  118. To whom it may concern:
    The term “useful idiot” was used in the The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which was more commonly known as the Soviet Union, that existed in Eurasia from 1922 to 1991.
    The implication “useful idiot” symbolizes, that the person in question was naïve, foolish, or in willful denial, and was being cynically used by the Soviet Union, or another Communist state.
    The term is now used to describe someone who is perceived to be manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, or hostile government, whether or not the group is Communist in nature.

  119. rephelan (15:29:59)
    Your question should be directed to Dr. Tipler. I believe he is the only one who can answer for his thinking and his statements.
    As you may have read, Dr. Tipler is Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University. Dr. Tipler’s email address is tipler@tulane.edu.

  120. Cause and effects of global cooling Nature 1975
    Guest editorial: The end of the present interglacial Quaternary Research 1972
    Possible climatic impact of tropical deforestation Nature 1975
    The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human activities Quaternary Research 1972
    Background of a geophysical model of the initiation of the next glaciation Quaternary Research 1974
    Insolation regime of interglacials Quaternary Research 1972
    Physical Sciences: Atmospheric Total Ozone Increase during the 1960s Nature 1971
    Climatic effects of increased industrial activity upon the world’s established agro-ecosystems Agro Ecosystems 1974
    Changes in the poleward energy flux by the atmosphere and ocean as a possible cause for ice ages Quaternary Research 1974
    Influence of aerosol cloud height on the change in the atmospheric radiation balance due to aerosols Atmsospheric Environment 1975
    Influence of surface albedo on the change in the atmospheric radiation balance due to aerosols Atmsospheric Environment 1974
    Dynamics of the ocean-cryosphere system: Barbados data Quaternary Research 1972
    The application of computers to weather forecasting Physics in Technology 1973
    The earth’s climate as seen from space Acta Astronautica 1974
    Volcanic ash in the Antarctic ice sheet and its possible climatic implications Earth and Planetary Science Letters 1971
    Holocene climatic variations-Their pattern and possible cause Quaternary Research 1973
    Recent Climatic Change and Increased Glacierization in the Eastern Canadian Arctic Nature
    Remote sounding from artificial satellites and space probes of the atmospheres of the Earth and the planets Reports on Progress in Physics 1973
    Interglacial climates and Antarctic ice surges Quaternary Research 1972
    Climates of the polar regions—world survey of climatology 1970
    The salinity of the North Atlantic Ocean and the next glaciation Quaternary Research 1972

  121. Can’t wait to hear what the “Almost French president” has to say about Global Warming, especially his take on “Windmills” off the coast of Nantucket!!
    Does he know it’s an established fact that “Ketchup” produces a gas which leads to an increase in Global Warming? And, since Ketchup is used mostly on “burgers” and burgers come from cows an cows produce Methane )hence the EPA move to enact a “Fart Tax” on livestock, The Almost French President should reduce consumtion of Ketchup!! But Momma Heinz would get angry!! And might even cut off his allowance!!

  122. Ayrdale (16:03:27) :
    “…Any comments ?”
    My comment: climateprogress didn’t make the cut: click
    And if M.I.T. took this prediction [of 886 ppmv CO2 by 2095] seriously, no doubt there would be comments by the head of M.I.T.’s Atmospheric Sciences department, Prof. Richard Lindzen.
    The fact that Lindzen doesn’t bother to comment, and that the climateprogress blog didn’t even make the top ten cut, must gall Joe Romm no end.
    Smart folks read the “Best Science” site for a good reason: we each have only so many minutes in this life. Why waste them on minor sites like climateprogress, RC, etc.? This is where the action is.

  123. What has to stop? The debate?
    Not in international circles, it has not stopped.
    It’s only stopped in a few places, where somebody decided to attach it to a bulldozer and put the hammer down.
    Holden got it Icily wrong in the 70’s.
    He’s doing it again, pulling the Fire Alarm this time.
    Will is calling him on the rug.
    Isn’t that what Freedom of Speech is all about?
    If keeping quiet is so all-fired important, then Kerry can stow his argument too.
    Else, let the contest begin.

  124. Carl Zimmer at Discover blog says Will is wrong. Here’s an excerpt:
    He now says his previous column was “citing data from the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog.”
    Citing data as interpreted by a blog…That’s some fine reporting. Neither George Will nor his employees did any more research than look at a blog. Now, blogs can be wonderful, but would it have been really so hard for Will and Co. to drop a note to the scientists themselves to do their own research? Pick up the phone? Apparently not.
    And anyone who disagrees is apparently a “knuckle dragger”:
    I’ve heard that line before…the one about how people can look at the same scientific data and make different inferences.
    I’ve heard it from creationists.
    Follow the Link.

  125. Once people saw that they have been lied to again and again nothing else would matter. There would be outrage and the politicians would start looking for scapegoats.
    By next winter at this time, the people will know. And the politicians, they will have thier scapegoats all ready to toss into the AGW fire that was lit. Too much time has been spent at rock bottom Solar Activity for next winter to do anything but get screeching cold. There is insufficent time for the monumental force to stop & reverse direction.
    Heck, last check of the sunspot activity looked mighty dismal.
    No miracles brewing there.

  126. re: Ayrdale (16:03:27)
    Nice find. Joseph Romm provided a link to the actual article (actually a report issued by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change) which you can find here
    http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf
    as well as an index of all the program’s reports here:
    http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/all-reports.php
    The projected temperature, of course, is based on a model that they have been working on for some time and which includes forcings for GHG and Ocean Temperatures, but may not include solar. The lead author, Andrei Sokolov, has been researching and publishing about CO2 forcings since at least 1993. Their model is one of many out there and probably needs more than a quick perusal of one paper to evaluate. Off the top of my head, I’d say a temperature increase of 5.1C by 2100 is a tad alarmist, but those guys (and gals!) at MIT are pretty bright and anything I say about it is not going to be definitive.

  127. “This must stop” !
    Mr Kerry is getting uncomfortable – he is heating up – not from AGW, but from the impending dashing of his and his mates’ poor science on the rock of reason.
    And don’t you love that defence of those “good” scientists – Kerry would not have the first idea about good or poor science. I suspect Mr Kerry is a little lazy when it comes to any sort of research – thank heaven we were spared him.

  128. Ron Horvath (13:28:02) :
    You are right about the cheap shot. I would prefer we left them out but to answer your question. Kerry’s Purple Hearts were well covered during the campaign and what made him look bad to so many was that in all three cases none of them even required a band aid and that he had to pressure the doctor who looked at one of them to put it in for a Purple Heart because the Doctor thought a minor scratch did not qualify

    Hmm, well I guess he had an awful lot of pull to pressure a doctor to do so. One would think that if he had that much pull he could just get out without having to go into combat at all.
    At any rate, I didn’t follow the arguments when he was running for president, because there seemed a lot of credibility problems on both sides, and I just didn’t give a damn.
    I’ll have to take the words of those here on this, but I have to think there’s a fair amount of rhetoric going on.

  129. Wow a debate between a Senator and a commentator!
    It will not happen because The Senator has a history of huffing and puffing in the past.He stated 3 years ago that he is going to release his military records.Still waiting for it John.
    Meanwhile why would George want to debate an ignorant man? It would be painfull having to tolerate the barrage of irrational environmentalist claims and that the science is settled and mumbo jumbo and zzz…..
    I rather see a debate between Al Gore and The Viscount Monckton.
    Now that would be interesting!

  130. That’s ok, in a few years Kerry will be proclaiming:
    “I was for Global Warming, until I was against it.
    And that is why it is so important to address the issue of
    Global Cooling today….”

  131. Smart folks read the “Best Science” site for a good reason: we each have only so many minutes in this life. Why waste them on minor sites like climateprogress, RC, etc.? This is where the action is.
    ah yes…. But it has to be one foot firmly here and the other foot firmly somewhere else.

  132. @ Roger Sowell (18:16:31)
    Yes, I’ve previously read that the new reactors will cost 10-20% more due to the added cost for protection against large aircraft.
    More importantly, that means the existing 108 nuclear power plants are currently not adequately protected.

