McIntyre on CNN

CNN’s Campbell Brown & John Roberts with Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre, Michael Oppenheimer.

Part 1

Part 2 below:

Share

Advertisements

235 thoughts on “McIntyre on CNN

  1. I love how they have included John Roberts who has been investigating this – some of remember John Roberts when he was a VJ with Much Music in Canada – when did he become a scientist???

  2. When in doubt, just repeat the mantra…
    “Global temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting, ocean acidity levels are rising.”

  3. Disappointing
    Stephen McIntyre and Chris Horner failed to challenge the usual Global Warming nonsense. This was a real opportunity missed.

  4. It’s going on 3 weeks since the emails and data hit the internet, and John Roberts has “looked at this for several days”.
    Like most on the left, he was hoping it would go away. Well, it didn’t.

  5. Did Oppenheimer practice these talking points, because I’ve heard other proponents of AGW use the same exact points!? So – GHG’s remain in the atmosphere forever once they are emitted? I learn something new every day.
    And asking why the Chinese were investing in hybrid technology as well as solar? It’s called business opportunity and prudent cost avoidance as fossil fuel demand outstrips current production capability.
    This kind of give and take has been missing form the public square for far too long. I’m kind of upset as there was so much potential to present a more substantive opposing view as to what Climategate represents – and the mark was missed. All in all though, it was good to see Steve McIntyre, very reaonably, explain why he has concerns about all this. Kind of hard to belittle and demonize someone when they come across as he did.

  6. Thanks for posting this! Nice job – it was a good discussion and more balanced than most. Hopefully we will see many more like it in the future.

  7. “Global temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting, ocean acidity levels are rising.”
    Duh… And what would you expect the earth to do as it is coming out of an ice age! The idiocy that we can dictate the global climate is beyond description.

  8. Peter:
    His comments are not surprising, but somehow I am still taken aback by the outright deception by these “scientists”. Yeah, classic propaganda technique, LIE, then REPEAT.
    But still, have these charlatans no shame?? I love his comment about looking to the Chinese for guidance: why are they going green technology? Duh – to sell product to the well intentioned fools in North America.
    I’m still shaking my head!!

  9. I see the climate thugs have settled on an approach to the hacked data …
    “Yeah, these guys messed up, but so what? There are other scientists who’ve come to the same conclusions”.

  10. …John Roberts??….there’s your leading climate authority…….I guess CNN can’t go 5minutes without a reporter talking to another reporter on the hard issues.

  11. WoW, Prof Oppenheimer’s arguments were a joke. There are better opponents on the net. Even I could’ve taken him on the economic stuff and these “mountains of evidence” that show AGW. I’m not sure why McIntyre was so reluctant ..

  12. Was it my imagionation, of was this simply a way to lob softballs to their own green alarmist? Campbell allowed him to drive both interviews and state opinion as fact. Someone who had no experience or perspective on this matter would most likely assume his position.

  13. Peter said: (09:40:58) :
    When in doubt, just repeat the mantra…
    “Global temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting, ocean acidity levels are rising.”
    rickM said (09:51:03) :
    Did Oppenheimer practice these talking points, because I’ve heard other proponents of AGW use the same exact points!?
    They make nearly irrefutable statements, then throw in their lie at the end: “due to CO2”. The warmists do that every day. We need to say “proof of effect does not prove cause. Other causes are likely because pre-industrial temperatures were much less stable than depicted by this small group of scientists.”
    We need to say this over and over and over. Repeat it. Repetition is the key to education.

  14. Campbell Brown is your existential liberal. She is so liberal she doesn’t even realize that she is liberal.
    Why do scientists misstate the truth? For one, these are the only scientific studies that are going to be funded by the liberals in government agencies who want CO2 to be the villain because it furthers their environmental agendas. Two proposals are presented for funding; one to look at solar the other to look at CO2 impacts on prostitution. Guess which one will get funding. Guess who writes the scopes for studies to begin with? In essence we have liberal scientists who are conducting studies on behalf of liberal government officials.
    Secondly, most of the studies are being performed in ultra-liberal academia. Any professor who does not promote the liberal agenda of the Institution’s Administration is pushed out. It is a case of self preservation for many scientists to study and conclude what is expected of them. Just look at want happened to Dr. Gray at Colorado because he questioned global warming. They took away his prestigious hurricane forecasting center from him.

  15. rickM (09:51:03) :
    Did Oppenheimer practice these talking points, because I’ve heard other proponents of AGW use the same exact points!? So – GHG’s remain in the atmosphere forever once they are emitted? I learn something new every day.