  133. Lucy Skywalker, I wasn’t referring to your site with my comments about those other sites, which I haven’t visited for at least the last couple of years. I don’t like being told by them how I’m supposed to think, and what conclusions I’m expected to reach.
    OTOH, I visit your site regularly and enjoy it. Unlike the other two I mentioned, your site makes no pretense of being the official custodian of all climate knowledge.
    .
    And a comment regarding John Kerry’s brave challenge to debate George Will: I remember when the Bush/Kerry campaign was coming down the home stretch, suddenly some of Kerry’s fellow soldiers appeared [the Swift Boat veterans]. They made some public accusations about John Kerry’s actions in Viet Nam.
    So what did Kerry do? He immediately went into hiding — for almost a month! Right in the middle of a close campaign, John Kerry was suddenly nowhere to be found. He ceded the battlefield to the opposition. The media tried to cover for him, but everyone began asking, “Where is John Kerry?”
    IMHO, Kerry lost that very close election by not standing and fighting. So don’t expect him to actually, like, debate. He’s a tough guy when a ghost writer is writing his columns, but he will never follow through and debate. He doesn’t have what it takes. He’s got no cojones.

  134. It’s a declaration of intent – not a real commitment.
    I hope it happens… But I don’t expect it.
    I expect the statement of intent to be used to show that the AGW Camp is willing to debate…

  135. re: Ed Scott (16:57:15) :
    Good suggestion, so I did. If he finds the time to reply, I’ll let you know. My main point, however, was that I should not have to ask for the source of a controversial statistic when it would be really easy to supply a link or citation. So, too, should we not be circulating statistics of that sort without being 100% certain of their provenance. I’m sure Prof. Tipler is an honorable scholar, but to cite his statements without verification is simply a resort to the fallacy of citing authority as evidence.
    Too many “facts” are circulating on the net, and search engines keep perpetuating those facts long after they have been debunked. I think it would be good practice for those of us who comment on these blogs to avoid circulating orphaned statistics.

  136. a debate we can’t afford to see dissolve into reductio ad absurdum hijinx.
    Kerry then proceeds to use the phrase “flat earth” three times. I strongly resent that level of repeated insult and disparagement. Kerry does not wish to debate, indeed cannot debate the issue, and feels he must therefore denigrate with absurd aspersion millions of intellects vastly superior to his own.
    [snip-ad hom]
    Ridicule is one way, compounded insult is another, but those only work with semi-intelligent foes. Kerry is a [snip ad hom]. And in the opinion of many, a traitor. There is little one can say that discredits Kerry more than his own words and actions already have.
    George Will is neither a climate scientist nor a Senator, but his assessment of GW alarmist pseudo-science is accurate. He questioned the findings of Arctic sea ice decline, and he was correct about that. He questioned Chu’s prediction of the end of agriculture in California. He questioned Ehrlich’s 1990 prediction of calamitous food and resources shortages, and Holdren’s concurrence in that dire report, and Will was right about that history, too.
    Will accused GW alarmists of “eco-pessimism” and pointed out that public opinion ranks climate change last on a list of possible calamities. He is correct in those assessments, too.
    Climate science can be debated, and so can be the politics of “climate change.” George Will may not be adequately qualified for the former, but he certainly is at the latter. Kerry is inadequate at both, to the great detriment of our nation.

  137. JimB (15:20:03) :
    Actually, the ONLY gun (aside from black powder) that you can hunt deer with in Massachusetts is a shotgun.
    Thanks, Jim, I didn’t know that. Still, anything that would make people like Kerry crawl like a snake certainly might have some benefits. But I wonder when it was that Kerry ever needed the meat, or thought that it was better than beef, + ketchup, instead of needing the “rack”.
    Context: I remember Kerry’s report on Vietnam, and I pretty much trusted him. Wrong. [I didn’t really remember that it was Kerry, but the events surrounding his campaign showed that it was in fact he who made the statements, circa 1971[?], about the alleged savagery of the U.S. troops in Vietnam which impressed me at the time, especially as reprised by the Dick Cavet interviews.]
    Perhaps in any debate between Kerry and ?, Kerry should be asked why, when he now admits or claims to having been fooled as to the validity of two, yes two, major U.S. war excursions seperated by nearly 40 years at least – regardess of the questions concerning the more objective validity of these wars – we should believe anything he says.

  138. I think Will would pepper and grill Kerry.
    But since we are making predictions, I am going to make one. George Bush is going the route of Harry Truman (except that Truman was less popular than dubya when he left office). Longterm, we are going to regard him in a far more favorable light than we do now.
    Mark my words.
    The analogy of the “disaster” of Korea and that of Iraq is very strong. Of course, Iraq is far freer than South Korea was in 1953, and Korea’s prospects were less favorable–and the human cost of Korea was perhaps ten times greater. Yet in the long run, Korea proved a Cold War (and ongoing) triumph and Truman was vindicated.
    As for the longterm prospects for the AGW movement, we are no doubt in agreement.
    Time will tell for both.

  139. I strongly resent that level of repeated insult and disparagement.
    I delight in it. I grin every time I hear or read it. They are on record. By doing so, they are going so far out on the limb they can never get back.
    Their previous errors regarding environmental issues have set them up for this. They did not pay for those mistakes, but they have used up their slack. If they are wrong now (and I strongly believe they are), there will be hell to pay.

  140. Too bad George Carlin has passed on – John Kerry Vs George Carlin – I would have like to see that.
    Scientific facts don’t matter anymore. You can’t debate fanatics.
    It will only be long time experience that settles Climate reality now.

  141. Kerry’s panties are in a wad because his agenda is collapsing around him, not unlike the graphs on global temperature graphs since 1998.
    And….like a dog returning to its vomit…..
    These ideologues will continue to return to the same faulty data, failed hockey-stick graphs, busted climate models, and shady carbon-trading moneymaking schemes…
    …Until they are shivering from lack of heat because they shut down all the coal power plants….as we all descend into a new Dalton or even Maunder.
    No doubt he will join our You-tube roving government employee NASA official Dr. Hansen in DC on Monday for the mass civil disobedience protest…
    BUT ATTENDANCE MIGHT BE A LITTLE LOW BECAUSE OF FRESH SNOWFALL AND BLUSTERY TEMPERATURE MAXIMA FOR THE DAY NOT TOPPING 28 DEGREES
    I broke out in peals of laughter when I made that connection!

  142. This is likely just bravado on Kerry’s (or some staffer’s) part. But as someone mentioned above, it may be a calculated attempt to throw as much cold water as possible on the spark of dissent that George Will’s column represented.
    The new Obama budget forecasts something like $650 billion in cap-and-trade taxes a couple of years from now in order to reduce the astronomical deficits the Democrats are creating (it also forecats 3% GNP growth next year and double that for succeeding years, which of course is sheer fantasy). So there will be some urgency to hold the line on the ‘climate-change crisis’ in order to justify cap-and-trade legislation, now scheduled for August.
    Kerry won’t debate, and it won’t mean much if he does. He can do no more than just reiterate talking points and ad hominems. George Will is much more clever, but also shows no sign of being up on the science, so the ‘debate’ would amount to little more than two ill-informed guys talking past each other.
    It would be a good time for someone of great prominence and scientific acumen to lay down the law on AGW, though, someone the media couldn’t ignore. Who would that be? I’ll bet there are prominent scientists who, despite the flood of grant money, are fed up with the political agenda and fear-mongering of the AGW proponents, but up to now have been too concerned about peer pressure to speak out.
    Well, now’s the time.
    /Mr Lynn

  143. I bet that a close textual analysis of Kerry’s comments will demonstrate that much is lifted from or generated by the writers at Think Progress and the Wonk Room. That is why that friendly plug is in there. A quick review of the bios of the writers will show another HS-team like network. Kerry just lent his name to it.
    Kerry’s article is not about climate science. It is about climate politics, pure and simple. And whether we like it or not, climate (and environmental) politics, at this point, is about centralized control of the economy. Kerry – regardless of his actions or non-actions in Vietnam – is a very unpleasant and hypocritical individual and a narcissist. (As illustrated by his inability to say no when asked to put his name on this article put together by one of his current or former “aides”. ) Brinkley’s biography Tour of Duty referenced on the snoops.com link above, is a travesty, hagiography pure and simple.
    I would much prefer a catastrophic AGW debate between genuine scientists involved in the field, but failing that an evisceration of Kerry by an antagonized Will would be worth the price of admission.