    Oppenheimer is indeed following a carefully prepared script that revolves around the debunker handbook credo to “deny, defend, delay.” By attempting to re-frame the argument to “massive conspiracy” the alarmists hope to distract the focus from the undeniable fraud perpetrated at UEA by the world’s leading “climatologists. ”
    The alarmists claim to have 2,500 “scientists” who have approved the latest IPCC reports – we know that it is more like 25 scientists in fact. Horner is the best communicator of these points and needs to be given more air time to raise the main points – it is the underlying FRAUD – that condemns the entire climate change campaign. The real question is – a few bad apples or is the whole barrel rotten.

  16. Jesus, Oppenheimer is a broken record. What a douchebag. Is he really that ignorant, or does he just play one on TV?

  17. “Sunspots. Look at the graphs comparing sunspot activity since 1860 with global sea surface temperatures. They look like matching S curves (unlike the graphs comparing temperatures with CO2 output). Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon notes that 2008 may have been a cold year because sunspot activity was low. The sun has been quiet in 2009 too. “If this deep solar minimum continues,” Dr. Soon explains, “and our planet cools while CO2 levels continue to rise, thinking needs to change. This will be a very telling time and it’s very, very useful in terms of science and society, in my opinion.””
    Torquemada in East Anglia
    It’s not illegal. But it’s not science.
    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdhYTcwZjFjYWM3M2Q2YzI1MGRmMzk5NGRhYjgyZTg=

  18. telegraph.co.uk blogs.Has anyone else been unable to register to comment? Can someone try it,please? Maybe without clicking on Delingpole’s blog,try another author?

  19. What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW. Is that possibly because anyone who had an opposing view either couldn’t get grants or was laughed out of the “club” and is now washing cars for a living?

  20. Oppenheimer is a pure propagandist. He says the Chinese are going to reduce CO2 emmissions. What China really says is they will decrease emmissions/unit of GDP. How hard is that? They of course fully intend to increase their GDP dramatically. Their CO2 emmissions will increase tremendously over the next few decades.

  21. This guy Chris Horner is an embarrassment.
    Seriously, is there really anything remotely resembling compelling evidence that we are now entering a period of global cooling? It’s one thing to say that we are in a fairly extended plateau in global temperatures that is starting to run against the predictions of the warmists; that seems to be quite a reasonable statement. It’s quite another to say that there’s good positive evidence of global cooling. Projecting such a trend is way, way past what the data might possibly signal.
    Can’t people respect even the most basic of distinctions?
    You want to know why Climate skeptics exude such a bad odor to most educated people? Look no further than Chris Horner.

  22. Peter. You are absolutely right but it goes further. The Nazis understood that large lies, not just mantras, oft repeated soon become perceived truth.

  23. Honesty shines through and truth be illuminated.
    Well done Mr McIntyre.
    There is another smoking gun posted by Geronimo at Climate Audit.

  24. FWIW, of the whole bunch, Stephen comes off as the most honest and knowledgeable person by far.
    Brent in Calgary

  25. Stephen did a good job, especially considering how he was mischaracterized by the whole process.
    Oppenheimer sickened me. He thinks that he can preach from his Ivy-League-Academia pulpit, and we just have to accept what he says based on that authority. He did not speak like a scientist. Does he give lectures like that? If so, no wonder more and more students are leaving colleges as mind-numbed zombies.
    Cambell “shouldn’t we just clean up the air any way?” 😛 Let’s start with the air filling up that leaky cranium of hers.

  26. Don’t you just love how the media ask these questions ,what do these people have to gain,that they only ask to Chris Horner.What happened to real news ?The media isn’t supposed to try to sway either way but report the facts and let the viewer decide but it’s ON CNN ,Clinton News Network, so what do you expect.

  27. Henry chance (09:54:47) :
    Actually, it is far colder than the excessive warming they predicted.
    Some of us here have been watching the winters hopscotch from North to South and back again in a freezer match.
    So many signs in nature, how could anyone miss them?

  28. Horner should have, when conspiracy was brought up,
    pointed out that the CRU data was used by other organizations,
    and that’s why the “errors” propagated around the world.
    No conspiracy, just misplaced trust, and without open access
    to the raw (non-homogenized) data, a small group of people
    can manipulate worldwide results.

  29. Looking at this from the prespective of changing peoples minds – Oppenheimer clearly out preformed. He was prepared, polished, and presented his key points in a manner that supported his view with mental images that appear to be facts and which the public could contect with.
    While I have great respect for McIntyre, he came across as a deer caught in the headlights of a Mack truck.
    As for Horner, he was underwhelming.
    This was a sad moment.

  30. “NASA’s solar website released this statement, this week….
    SOLAR MINIMUM: The sun is in the pits of a very deep solar minimum. Many researchers thought the sunspot cycle had hit bottom in 2008 when the sun was blank 73% of the time. Not so. 2009 is on the verge of going even lower. So far this year, the sun has been blank 75% of the time, and only a serious outbreak of sunspots over the next few weeks will prevent 2009 from becoming the quietest year in a century. Solar minimum continues”
    Greetings from ‘the Weather Rock’
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17677

  31. I respect McIntyre’s efforts wrt showing the manipulation of the data – and it’s clear he was invited on CNN because he was named in the e-mails but he was out of his depth on the PR front (typical Canadian skeptic- right but boring!). He indicated on CA that he was a bit shaken. After watching his CNN appearance, I happened on Tim Ball’s interview on rediceradio – granted a different format and interview process – but Ball (atypical Canadian scientist?) seems to have a much better grasp of presentation and being “newsworthy”. Nevertheless if we keep shooting, we’ll score some goals (to use a hockey stick metaphor).

  32. I’m pleased to see Stephen remaining “mild mannered” as usual. His very demeanour is completely at odds with the description Phil Jones gave to the FOIA officers, about the “sort of person” we’re dealing with and as somebody leading an “orchestrated campaign of harrassment.”
    Stephen’s last comment summed up in a few sentences the most succint points a skeptic could make: we know it’s warmed since the nineteenth century, but the real battle is being fought over whether it’s warmer than it was in the 11th century. And all Oppeheimer could invoke was the same old global conspiracy of thousands of scientists mantra. Is he really that ignorant?
    Most alarmists keep on about all the other studies that show the same results as CRU. Chris Horner sensibly tried to keep the focus away from these sorts of distractions, keeping to “these scientists” and what “they” have done. These scientists have falsified their results. Why is it relevant what other scientists do? It’s like a con man trying to argue in court that it doesn’t matter if he defrauded his victim, because if he hadn’t some other con man would have.

  33. This was a set-up. These kind of 10 minute venues really work for people like Oppenheimer. He had his talking points not only memorized, but he clearly delivered what was required of him. Not that any of his spin was necessairily accurate, but the platform was tailored made for his type of spin. If CNN really wanted to pick SteveM’s brain they would have given him an exclusive. Oppenheimer was able to steer the discussion to his benefit. SteveM really hadn’t the time to make his points.
    The one point I wished Horner or SteveM could have made was that without Mann’s Hockey Stick and CRUs temp reconstructions, most of the Alarmists theories and studies are problematic. The problems with CRU’s data raise serious questions about both NOAAs and GISS’s temperature analysis. If that point was made, Oppenheimer would have been put on the defensive.

  34. I never heard so many blatant lies issue from one person’s mouth in rapid succession, as I did with Oppenheimer. He hsould have been called on them one after the other while the interviewer was told to cool it until they had been dealt with.

  35. The Chinese are very smart, they currently are providing 95 percent of the rare earth products that go into our cars and wind turbines at masive environmental cost to the poor wreched population of rural China.Soon we will be sending our taxes as cabon credits to China (as a developing country)Carbon credits will then become a massive scandal as the banks(remember them!) create carbon derivative securitised assets in an unregulated market.”How could this have happened” they will say…repeat mantra…this changes nothing….. time is running out…here is the bill. Dozens of reputable studies have shown CO2 persists in the atmosphere for between 5-7 years.The IPCC to make the models work say 150-200.! One thousand years of poisonous CO2debt for our children!!!
    Disgusting.

  36. Surprisingly balanced considering this is CNN and more so than NBCABCCBS. I think the skeptics needed to counter the usual defensive AGW argument that other databases show the same temperature trend as the HADCRU, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the science (so move along!). After all, Horner is the one filing suit against the GISS for their raw data since they have stonewalled FOIA requests.

  37. The old “2,500 scientists” propaganda again! This, in itself, shows intent to deceive. This was the (stated) number of contributors to the 2001 IPCC Report (the 2007 edition had about 3,200 (once duplications were resolved).
    But as we all know, 53 people wrote, contributed to or reviewed chapter 9 of WG 1. Not too difficult to organise a “conspiracy” there, seeing as there are threats and bully of journals, and the like.

  38. She asks “Is this a global conspiracy?” while laughing…..
    Well.. YEAH IT IS.
    [snip], they deserve their coming enslavement.

  39. Did you notice that when Campbell Brown asked Oppenheimer “Exactly what is the evidence proving that CO2 is causing global warming” he never answered the question and changed the subject. His comments that glaciers are still melting is not true and even if they were, the question is NOT whether or not we’ve had global warming (the facts are, we’ve had 4 periods of global warming and cooling this century, 25 warming periods since 1500 AD, huge warming and cooling 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, and most of the past 10,000 yrs have been warmer than now, all before CO2 could possibly have been involved)–the question is whether or not the warming is caused by CO2. JUST BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE IS WARMING DOES NOT PROVE THAT IT IS CAUSED BY INCREASED CO2!!!!
    The atmosphere contains only 0.038% CO2 and has risen only 0.008% since CO2 began to increase significantly. CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect and is only capable of causing less than 0.1 degree of warming. These are scientific facts!