  144. “It would be a good time for someone of great prominence and scientific acumen to lay down the law on AGW, though, someone the media couldn’t ignore. Who would that be? I’ll bet there are prominent scientists who, despite the flood of grant money, are fed up with the political agenda and fear-mongering of the AGW proponents, but up to now have been too concerned about peer pressure to speak out.”
    Democracy insists that we rotate leaders, and of course that’s an admirable thing. But ex-leaders, like John Howard of Australia vanish from the scene.
    Howard, while not a scientist, (and known to Australians as Honest John,) opposed Kyoto, and since losing to Kevin Rudd has apparently vanished.
    His perspective now would be very much appreciated…

  145. As trite as this sounds, the “proof” will be in the pudding, so to speak. There’s no telling what the climate will do over the next ten years. But, I have a feeling that at some point, we will all be freezing and the powers that be will be still telling us that we are “warming.”

  146. In the old Republican Congress they even trotted out the author of Jurassic Park as an expert witness to argue that climate change is fiction.
    The man is a harvard educated anthropologist and M.D. with an IQ off the charts, and Kerry attempts to dismiss him with the “he’s just an author” nonsense? It’s generally not a smart move to dismiss out of hand the opinion of the smartest guy in the room. This tells us more than enough about Kerry.

  147. Anthony,
    George Will’s response, backed up by a clarification of the U of I Arctic Climate Research Center, was too well done and too believable for the masses. An icon of AGW had to step forward and re-muddy the waters. All of this is choreographed.
    The sad observation I made was that the U of I ACRC clarification was almost apologetic for its data. Their clarification didn’t just acknowledge the factual basis of the original observation, as it should have, instead it went to great lengths to make it appear that the global data cited was not appropriate to describe today’s reality. Why collect the data if it doesn’t mean anything?
    Its as if the U of I custodians of the data were embarrassed that it was displayed for the unclean public’s use.

  148. Can we make sure that George Will can get all the facts straight? Who could make sure he knows all the facts? I mean, after all, he is not a scientist.
    I can’t believe Kerry taked like that about Michael Crichton. The guy is dead! It’s so easy for him to challenge a dead person. No respect what so ever. Michael Crichton did not have all the answers but he was in the right direction.

  149. John Kerry’s words and techniques mirror those of another senator from the 1950s – Joe McCarthy, who also used mortal fear mongering as an excuse to demonise journalists and other people he claimed had beliefs that threatened the country.
    One journalist, Edgar R Murrow risked his career to end the madness and protect free speech. It is scary stuff to have a senator launching an attack on a journalist, just as it is having the body of journalists take sides with the fear mongers.

  150. I wonder why the data from NOAA here…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/08/increasing-tornadoes-or-better-information-gathering/
    …is so much different than the data they show here…
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/tornado/tornadotrend.jpg
    …from here…
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html
    Hold the phone!
    Is it possible the bar graph in the first link above is mislabeled? It looks an awful lot like this one where the bottom are the storms, and the top bars, in blue, are deaths from the storms, not total storms…
    http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/guideimg/pic13.jpg
    The numbers and the trend are about the same, though why the numbers should be slightly different between the new and the old, I don’t know, unless different data bases were used, and one or the other isn’t correct.
    A.W. might want to check to see if that is, as it appears, mis-labeled, because if it is, it’s very misleading.
    BONUS for the Tornado Geek.
    http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/exhibits/exhibit.php?exbid=30

  151. D Werme (16:21:02) :
    The right wing tone mant of the posts here may make you feel good, but they are counter-productive.

    I agree – the loony left is naturally counterbalanced by the loony right.
    Unfortunately we see far to much of the loony right here.
    Can we please remain centered?

  152. on the other hand we could all email Senator Kerry and say “Go for it matee!! get those redneck deniers and sock it to them!, you’re the Man to tell it like it is”
    then sit back and watch the bloodbath 🙂

  153. Nope, I was apparently wrong. It seems the little ones are either increasing, or more likely, we are getting better at reporting them. I guess it’s just a coincidence that the total # of hurricanes is in the ballpark of the number of fatalities.

  154. OK, THIS IS MY LAST POST, I PROMISE….

    “When these annual adjusted values are plotted, we see that the linear upward trend is removed from the data. Removal of this upward trend is desirable because the increase in tornado reports over the last 54 years is almost entirely due to secular trends such as population increase, increased tornado awareness, and more robust and advanced reporting networks. By removing the upward trend and making the broad assumption that 2007 represents something closer to reality for annual tornado numbers, we can attempt to answer the question, ‘what constitutes a normal year with respect to modern-day tornado reports’?”
    http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/big.html

  155. “No matter how the evidence has mounted over two decades — the melting of the arctic ice cap, rising sea levels, extreme weather… ”
    Well, I realise all these things in themselves are highly questionable, and certainly whether recent trends are in any way unusual.
    But isn’t this the core of the argument? Wouldn’t this be the focus of any debate? If these things are happening to a problematic degree, exactly what are they “evidence” of? They are happening is evidence that they are happening.
    I bet Mr Kerry would never get past there, to the questions of causes and solutions and the evidence related to that.

  156. Smokey, I was just ruminating on life at 2.30 am… being aware that excellence here depends on many people coming here with many different excellent lines of life experience, as well as staying here long enough to appreciate nuances. Like you do.
    Kerry Debate: it would sure be good to get ANY real debate with skeptics in the public eye. Don’t want to revert 400 years of good scientific tradition to superstition.

  157. “Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good”
    What a numbnut! G. Will NEVER said there was a scientific consensus about that. “Scientific consensus” is an invention of the AGW crowd, it never existed before and will never exist again.
    He said, there were scientist in the 70es that warned of a new ice age. It can be proofed easily. Kerry’s level of discussion is very very low.

  158. Bruce Cobb (15:02:35) :
    You may have got the impression I was bashing the entire blog but I wasn’t.

  159. As a long time reader and first time submitter I was not suprised to see Sen. Kerry’s attack on George Will. This is what politicians do best. Lie and gloss over the obvious falsehoods. So I sent the following e-mail to Sen. Kerry this morning.
    Having read your attack on George Will on the web site http://www.wattsupwiththat.com I was appalled. You are obviously one of the many naive politicians who keep spouting the same falsehoods about severe storms being attributed to the climate when this is patently untrue. This has been proven to be wrong by the IPCC and the UK Met Office. Dr. Vicky Pope of the Met Office recently posted an article stating just this point. She said that it was doing a great disservice to science by making these claims. You should know that you are making a mockery of climate science by continuing this sham in order to advance a cause that seems more bent on hysteria than real science. The so-called deniers, skeptics is the correct term, have been refuting this hysteria for years now and maybe it’s high time our elected officials get their collective heads out of the sand and go to the above mentioned site and learn some science and stop the usual alarmist rants.