  40. OMG!!!!
    Steve McI. needs a public relations coach if he’s going to make such public appearances. He looked terrible relative to the task & sounded unsure & overwhelmed. Certainly not a display of confidence or competence. Again, in such forums & media, image counts. He is holding to this naive proposition that they do (e.g. the fine hairsplitting regarding a particular detail presented in a pedantic monotone – there’s no place for that in a soundbite forum presented to an audience conditioned to catchy catchphrases). In such contexts image dominates over all else — Recall the Kennedy/Nixon debates if there’s any doubt about content & substance triumphing over image…they don’t. He needs to polish his act (and it is an “act”) or stay out of the media & stick to writing (or limit himself to Fox News).
    Especially this subject–which has long become an emotionally-charged topic–anyone needs to appeal to some emotion in the audience to be heard in televised media (both visually & aurally). The only people he reached were those that already agreed with him. In other words, he didn’t much help the cause.
    The ugly but true fact of human nature at play with this subject is that symbolism triumphs over substance.

  41. Japanese temperature anomaly data is mentioned as an alternative to CRU, GISS, GHCN, etc. Does anyone know where to find that on the internet? Given the incestuous nature of the American and British date, it would be interesting to see what the Asians have come up with.

  42. Now that CRU data is losing credibility we are increasingly being told that NOAA and GISS show the same warming trends (so they must be true).
    As an addict of WUWT I have read various concerns, (Darwin Zero is a good example) but I do not have sufficient knowledge to counter this argument. The timing is right for someone to give an overview of the various databases and to comment on alleged issues with the data.
    This would also help with countering another argument that thousands of scientists globally are producing similar evidence. (If the temperature data is suspect and originates from a small clique who massage the data, then thousands of other scientists use the exaggerated temperature trends in models in their particular fields, you can see how this thing grows.
    I would very much appreciate some help with these topics and I’m sure others would too.

  43. found in the Times comments section: 😉
    Science, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate,” July 9, 1971
    [i]t is projected that man’s potential to pollute will increase six to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present global background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5° K [3.5° C]. Such a large decrease in the average surface temperature of the Earth, sustained over a period of a few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age

  44. Oppenheimer makes several (at least 3) statements that are factually incorrect. Is he deliberately lying? The critics have NOT had access to the data much less for decades,that was a bald faced lie and the point of the FOIA requests that the wistle blower used . No one claimed a “massive Fraud”. Saddly with there effort to block journals and control peer review they made the “large conspiracy” unnecessary. There are not 2500 scientists by any honest definition involved in IPCC. Seriously talking points is one thing this crosses the line into the BS zone.
    He then points to 3 other groups with the same result NASA, NOAA and some Japanese group. Well for years the only claim the NASA and NOAA groups had to accuracy was that they were the same as CRU. We all know there are huge problems with fudge factors and “corrections” in those products. I have never seen anything from the supposed Japanese group. How do I know they have the same result? In WUWT we have read about the Japanese Geophysical Union I believe refuting the CAGW idea.

  45. Alan W,
    I wouldn’t underestimate the positive effect of McIntyre’s performance. I would describe it as insidiously rational. Both Oppenheimer and Horner came across like shills for a cause. McIntyre projected instead an image of someone concerned about the legitimacy of the underlying science.
    In the end, the real battle here is over the scientific process. What seems unquestionable to me is that it has largely been hijacked by a group of scientists to reinforce a particular thesis they believe in. Some of these players seem quite dishonest and pretty vicious to me, but the great majority seem instead to be doing nothing worse than engaging in groupthink.
    Groupthink poses the greatest peril in areas of science that are subject to considerable uncertainty, and in which ideology or institutional commitment can play a role. The uncertainty allows data to be interpreted in ways favorable to the prevailing paradigm. The ideology or institutional commitment creates powerful, if often completely unconscious, personal incentives to trim the data in ways favorable to one’s beliefs.
    What McIntyre has been doing quite effectively over the years, and did quite well in this performance, is to attempt to bring the currently out-of-control scientific process to heel, and to demand that it operate according to correct underlying methodology.
    Introducing transparency is an absolutely key part of this makeover. When real transparency takes hold, the argument over global warming will take off on a very different direction, I believe; I suspect it will deeply unsettle a considerable amount of what is now so often described as settled science. It may be, for all we know, that much of the certainty claimed for CAGW hypothesis will nonetheless survive this event. If so, we can at least be reassured that any actions we may take are based on well grounded science.
    But emphatically we need to know, and have a right to know.
    McIntyre is playing this longer game, I believe — and he’s playing it well.

  46. These reporters are not liberals, they work for some of the most ultra conservative people on the face of the earth. Stay out of the left/right box they try to put you in — by pretending to be in one themselves. Communism and fascism are the alpha and the omega of a circle of totalitarian rule. They are the same thing.

  47. Picked this up from another website
    “284 Plato. Sorry, don’t have the link, but a recent study by volunteers in the US found that virually all of the 1200 or so ground weather stations collecting ground temperatures in the US broke the rules for data collection by being either too close to hot air vents or being surrounded by too much asphalt. That rather indicates that what the US stations have been recording is urban, not global, warming.
    by TimT December 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm ”
    Can anyone substantiate this – my source is very reliable on other subjects.

  48. We are not going to debate as to what degree of TYRANNY we are willing to accept. Not with the UN, not with the EU, not even with our own government!

  49. Mr. McIntyre was subdued and reserved; perhaps too much so. However, his demeanor on camera should nullify any AGW proponents attempts to assassinate his character or blow him off as just another tinfoil-hat denier to the voting public.
    Chris Horner was loaded for bear and it would have been great to see him use his attorney’s interrogative skills with Oppenheimer. CNN would never let that happen.
    Frankly, I would have liked to see Mr. McIntyre challenge Dr. Oppenheimer’s arguments with dispassionate, mathematics-based facts about the corrupted data used by all those other groups Oppenheimer mentioned. The problem with a venue like CNN is that there is never sufficient time to do anything in-depth. A real interview, with tough, probing, show me questions by a real journalist (not a talking head) would be the best possible way to do this. However, I don’t know if there are any real journalists left who could do that sort of interview.

  50. Off topic, but lately I’ve seen the phrase “thousands of climate scientists agree” in several places on these interwebs. Does anyone know just how many climate scientists exist? I’ve never met one. I don’t remember anyone in college studying “climate science”, probably because there was no such thing then.

  51. Ken,
    “The only people he reached were those that already agreed with him. In other words, he didn’t much help the cause.”
    No, I disagree. There will be many educated viewers who will have understood Stephens arguments and seen through Oppenheimer. Of course, there will be many thicko’s who won’t get it. But that’s not the point. You have to step back and take broader perspective. This is one of many broadcasts with many more to come. Some viewers will respond to Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh, other’s to Stuart Varney, and yet other’s to Stephen’s performance here.
    There is no “one size fits all” format.

  52. Oppenheimer makes the classic logical error of Coincidental Correlation or Correlation is not causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)

    The name in Latin means “after this therefore because of this”. This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.

    The obvious correlations are that:
    Fossil fuel use is increasing,
    CO2 is increasing, and increases atmospheric absorption
    “Global” temperature is increasing, which presumably
    Increases water vapor, increasing atmospheric absorption, and that
    Hotter temperatures melt glaciers and increase ocean levels.
    The alarmist projection of coincidental correlation is that therefore:
    continuing fossil fuel use will kill millions of people in low lying countries etc.
    Some unexamined and unvalidated links are:
    How is cloud cover changing and why?
    How is specific humidity changing and why?
    How are atmospheric convection and latent heat flows changing?
    The mantra “global warming” has purposely been changed to “climate change”. This enables the political accusation (and logical fallacy) that:
    If you question reducing fossil fuel by 80%,
    you must be denying the obvious fact that climate is changing and that
    you care nothing for the poor in developing countries.
    This ignores:
    Svensmark’s measured impacts of the sun and cosmic rays on clouds.
    McKitrick’s statistics that half global warming is the Urban Heat Island effect.
    Bangladesh’s delta is rising faster than the ocean etc. etc.
    ClimateGate exposes numerous problems with the received wisdom. We must require open transparent science with full auditing and validation of the causation links, not just feel good correlations and requiring us taxpayers to shell out trillions of dollars to be controlled by unelected bureaucrats in a centralized global government.