  160. “savethesharks (20:22:22) :
    Kerry’s panties are in a wad because his agenda is collapsing around him, not unlike the graphs on global temperature graphs since 1998.”
    The only thing I disagree with is that Kerry doesn’t HAVE an agenda, he’s never been that smart. Kerry is like so many politicians of late…his “handlers” look around for what they believe to be the most popular vote-garnering position, and that’s the direction they’ll point him in.
    I also agree that this will never happen. His handlers just aren’t that stupid. They’ve taken a cheap shot, grabbed a few major headlines, all done. There’s no upside to any further engagement with this issue, and he can claim victory.
    Btw…many may not know that a year or two ago, Kerry recieved an award from a congressional watchdog group…for going the longest time without submitting ANY meaningful legislation to be considered on the floor of the senate…not a single bill.
    So no…I don’t believe any debate will ever take place. And if it did, it would almost be embarassing.
    JimstuckinmassachusetssB

  161. D Werme (16:21:02) :
    The right wing tone mant of the posts here may make you feel good, but they are counter-productive.
    I often refer people to this site as a place to find some good science. When they read all the political remarks, they dismiss the science.
    I’m sure many of the readers here would feel the same if they went to a site purporting to have good scientific discussion and found it was full of left wing inuendo.
    Anthony’s message will be better received if it isn’t linked to matters of war, taxes, media bias etc.

    Since Kerry is a politician, it would be an easy mistake to simply label all the comments as being politically motivated, and therefore of no merit. I have actually only seen a few comments about Kerry’s purple hearts, which could be classified as politically-motivated ad hominems, and maybe one or two off-hand comments on taxes and centralized government. The biggest problem with them is that they really don’t add anything to the topic at hand, are just “noise”, and in fact only detract from what the commenter is trying to say.
    However, it is both disingenuous, and a bit too convenient to dismiss this entire blog on the basis of the fact that some posts do discuss the very real political side of the AGW debate, which in fact has very little to do with the usual liberal vs conservative or Democratic vs Republican argument. When Hansen talks about coal trains being “death trains”, for example, that is an entirely political argument, which must be addressed. What I’ve discovered, in fact, is that the AGW/CC side of the debate is mostly of a political nature, since there is little in the way of actual science supporting it. The IPCC is a good example of that.
    Blogs such as this probably would never have come into existence were it not for the fact that climate science was subverted for political reasons. Since it was a new field, this was relatively easy to do. Maggie Thatcher played a big part in that, as did Hansen and others. It became a bandwagon, which had a lot to offer the various organizations, politicians and scientists as well as the MSM who climbed aboard. The science supporting it was weak, but that no longer mattered, as the bandwagon effect took over, effectively steamrolling over any opposition to it. In effect, science and truth itself took a back seat, and when this happens democracy itself is threatened. We here tend to take that personally. All we ask for, indeed plead for, is that the playing field be righted once again. Let the debate, which never actually took place, and which they claimed was “over” begin, finally. And, halt the Cap n’ Trade legislation, demonization of coal, and alarmist “we-must-act-immediately” propaganda, etc. etc.

  162. I was going through the comments under the original article at the Huffington Post. When compared to the general comments about AGW that could be seen about a year ago, there is major awakening. There are now more people questioning the falsehoods of AGW. And for this reason, I am pretty sure Kerry won’t follow up on the debate offer.

  163. “Hasse@Norway (11:16:19) :
    I fell asleep halfway through Kerrys rant. What was he talking about…”
    OMG Funny!! Best comment in a long time!

  164. Jim B: “The only thing I disagree with is that Kerry doesn’t HAVE an agenda, he’s never been that smart. Kerry is like so many politicians of late…his “handlers” look around for what they believe to be the most popular vote-garnering position, and that’s the direction they’ll point him in.”
    I think you should look again and do some research — which can mainly be found on blogs — into political planning and influence. I think you will find that John and Theresa have been funding left-wing organizations and have been fully behind AGW. Kerry is one of the main ones to introduce Sen. Barack Obama to the nation. Need I say more about planning for cap-and-trade.
    Now how to go about arranging that Kerry keep his promise (threat) to debate George Will. That would be an amazing moment in American history and a victory for science for the public.

  165. Kerry’s challenge — a grain of salt :
    John Kerry could have offered to debate several different personalities by now but hasn’t offered until George Will entered the fray. This doesn’t stand out to anyone? George Will is a lighting rod in the political world. Some love him, some hate him. Will is known for politics, not science. The debate would be viewed as a political tussle, not a scientific one. George Will could be so easily downplayed in the media that a ‘debate’ may end up doing more harm than good for the science side of this issue.
    I don’t see John Kerry challenging Václav Klaus to a debate, a politician who is not a political lightening rod in the US, and also a president.
    I also do see him challenging John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc. He has had ample opportunity to challenge any of these.
    But no challenge came until he saw an opportunity in a purely US political arena–his home field advantage.

  166. I agree that global warming is accelerating. I am also convinced that doubts about whether the problem exists are nothing more than a drug addict’s denial that he has a serious problem.
    Our business interests like to insist that the problem does not exist because they want to keep on making money as long as they can under our present globalized system even if they eventually cause all of us–including their own progeny!–to die because of their stubborn greed.
    I think that most likely it is already too late to do anything about global warming (our current proposed programs to fight it are like trying to control a slowly rising sea level by organizing bucket brigades!).
    Most likely the human race is already extinct, though we will continue to be in denial about our fate because our ultimate death as a species is too horrifying to contemplate seriously.
    I am glad I am seventy years old. I will die before the human race, like the massive group of lemmings that it is, meets its ultimate end as it runs over this final cliff.
    Really, the best thing we can do at this point is to party on while we can.
    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

  167. typo
    “I also do see him challenging John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc”
    should be don’t, not do

  168. Lindzen vs. Bill Nye the science guy comes to mind. Kerry does seem to have that same stupid-nerdy I’m-smarter-than-you-are persona that Nye has. I’m sure he’d have the same deer-in-the-headlights look if actually challenged with facts that aren’t in the EDF talking points memo.

  169. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”
    – Michael Palin
    Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and a ruthless devotion to the
    Gore! Our two main weapons are fear and a ruthless devotion to the Gore and…. Oh start again….

  170. I am getting tired of this. To tell you the truth, I don’t want politicians or news outlets debating one iota of science. That’s as bad as using the entertainment owned media (of which Will is a member of) doing the same thing. Maybe we should all go back to the day that journals were our only source of scientific knowledge (or even further back, when Monks were the only ones who know anything) and it was kept from the typical mom and pop family and their sources of news; mainly, radio, TV, and political outlets. Few, if any, of these past media and political sources of information were trusted with scientific information. Why? If it bleeds it leads. And a reporter was/is schooled in getting blood out of a turnip. That was/is also true for politicians on the stump back then, and their now ubiquitous sound bites in front of cameras. News is now no different than reality TV. And most politicians and reporters are now reality TV stars. This desire to be on reality TV news has now crept into the scientific community. Maybe we should shut down all news sources except cspan cameras (closed captions only), and send all scientist back to the Ivory Tower, lock em in, and throw away the key. Why? Politicians (red, blue, and calico), reporters, and several scientists are as drunk on media exposure as Anna Nicole Smith was.
    Rant off

  171. hkyson (08:49:29) :

    Our business interests like to insist that the problem does not exist because they want to keep on making money as long as they can under our present globalized system even if they eventually cause all of us–including their own progeny!–to die because of their stubborn greed.

    I’m afraid you either completely misunderstand today’s industrialists or have been out of the workforce too long to understand how the current system works.
    Many “business” folks are currently rubbing their hands in glee trying to figure out how they can get “their” piece of the stimulus pie.
    Look for greenwashing the likes of which the World hasn’t seen since Tom Sawyer convinced fools to whitewash his fence for him.

  172. Sorry for all the typos and grammatical errors. I got my feathers ruffled a bit and didn’t care a tinker’s dam about editing before sending.

  173. I went running on the beach the morning and the sea level is the same it was 40 years ago. Maybe Lurch can explain why so many global warmists aren’t selling their beachfront property?