  53. “The IPCC encountered a problem when the planet began to measurably cool beginning in 1998. Satellite data since then has demonstrated that the average global temperature has been dropping, mostly in response to the Sun whose solar radiation has moved into what is called “a solar minimum”, a reduction in magnetic storms. This is a natural cycle the Sun has gone through many times over the billions of years of the Earth’s existence”
    Copenhagen: The Next Sneak Attack
    http://www.therealitycheck.org/?p=9095

  54. The false logic at the end is astounding.
    He posits that you have to accept that there is a massive conspiracy between all 2500+ scientists involved in IPCC (although we know that those 2500+ people did not repeat any of the data analysis and are just nodding dogs, victims of their trust in the peer review process – in fact it is worse since some of them are not scientists and some of them are shaking their heads anyhow) before you can accept that there was any wrong doing at CRU.
    We can separate two questions here. i) Is there a massive conspiracy between 2500+ scientists … well, I don’t think there is – and we all need to say so, very loudly; ii) Are some the analyses of the CRU in need of independent and open review with full disclosure of all data and all methods in light of ClimateGate … well, I think so – and that is all we should be asking for.
    The AGW alarmists are trying to make out that the “skeptics”, the “deniers”, are “conspiracy theorists” who believe in Rosswell aliens, that JFK was murdered by the government (or who ever you want to pick), 911 was an inside job, the Catholic Church rules the world, wait, no, he Jews rule the world, no wait, scratch that, it is the Freemasons etc… But this is just a desperate and pathetic smoke screen. Unfortunately it might succeed though.
    I do not think that any honest person can deny that we need of independent review of the CRU outputs in light of ClimateGate. The CRU ought not object to this, since they are honest scientists and science is based around independent verification. Indeed they should be thrilled to bits that we are so interested in their work that we wish to repeat it. So I do not see what the problem is.

  55. There are no “mountains of evidence” for AGW. CRU was all they had. It’s all in the toilet now, but they want to serve it to us for dinner anyway, and charge us premium prices for it, to boot.

  56. The arguments put forward in the NZ televised debate best represent the real issues. Neither author is a “climate scientist,” Morgan is an Investment Manager most likely with a stake in green energy, Ian Wishart is the author of “Air Con,” a skeptic with a stake in book sales.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/climate-change-confusion-you-decide-3241785/video
    Morgan, a multi-millionaire who hired a research/ghost writer for his book “Poles Apart” uses a studied, laconic delivery to claim he only cares for the “science.” We are led to believe he’s something of a scientist himself – yet he only refers to one skeptical scientist, Svensmark that, “I had access to.” No mention of the APS Petition, or 30,000 men and women who signed the Orgegon petition, or of Soon, Happer, Dyson, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Akasofu, Douglass, Loehle, Zoriata, Scaffeta, Pielke, Von Storch, Idsos, etc. ???
    Morgan does offer this thoughtful plea: “But for God’s sake, don’t use a hammer to crack a nut!” Indeed! something in Denmark should smell rotten – given the “balance of evidence” Morgan presents. BTW Gareth, I find about the only thing that does the job on a Brazil nut – is a hammer.
    Poll results: 77% to 23% for Mr. Wishart’s arguments.

  57. Bad interview.
    They did not grab the guy spitting nonsense about rising sea levels, melting ice caps, increasing ocean acidity and rising temperatures by the balls.
    It is possible they did no hear him make this remarks.
    We should ask them if this has been the case, anyhow the harm has been done, the lies are still standing, very bad interview.
    What is standing is the fact that the science is rotten and measures are underway.
    Next time send in Lord Monckton who in my opinion is the Champion of the debate.
    He would have buried the guy and convince the public. Missed opportunity I say.

  58. tj (11:06:55) – Frank Caulfield sits on the board of Time Warner , the owner of CNN . He is also a founding partner of Kleiner Perkins . Does that ring any bells ?

  59. Could McIntyre have talked any slower or stammered more? Frustrating to watch. In the controlled environs of CNN one must be prepared with more than just information. Skeptics must be ready to pounce given the limited face time we get. I hate to admit it but Oppenheimer owned this. As much as I disagree with him he was ‘tanned, rested and ready’. I almost launched a brick at the screen while he glibly regurgitated the AGW hypno-mantra. As much as I respect Horner he could have been more effective.

  60. There are no “2500 scientists” who support the IPCC conclusions. That’s another part of their big lie.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/climate-liars-the-political-elites-myth-of-2500-climate-sceintists-has-now-shrunk-to-25-fallout-from-climategate.html
    Whenever you hear someone parroting that line, you know they are either ignorant, or lying. That alone should disqualify all of their testimony. If they can’t get such a simple fact correct, why should I trust them on the more complicated material?
    It’s the same as the argument in defense of CRU, “yes they were lying about a few things, but you can believe the rest of what they say.” NO!

  61. That bald POS lied nearly everytime he opened his mouth – a deluge of deception. Too bad that Campbell Brown lady wouldn’t let the others interrupt – if I was there I would’ve called him out on every single one of his damn lies.
    Smiling knave!

  62. There may be problems with some of the research —- but magically the data that has been tampered with is just like the real data.
    What are the odds of that?

  63. Robert: I don’t remember anyone in college studying “climate science”, probably because there was no such thing then.
    I took atmospheric physics in college in the early 80’s, judging by the size of the class (7 people out of a University of 50,000) there are not many people who understand the science (although atmospheric physics is not what I would call rocket science – it was actually one of the easier subjects I took). Those that do understand it and who are honest with themselves will admit that it is fairly complex on a global scale when trying to predict tiny variations of a few degrees – a heinously unscientific oversimplification is required to come up with the looney idea that CO2 is the main driver…

  64. 31,000 scientists agree man-made climate change is a fraud, and they signed a petition to Congress to that effect. Is this correct. This should be the immediate counterpoint to their claim their scientists agree.

  65. Fact: Co2 lags Temp increase.
    Fact: Co2 is what breeds life on this planet.
    Fact: the Vikings once Farmed GREENLAND.
    Fact: Michael Oppenheimer fails to admit that the earth has been much warmer then we are today without the massive population we currently have.
    Opinion: Michael Oppenheimer is perpetuating the lie that Green House Gasses cause the earth to warm.

  66. The biggest half-truth was that there are 3 other institutions that came to the same conclusion based on the real data. All 4 institutions keyed off the same mangled data.
    McIntryre was uneasy, but look at the compressed stream of half-truths emitted that he had to choose which lie to confront.
    I am impressed with Horner’s ability to transcend the minefiled laid down by AGW.
    The warming advocates message in the room lasts about as long as it takes to step outside, if that.
    Campbell Brown was terrifly confused about this huge conspiracy necessary.
    It’s not a massive conspiracy, Campbell, it’s all about a ‘cornering of the market’ in terms of what gets the official seal of approval, and who has been excluded from the process.
    The only ‘settled’ in ‘the science is settled’ is that the process was seized and walled off at key origin points. There was no need for massive conspiracy, just make sure that dissenting opinion is both silenced and banished from publication
    .
    It truly is the Scam of the Century.
    Witness the Carnival of Carnivores at Copenhagen.

  67. I had to rewind the second clip and hear it again – look what sleight of mouth the news pesenter uses:
    “Even if you take the emails out of the equasion, the scientific evidence still stands.”
    eh…
    So if you take away the evidence that the data was fudged, the science will stand up. They try to make a tautology sound like a valid argument by pure oral delivery. And they seem tho think we’re dumb. This is apalling, talk about media compliance.

  68. Easy on Steve and his on TV persona. He does this as a hobby. He is retired and has admited his wife wishes he would spend less time on it.
    If one wants to complain, do the stats, get the notoriety, have climate scientists hate your guts and spew venom on your name so you get invited to appear on CNN. And do it for free too.
    He has done a great job to which we are indebted.

  69. I think the only thing that will convince the warm-mongers and their followers is a massive ice age! this is utter insanity! no one wants to hope for that!
    otoh, CNN doesn’t have the ratings that FNC has and FNC is actually talking about it. Doing a pretty poor job but at least better than CNN.
    Could Campbell Brown was rude (derogatory and sarcastic) but we’ve all seen worse (the scientists themselves in the emails).
    Oppenheimer was just a jerk.

  70. Alright. Answered my own question. JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) global average surface temperature anomalies since 1890 may be found at http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
    I found the link on DotEarth where Andrew Revkin says JMA is in agreement with the other data, although a look at his graph and the one at the link don’t resemble each other to me. Although there obviously is warming in all the graphs, the Japanese appear to show a more conservative view of it and don’t hesitate to show the recent decline. However, the Japanese appear not to have tried to reconstruct temperatures earlier than the instrumental record.

  71. TheGoodLocust th (11:57:16) :
    There wasn’t enough time to address all of it.
    McIntyre and Horner said all they needed to.
    Why?
    The AGW line sounded like rhetoric, it smelled like rhetoric, and it tasted like rhetorical SPAM.
    And that is exactly why Public Opinion is dropping like a rock against AGW.
    It stinks of condescending attitude. It’s just as infuriating to listen to for us as it is for Mainstream America.
    We are not alone anymore.

  72. Plato Says (11:09:40) :
    Picked this up from another website
    “284 Plato. Sorry, don’t have the link, but a recent study by volunteers in the US found that virually all of the 1200 or so ground weather stations collecting ground temperatures in the US broke the rules for data collection by being either too close to hot air vents or being surrounded by too much asphalt. That rather indicates that what the US stations have been recording is urban, not global, warming.
    by TimT December 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm ”
    Can anyone substantiate this – my source is very reliable on other subjects.

    You are referring to the surface stations survey run by the author of this blog at http://www.surfacestations.org/
    Yes the surface stations are a scientific mess and have major data integrity problems which only adds to the garbage in garbage out problem with anything that depends on surface station weather/temperature data.
    Larry

  73. Michael Oppenheimer is nothing more then a smug prick!!! Just watching him talk makes my blood boil. He did nothing but perpetuate the same MMGW lies!!!