  174. Harleigh Kyson Jr. says:
    I am glad I am seventy years old. I will die before the human race, like the massive group of lemmings that it is, meets its ultimate end as it runs over this final cliff.
    You have the lemming-like characterization correct, but the wrong attribution. It is, in fact the climate alarmist crowd , along with those screaming run! run! who are in the process of driving mankind over the cliff of skyrocketing energy costs, lower energy availability, and further damage to severely weakened economies worldwide.
    It is both absurd and useless to “fight global warming”, since our effect on climate is miniscule to begin with.
    The greedy, immoral ones are actually those driving the AGW fraud, with financial and political interests in seeing it succeed.
    It isn’t warming we should be fearing, or more importantly, preparing for, but cooling. We haven’t been warming for ten years, and will most likely be cooling significantly for the next 30 years or more, dropping temperatures far more than what we gained the last century.

  175. “Self-hating Boomer (09:03:22) :
    Lindzen vs. Bill Nye the science guy comes to mind.”
    Speaking of which, have a look :

  176. Remember the Global Warming demonstration in Washington DC planned for tomorrow and assisted by Hanson?
    “Al Gore is not attending, but Gore effect is operative. Tonight’s heavy snow will not melt. Tomorrow will be frigid and windy in the backwash of the storm. The city will be cloaked in ice, and travel will be extremely difficult. It should be entertaining to see the warmists freezing their backsides”.
    Are we glad that James Hanson is not a meteorologist!
    From http://www.seablogger.com

  177. Just want truth… (08:42:47) :
    . . . John Kerry could have offered to debate several different personalities by now but hasn’t offered until George Will entered the fray. This doesn’t stand out to anyone? George Will is a lighting rod in the political world. Some love him, some hate him. Will is known for politics, not science. The debate would be viewed as a political tussle, not a scientific one. George Will could be so easily downplayed in the media that a ‘debate’ may end up doing more harm than good for the science side of this issue.
    I don’t see John Kerry challenging Václav Klaus to a debate, a politician who is not a political lightening rod in the US, and also a president.
    I also don’t see him challenging John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, etc. He has had ample opportunity to challenge any of these.
    But no challenge came until he saw an opportunity in a purely US political arena–his home field advantage.

    It may be that Sen. Kerry challenged George Will (if it is in fact a real challenge) because Mr. Will writes primary on politics and is not a scientist.
    But I suspect that it is more because Mr. Will’s column is carried about three times a week in hundreds of newspapers, and Mr. Will is on ABC television every Sunday morning with George Stephanopalous (sp?). If a few more prominent public figures George Will start poo-pooing ‘climate change’ alarmism, that could undermine the rush to tax and control energy usage in the United States, and that, in my view, is what Kerry and Obama and his ‘science team’ really want to do.
    The problem for Realists is that the political Alarmists don’t really care a fig about the science, or about the truth; ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ is just an excuse to vastly increase their power and the power of the State. You can’t fight somebody with facts, if they don’t care what the real facts are.
    /Mr Lynn

  178. Oops! ‘primary’ in my first sentence should be ‘primarily’. A Preview option (or better, and Edit option) would help.
    /Mr Lynn
    REPLY: for the thousandth time, there is no preview option available on wordpress.com free hosting which I use, nor can I install one. So please please PLEASE stop asking for one when comments go awry due to mistakes. – Anthony

  179. “Mr Lynn (11:00:41) : If a few more prominent public figures George Will start poo-pooing”
    George Will is well respected in some circles, and your right, he is influential. I was trying to put the brakes on some people’s enthusiasm for how much impact this debate would have.
    You point about taxes could be right too.
    One thing John Kerry will never be able to stop is the cooling trend in the earth and the influence that is having. I suppose he could challenge the earth to a debate ;).

  180. “Mr Lynn (11:02:05) : Oops! ‘primary’ … Preview option (or better, and Edit option)”
    You can install Firefox browser. It has a spell-checker for everything you type. It puts a red line under misspelled words. Firefox freezes less than Windows browser too.
    Firefox :
    http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

  181. Here is the nasty weather in store for the Capitol Climate Action scheduled for tomorrow, March 2, with some 10,000 participants expected, including Jim “factories-of death” Hansen:
    “This Afternoon: Snow and sleet likely. Cloudy, with a high near 36. North wind around 11 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%. Total daytime snow and sleet accumulation of less than one inch possible.
    Tonight: Snow. Low around 26. Blustery, with a north wind 11 to 14 mph increasing to between 21 and 24 mph. Winds could gust as high as 36 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New snow accumulation of 5 to 9 inches possible.
    Monday: Snow likely, mainly before 2pm. Cloudy, with a high near 30. Blustery, with a north wind between 20 and 22 mph, with gusts as high as 33 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 2 inches possible.”
    Oh, the irony! LOL. It doesn’t get any better than this.

  182. “Just want truth… (11:26:59) :
    George Will is well respected in some circles, and your right, he is influential. I was trying to put the brakes on some people’s enthusiasm for how much impact this debate would have.”
    I actually think that if it happened, there would be some positive impact. Anytime high-profile personalities engage like this it brings certain things to light that some people might not otherwise be exposed to.
    So it’s entirely possible that someone who’s not already in one camp or another may find some of the information presented by Wills to be of interest.
    It’s a shame that there’s little chance of anything of interest being presented by Kerry.
    JimB

  183. “I am glad I am seventy years old. I will die before the human race, like the massive group of lemmings that it is, meets its ultimate end as it runs over this final cliff.
    Really, the best thing we can do at this point is to party on while we can.”
    — Harleigh Kyson Jr.
    Your barely out of you teens, if that.

  184. John Kerry says: “It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change.”>
    And again: “
    We can’t waste another second arguing about whether the problem exists when we need to be debating everything from how to deal with the dirtiest forms of coal as the major provider of power in China to how to vastly increase green energy right here at home.”
    And closes with: “Stubborn or stupid — lets have a real debate and lets have it now.
    I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion — but I’d happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.”

    Based upon the inconsistent and self-contradictory logic he’s employed in such a short span I’d suggest that Kerry reveals himself to be both stubborn and stupid.

  185. “Most likely the human race is already extinct, though we will continue to be in denial about our fate because our ultimate death as a species is too horrifying to contemplate seriously.”
    Really? Are we going to make contingency plans for a supernova? I hate to be depressing, but humanity will go extinct at some point. If you are this concerned, don’t you agree that we should plan for the inevitable ice age? To be 100% honest, I don’t feel that climate is the pressing danger to our existence. I tend to think that nuclear proliferation is a much more immediate concern.

  186. hkyson (08:49:29) :

    Most likely the human race is already extinct, though we will continue to be in denial about our fate because our ultimate death as a species is too horrifying to contemplate seriously.
    I am glad I am seventy years old. I will die before the human race, like the massive group of lemmings that it is, meets its ultimate end as it runs over this final cliff.
    Really, the best thing we can do at this point is to party on while we can.
    Harleigh Kyson Jr.

    Have you ever considered actually assessing the data?
    Might I respectfully suggest that an approach based on Evidence Based Reasoning within a framework of Optimism wrt Goals and Realism wrt Means might provide a more authentic and empowered experience of life than wallowing in Pessimism, Powerlessness and Defeatism.
    What you have just expressed is the end game adoption of a mindset that is the direct outcome of swallowing the fear and catastrophism of those who wish to control you.
    You appear to be almost completely disempowered. The only hopeful thing that you have done was provide you own name, a hint of courage shining underneath the cloud of defeat.
    Give up the fear and the catastrophism and question what you believe is true, it will be the first step towards gaining power with what remains of your life.
    Have you noticed that the current crop of politicians never speak of empowering the choices of the individual – it is always about “saving us” from ourselves – we are constructed by the conversation as guilty/victims. This is simply a destructive conversation and your words are typical of the outcome of participating in it.
    Good luck. Graeme

  187. from lubs motl
    http://motls.blogspot.com/
    “Meanwhile, in the real world, Weather Underground predicts that D.C. will experience -11 °C on that day which should break the record low temperature for March 2nd, -10 °C, that was measured in 1925, before the previous Great Depression. 😉 “

  188. “Don’t get me wrong”
    “Let me be very clear:”
    Setting out with these phrases so early in the piece starts instant alarm bells ringing.
    Here in the UK we recognise these as two of Tony Blair’s most often used introductory phrases to some following diversionary or simply untrue observation or statement of “truth” or “fact”.
    We had 11 years of Blair (and Brown) BS directly and now now something similar from Brown continues whilst we get the remote BS forom Blair in his role as … well, who knows what his role is?
    It’s not my country so my view of US politics counts for little but whilst I was a long way from being comfortable with Bush the thought of Gore for the first term and Kerry for the second was extremely worrying.
    Now I have given up worrying.
    Most of the Industiralised World’s ruling elites seem to be bent on self destruction for some reasons that are difficult to understand. But so being. Let’s get on with it and see where it goes. If the change in direction meets popular opposition soon enough there may be time to correct.
    If not then I suspect our children/(and grandchildren if there are any) will look back on this period with contempt rather than pride.
    Of course that assumes that are not brainwashed by re-written history early in their lives.
    Maybe Kerry could take a side bet on the outcome and pledge to hand out half his wife’s wealth to Science if he wins and all of it if he loses. Let him put his and his wife’s money where his mouth is.

  189. Bruce Cobb (11:45:14) :
    Here is the nasty weather in store for the Capitol Climate Action scheduled for tomorrow, March 2, with some 10,000 participants expected, including Jim “factories-of death” Hansen:
    “This Afternoon: Snow and sleet likely. Cloudy, with a high near 36. North wind around 11 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%. Total daytime snow and sleet accumulation of less than one inch possible.
    Tonight: Snow. Low around 26. Blustery, with a north wind 11 to 14 mph increasing to between 21 and 24 mph. Winds could gust as high as 36 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New snow accumulation of 5 to 9 inches possible.
    Monday: Snow likely, mainly before 2pm. Cloudy, with a high near 30. Blustery, with a north wind between 20 and 22 mph, with gusts as high as 33 mph. Chance of precipitation is 70%. New snow accumulation of 1 to 2 inches possible.”
    Oh, the irony! LOL. It doesn’t get any better than this.
    Pierre Gosselin (11:46:19) :
    6 – 11 inches for DC!
    Will should arrange to meet Kerry there to debate the issue!

    Poor Jim Hansen – He’ll be wishing for the balmy, sweltering days of the summer of ’88 when he first raised the issue of Global Warming in a stuffy auditorium without air-conditioning.

  190. Coram Deo (12:06:13) :
    “John Kerry says: “It is time to stop debating fiction writers, oil executives and flat-earth politicians, and actually find the way forward on climate change.”
    Coram,
    How about this fiction from the UNIVERSITY OF MAINE?
    http://media.www.mainecampus.com/media/storage/paper322/news/2009/02/26/News/Um.Faculty.Present.Report.On.Climate.To.Gov.Baldacci-3650002.shtml
    THE FLOODGATES OF CLIMATE MADNESS HAVE OPENED
    DON’T SEND YOUR KIDS TO THIS UNIVERSITY

  191. I under that Kerry will only debate after he finishes the process of releasing his military records to the public.

  192. “New Nukes Must Withstand Large Aircraft Impact”
    I have seen a “sample” of the containment dome wall at the STNP. As I recall, it’s four feet (122 cm) of steel-reinforced concrete, with a four inch (10 cm) sheathing of steel plate. That was way back ~1980 when there were still tours, the guide said it was built to resist the collision of a 747.
    I assume the new reactors will have something similar. In the long run, I bet it’s the safest, cleanest and maybe cheapest solution. I feel certain that it’s cheaper than all those eyesore windmills. Texas is now top state in windpower, alas.

  193. I think Kerry missed the memo. Global warming is so yesterday. Now it’s “climate change.” Something about global surface temperatures showing no increase the last few years….

  194. Just want truth… (11:44:54) :
    “Mr Lynn (11:02:05) : Oops! ‘primary’ … Preview option (or better, and Edit option)”
    You can install Firefox browser. It has a spell-checker for everything you type. It puts a red line under misspelled words. Firefox freezes less than Windows browser too.

    I use Safari on my MacBook Pro. It underlines bad and weird spelling, too; but it doesn’t pick up correctly-spelled wrong words—nothing does.
    Sorry Anthony, but I’m a newbie. I won’t ask for Preview again. Now about Edit. . . No?
    /Mr Lynn

  195. “Harleigh Kyson Jr. says:
    I am glad I am seventy years old. I will die before the human race, like the massive group of lemmings that it is, meets its ultimate end as it runs over this final cliff.”
    This really and truly is one of the most ludicrous statements I think I’ve read in quite some time. It’s at least equal to the “Arctic Ice Cap to Melt in 2008!” line from last year.
    Exactly what cliff are we going to run off? The most dire predictions are that temps will go up how much in this century? …2degC?
    2DegC will kill off the human race.
    I’m speechless.
    JimB

  196. JimB (15:57:19) :

    . . . Exactly what cliff are we going to run off? The most dire predictions are that temps will go up how much in this century? …2degC?
    2DegC will kill off the human race.
    I’m speechless.

    With the increase in agricultural production, we will all die off from a surfeit of wine, steaks, and doughnuts.
    /Mr Lynn

  197. Now on Weather Channel :
    “Mega Storm” hits East Coast of USA, including Washington D.C. Could be 11″ of snow for Greenpeace/ James Hansen tomorrow.

  198. “With the increase in agricultural production, we will all die off from a surfeit of wine, steaks, and doughnuts.
    /Mr Lynn”
    I like donuts. Especially if they follow steaks and wine. Make mine chocolate.
    But seriously…are we asking too much of our politicians?
    Think about it. Politicians run on taxes, plain and simple. More taxes equals more spending, more power, and more influence.
    And here, with the AGW problem, we have a veritable buffet of taxes to implement, AND…we have managed to convince the bulk of the voting public (key word “voting”), that immediate action is required, for the sake of the entire planet?…I mean, really…isn’t this the classic “kid in the candy store” problem? Can we really expect ANY politician to say no to this?
    I’m not sure we can.
    JimB

  199. Our local newspaper carries George Will once a week. It appears that the global warming crowd in D.C. is sending out the troops to stamp out any thoughts of dissent, even to the rural area where I l live. The following letter appeared today in my local, low circulation newspaper:
    Will distorts facts
    I’d like to make readers aware of distortions in a column by George Will that the Lewiston Tribune recently published [Feb. 15]. In an attempt to suggest that human-caused global warming is not occurring, Will misused data on global sea ice levels from the Arctic Climate Research Center, wrongly suggesting that ACRC data undermine the overwhelming scientific consensus surrounding “man-made global warming.” In fact, the ACRC says the opposite is true – the data Will cited actually support the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.
    Additionally, Will claimed that “according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.” In fact, the WMO stated last year that the “long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing.” And just last month, WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud reportedly said: “The major trend is unmistakably one of warming.”
    Media Matters joined Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski and Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder in issuing a letter to the Washington Post , Will’s flagship paper, asking that these blatant errors be corrected. No response has yet been received.
    Will’s commentary exposes him as someone who, in the face of overwhelming consensus to the contrary among true experts, cherry-picks and distorts information to fit the story he wants to tell. Your readers deserve to know the facts.
    Erikka Knuti
    Communications Director
    Media Matters for America
    Washington, D.C.
    REPLY: The best defense against these form letters is to send a copy of this to your local newspaper editor if they carry Will’s column. I’ve just done so. It will likely make it onto the editors discussion net that watches out for such things so that newspapers don’t fall victims of such campaigns. – Anthony

  200. April C.,
    In a related thread [“George Will’s battle with hotheaded ice alarmists”], Bill Illis @17:55:09 decisively refutes the alarmists’ false claim that George Will was inaccurate in his reporting of the similarity of ice extent, by showing sea ice comparisons from December 1979 and December 2008. Sea ice extent was 1 million square kilometers greater in 2008 than in 1979 — a fact that George Will’s attackers conveniently avoid.
    The fact that the alarmist contingent from the George Soros-funded partisan blog Media Matters is monkey-piling on a respected national columnist shows that they do not care about either science or the truth.
    I’ve already sent my email supporting George Will to the Washington Post’s ombudsman. It’s easy to do: ombudsman@washpost.com
    Address WaPo emails to “Mr. Alexander.” And it always helps to write your local paper, too. Tell them that the readers of the internet’s “Best Science” site agree with George Will — not with the partisan propaganda site Media Matters.

  201. Mr. Will is today’s greatest living commander of the English language. He could verbally run rings around JK without breaking a sweat.

  202. All:
    Several commentators here have said they want a debate on climate change that involves Lord Monckton. Such a debate is to happen this week, but it will not be televised.
    On Wednesday there is to be a debate on the motion “This House believes there is a global climate crisis” at the Students’ Union of St Andrews University, Scotland.
    The three speakers against the motion are Lord Monckton, Niils Axel-Morner (ex-President of the INQUA Commission on sea-level), and myself. I am to speak first, Niils will explain that sea-level rise is not a problem, and Lord Monckton will use his excellent speaking and debating skills to summate our side and to address points made by proponents of the motion.
    I hope my posting here will add publicity to the event.
    Richard

  203. If the debate is over, it is time to cut off funding of research into climate science.

  204. Richard S Courtney (00:35:04),
    Please, report back with any available information, and your personal analysis, on the results of your debate! I’m sure I am not the only one interested in a review of a neutral debate over the global warming issue.

  205. Richard S Courtney:
    On Wednesday there is to be a debate on the motion “This House believes there is a global climate crisis” at the Students’ Union of St Andrews University, Scotland.
    The three speakers against the motion are Lord Monckton, Niils Axel-Morner (ex-President of the INQUA Commission on sea-level), and myself. I am to speak first, Niils will explain that sea-level rise is not a problem, and Lord Monckton will use his excellent speaking and debating skills to summate our side and to address points made by proponents of the motion.

    Excellent. I have no doubt the proponents, whoever they are will receive a good drubbing. Hopefully, it will be recorded, or better yet, videoed, and made available on the internet. They will certainly try to pull every trick in the AGW propaganda handbook.

  206. Nice…the “flat earthers” are slammed for using one scientifically minded (not necessarily scientific) author, but the “AGW”-ers trot out empty headed entertainers by the gross to try to convince the masses….
    Sounds like par for the course from Mr. Kerry.

  207. Wow, what more can skeptics ask?!! John Kerry, who couldn’t even beat the semantically challenged George Bush in a debate, now wants to debate George Will on global warming? Talk about delivering the issue on a silver platter to your opponents….

  208. “John Kerry, who couldn’t even beat the semantically challenged George Bush in a debate”
    Was it the second debate where Kerry recounted his desire to run for the Presidency to his failing mother?
    Her reply, “Integrity, integrity, integrity.” Kerry thought this spoke volumes about his mother. What a wingnut, it illustrated the degree to which she knew her progeny.

  209. I don’t get what Kerry’s military records have to do with this. He’s not a candidate for president. Why is the issue of whether he saved some guys life while in Vietnam or not of any importance in this debate?

  210. Seems strange that in the year 2009 people are still debating whether Climate Change is real or not.

  211. “Anon E Moose (13:33:37) :
    Seems strange that in the year 2009 people are still debating whether Climate Change is real or not.”
    Seems strange that in 2009, people are still making comments like this to try and throw stones or induce a response?
    You’ve been on this board for some time now. I think you have a pretty good understanding that people here understand very well that climate changes, continuously, in fact.
    We understand that climate change is real.
    You’ve also been around here long enough to know that people here tend to question anyone who claims they have found “the cause” of climate change, when there seems to be ample evidence that the people making that claim shouldn’t.
    So why make the comment?
    Just askin’…
    JimB

  212. All:
    I cannot help those who want the debate at St Andrews University to be recorded and made publicly available. It is not in my gift or power to arrange for this. However, I shall respond to the request for me to post to here a personal account of the debate: I cannot do this until Friday. Sorry.
    And I agree with Anon E Moose that it is strange to debate the existence of climate change because climate has always changed – and will always change – everywhere. But there are people who deny this reality of climate change. These climate change deniers assert that climate was stable until people started to change it. Of course, their assertion is insane. However, reasonable people need to debate with them because their delusion is affecting public policies.
    Richard

  213. “Left on a trip to Antarctica”. ?? Isn’t it heading into winter there. Normally the South Pole is evacuated about this time of year and most of the Scientists leave McMurdo as well with a skeleton crew remaining to keep things running. Wonder what he’s going to do in Antarctica.

  214. Richard
    I suggested to the BBC that they might like to stage a trial ‘Has co2 killed the planet?’ in which evidence from either side could be looked at objectively in a court room setting. Cheap, interesting and would be sold around the world. Strangely enough I had no response. I have also suggested the same to the Royal Society in the context of their motto
    ‘Nobodys word is final.’
    I look forward to seeing a record of the debate with great interest then perhaps we have a basic model that could be expanded to the wider stage. Good luck.
    Tonyb

  215. Exactly there is no time to debate the issue we need new ideas and out of the box thinking now. I have read two interesting articles on new energy ideas. One talked about creating star power here on earth. The other was about a company working on a new cold fusion process. It’s called SuperWaveFusion which is being developed by a company called Energetics Technologies. They have had some strong results and may be the break through we need for this possible energy source. We need to focus on out of the box ideas to make are planet safe for the future.

  216. David Ridder:
    I happen to believe that “are planet” is pretty safe as it stands now. In fact, I’m not sure there’s much we could do to make it any safer than it already is?
    JimB

  217. As promised, I write to report on a debate that defeated the motion
    “This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis”
    during a meeting of the St Andrews University Debating Society.
    It is difficult to arrange a debate of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW) because few proponents of AGW are willing to face such debate. They know from past experience that they always lose such debates because there is no evidence that AGW exists and much evidence that it does not.
    However, on Wednesday 4 March 2009, the St Andrews University Debating Society held their debate of the motion, “This House Believes Global Warming is a Global Crisis” in the Old Parliament Building, St Andrews.
    The debate was organized and presided over with exemplary efficiency and professionalism by the Speaker of the Society, Ms Jessica Siegel. It was conducted with all the pomp and ceremony that could be expected of an ancient society of so ancient and prestigious a university.
    And the debate was lively, informative and entertaining. It got emotional at times. Some of the contributions from the floor were of exceptionally high quality. But, it was somewhat spoiled by the weakness of the proponents of the motion. (I have good reason to suspect this weakness is because stronger speakers could not be obtained to propose the motion. If so, then it is yet another example of leading proponents of AGW fearing to face their critics in open debate).
    The proponents of the motion were
    Ross Finnie MSP,
    former Scottish Government Minister for Environment and Rural Development:
    Mike Robinson,
    Chief Executive of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society and Chair of Stop Climate Chaos Scotland:
    Gregory Norminton,
    Novelist ‘Serious Things’, Environmental Activist, Founder of ‘Alliance against Urban 4x4s’
    The motion was opposed by myself, and
    Nils-Axel Morner,
    Leader of the Maldives International Sea-Level Project who was awarded the ‘Golden Contrite of Merits’ by Algarve University,
    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley,
    Former advisor to then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and now an Investigator of Scientific Frauds.
    Each speaker was given a strict maximum of 7 minutes to speak. The speakers would alternate between proponents and opponents of the motion until all 6 had spoken. No speaker was allowed to speak more than once except to raise a point of information, order, or etc.
    The proponents had clearly not prepared. They were not co-ordinated in their presentations, they each lacked any significant knowledge of the science of AGW, and they each assumed that AGW is a fact. None of them made a substantial presentation of arguments supporting the motion, and they all (including the politician!) lacked adequate skills at public speaking.
    The opponents of the motion were a sharp contrast to that. They each have significant expertise in their subject, and they had agreed the case they were to put and how they were to put it. Also, they are all very competent public speakers and their very different styles made their presentation much better than the sum of its parts.
    Finnie spoke first. He argued that AGW is a fact because the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) that says the IPCC is “90% certain” that AGW exists. From this he claimed there is a “crisis” because governments are failing to give the matter sufficient importance. It is necessary for governments to decide a treaty that would follow-on from the Kyoto Ptotocol that intends to constrain emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) but ends in 2012. The decision needs to be made at a meeting later this year.
    I replied by outlining the case for the opposition. My speech is copied below (my two colleagues in the debate said for me to include it in this report despite my not having copies of other texts used in the debate). It asserts that governments do need to have policies on climate change but empirical evidence denies the existence of AGW and so there is no need to constrain fossil fuel emissions. Indeed, the harm caused by the emission constraints would be greater than any harm that AGW could induce if it were to exist.
    Robinson’s response was very angry. He seemed to think attacking the opposition speakers would provide a victory for the motion. Almost his entire speech was attempted defamation of the opposition speakers. Within seconds of starting to speak he had accused them of being “like supporters of the Nazis in 1930s Germany” (my family lost everything in the blitz so I did not take kindly to that). The speakers on the opposition side “could not get anything published in peer-reviewed journals” (Morner and I each shouted out that we have and we do). And much of the same. He said people and governments must act to stop global warming (but he did not say how they should act).
    Morner then gave a witty, entertaining and informative lecture on sea level change. The major potential threat from AGW is severe sea-level change. He interacted with the audience and selected one individual to jape with (his skill at this selection was later demonstrated when that individual stood and gave a speech that won the prize – of a Society neck-tie – for best speech from the floor). Morner presented data that showed sea level is not rising as a result of AGW at a detectable rate anywhere.
    Norminton then spoke to conclude the case for the proponents of the motion. Like Finnie he seemed to be extremely nervous: both were shaking during their presentations. Norminton’s hand was shaking so much he put it into his pocket. (I know others interpret this to be nervousness, but I think it was extreme anger: Norminton had not expected any opposition to the motion, and the assertion of clear evidence that AGW does not exist was – to him – an outrage too hard to accept.) Also, like Finnie, he did not address the motion. He said he was not a scientist so he had to accept the word of scientists about global warming and scientists agree that global warming is real and man-made. He said, the speakers on the opposition side were “not scientists”. Lord Monckton interjected that “Courtney and Morner are”. And Norminton replied, “So was Mengele.” Monckton raised a Point of Order demanding withdrawal of the remark. Norminton lacked the wit to withdraw and move on, so he refused to withdraw. Monckton persisted pressing the Point of Order and Norminton continued to refuse to withdraw. Only moments before Morner had made himself the lecturer the students would most like to have, and support for Norminton drained away as he insisted that Morner was akin to a murderer operating in a Nazi concentration camp. Norminton continued by saying the threat of global warming was real, but it is not clear that anybody was listening to him.
    Monckton then summated the case for the opposition. He had not prepared a speech but took notes of the proponents’ speeches with a view to refuting arguments of the proponents that Morner and myself had not covered, and by defending the opposition case against rebuttals of its arguments. This was a deliberate use by our side of Monckton’s debating skills. But he had a problem because the proponents of the motion had not made a case and they had not addressed any of our arguments. Instead, they had made personal attacks on the opposition speakers, and they had asserted – with no evidence or argument – that the IPCC is right. So, Monckton’s summarizing speech consisted of evidence that the proponents of the motion had merely provided logical errors and not a case. He listed and named each of the logical fallacies utilized by the proponents of the motion.
    The debate then opened to the floor. Four persons each spoke well. One gave a balanced presentation and the other three spoke in favour of the motion. But by then the debate had been settled.
    Prior to the debate the opponents of the motion had expected to lose the vote because the students have been exposed to a lifetime (i.e. their short lifetime) of pro-AGW propaganda. We consoled ourselves with the certainty that we would win the arguments because opponents of AGW have all the facts on our side. But in the event we won both.
    The motion was defeated when put to the vote. However, this result deserves some explanation.
    The Members of the debating Society know the Rules of the House say a motion falls (i.e. is not carried) unless the motion obtains a majority of the votes cast. And the Speaker and Secretary of the Society say the Members use this knowledge to vote tactically: people who want a motion defeated but do not want it said they voted against the motion can – and do – register a vote that acts against the motion by abstaining.
    On Wednesday the votes cast were
    For the motion 57
    Against for the motion 42
    Abstaining 18
    Thus the motion fell because the 57 votes for the motion were less than the total of other votes cast (i.e. 42 against + 18 abstaining = 60 not for the motion).
    Additionally, the room holds 197 people and there were very few empty seats, so there must have been at least 180 people present. Assuming an attendance of 180, then 63 people chose not to vote. So, it seems that fewer people were willing to support either side in the debate than were not willing to support either side.
    After the debate several people said they changed their view from support of the motion as a result of the debate. It would have been interesting to know how those present would have voted prior to the debate.
    Richard
    Speech opposing the motion
    Madam Speaker, Friends:
    Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it.
    In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere: it always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy throughout the millennia since.
    It’s a sensible policy because people merely complain at taxes in good times. They revolt if short of food in bad times. But several governments have abandoned it and, instead, are trying to stabilise the climate of the entire Earth by controlling it.
    This attempt at global climate control arises from the hypothesis of anthropogenic (that is, man-made) global warming (AGW).
    AGW does not pose a global crisis but the policy does, because it threatens constraint of fossil fuels and that constraint would kill millions – probably billions – of people.
    There’s no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind.
    The existence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming because warming of the Earth doesn’t prove human’s warmed it. At issue is whether humans are or are not affecting changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally.
    The AGW-hypothesis says increased greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide – in the air raise global temperature, and anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air to overwhelm the natural climate system.
    But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong.
    1. The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.
    2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales.
    3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
    Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.
    4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
    Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had 10 years ago.
    5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
    The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show cooling at altitude in the tropics.
    So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
    Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.
    But some people promote the hypothesis. They’ve several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, and…). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. So, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates. And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming they are.
    Advocates promote AGW using three kinds of pseudo-science.
    They use ‘argument from ignorance’. This isn’t new. In the Middle Ages experts said, “We don’t know what causes crops to fail: it must be witches: we must eliminate them.” Now, experts say, “We don’t know what causes global climate change: it must be emissions from human activity: we must eliminate them.” Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.
    Advocates rely on not-validated computer models.
    No model’s predictions should be trusted unless the model has demonstrated forecasting skill. But climate models have not existed for 20, 50 or 100 years, so they cannot have demonstrated forecasting skill.
    Simply, the climate models’ predictions of the future have the same demonstrated reliability as the casting of chicken bones to predict the future.
    Advocates use the Precutionary Principle saying we should stop greenhouse gas emissions in case the AGW hypothesis is right. But that turns the Principle on its head.
    Stopping the emissions would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the ‘oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater, would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.
    The precautionary principle says we should not accept the risks of certain economic disruption in attempt to control the world’s climate on the basis of assumptions that have no supporting evidence and merely because they’ve been described using computer games.
    So, global warming is not a global crisis but the unfounded fear of global warming is. It threatens a constraint of fossil fuel use that would kill millions – probably billions – of people.
    Thankyou.

  218. Richard S Courtney (06:47:48) :
    Of course, they phrase it differently saying they can’t match historical climate change with known climate mechanisms unless an anthropogenic effect is included. But evidence for this “anthropogenic effect” is no more than the evidence for witches.
    Nice debate. Now I understand why they say “the debate is over”. There are two assertions at the heart of AGW. 1) CO2 will cause climate change, and 2) climate change will cause bad things to happen. Many people can grasp part two, but very very few have the knowledge of physics, chemistry, statistics, and computer science that is necessary to understand part one, including most of the people who call themselves climate scientists (evidently). The only argument most people can make in favor of part one is to say the science is settled, there is a consensus, the debate is over, IPCC says so. That and attacking anyone who would dare to say otherwise.

Comments are closed.