  74. Steve stayed on topic and got his information across.. and made a very good point at the end… IMO it was “I just want the facts..”
    John Roberts had the nerve to say that the guy that stepped down was physically ill… Oh please..

  75. Oppenheimer just had to get into comparing AGW to the fight over whether tobacco causes cancer, he just couldn’t sit w/o at least 1 Ad Hominen attack.
    What a nut? Get off Foreign Oil. What is he talking about?

  76. “…the EPA declared there is scientific evidence that global warming from green-house gas emissions does pose a threat to American’s health…”
    “…the connection between greenhouse gases, like CO2, carbon dioxide, and global warming, is as solid as the link between smoking and lung cancer…”
    As a matter of my usual curiosity, where is the EPA scientific evidence that Carbon Dioxide is posing a threat to American’s health?
    Where is that solid link between Carbon Dioxide, including man-made CO2, and global warming?
    Could it be that scientific facts are being kept from the tax-payer who has footed the bill for IPCC’s garbage in, garbage out “science?”
    Michael Oppenheimer’s mouthing is not worthy of comment.

  77. This short debate is shows some excellent examples of why the nuanced skeptical story is so often distorted or goes unheard – it can be dull compared to the extremes such as “Disaster is Imminent” or “The Big Lie”, and I’m not calling Steve dull.
    Steve seems to me to attempt to be an “honest broker”, to use a Pielke-ism, but that means that he spends his 30 seconds answering the question rather than rebutting or challenging the rampant exaggeration from Oppenheimer – this consistently puts him on the defensive to a savvy, media trained opponent.
    Chris Horner’s views are extreme and can be viewed as conspiracy-minded. He didn’t articulate why there doesn’t have to be a grand conspiracy when there are only a few sources of global temperature indices and for millennium temperature trends. At the same time he was clear and more importantly engaging which I think is essential since fact isn’t going to be presented in this TV format.
    Let’s face the facts, the warmists are organized and armed in presenting their arguments. Sad to say but to compete in TV media, we’ve got to use the medium effectively and package out points for public consumption – hopefully without distorting them completely out of the zone of comfort.
    Some simple memes that might find traction:
    – Climate gate is important because the data fudging hides cyclical, historical warm periods that threaten the claimed CO2/global warming link.
    – Climategate is important because it shows that all 3 sources of historical temperature trends may be “fudged”.
    – There isn’t a global conspiracy, the members of the hockey-team have fooled the vast majority of reputable scientists as well as the public and well meaning politicians.

  78. What a chance missed. Very poor performance from our side. Oppenheimer is full of it but he came off with a seemingly better argument. He could have (should have) been called on all his points, but the other two were duds. We owe more to McIntyre than we can calculate, but he did not present well. Too bad, but one cannot be everything and he is obviously not the spokesperson type.

  79. Just saw this
    “In Denmark , the venue of the conference, a faction fight broke out on Dec. 4, when the Chairman of the Parliament, Thor Pedersen, a member of the ruling Liberal Party, challenged the validity of man-made climate change, reminding the country’s leading daily, Berlingske Tidende, that it was only a “theory” and not “knowledge.” His statements were backed by other members of his party.”
    source.
    http://news.eirna.com/212082/climategate-the-copenhagen-horror-show-suffers-severe-blows

  80. Thanks Steve and Chris Horner for attempting to set the record straight. No one would have much luck with Campbell Brown, however; she was rabidly for Obama during the nomination and election cycle and would make certain that the warmist slogans got repeated — of course, by a “university professor” — we all can bow down now.
    I enjoyed the pleasure of being “face-to-face” with Steve McIntyre. You are one of my heroes because your efforts over the years truly have been of heroic proportions. Thanks to you scientists and citizens are as far along as we are in understanding how the climate models work and about input data and the code — we now know the methods the pseudo-scientists used to hide all declines and that they infest the American homogenized data right along with that of CRU.
    No one has to disagree that there has been global warming from the 1650s to today; from 1850 to today; from 1978 to 1998. There has been a Medieval Warm Period, a warming from the Little Ice Age, and warming along with positive PDO and AMO, but there has not been a hockey stick globe-on-CO2-fire.
    With gratitude.

  81. Steve McIntyre and Chris Horner:
    Excellent job of handing Oppenheimer the rope to smugly hang himself in the public mind. He did just that.

  82. Go easy on Steve. Please remember he’s had virtually no practice at being interviewed on TV or radio while his AGW opponents have had all of the air time for the last decade. Steve will get sharper once he’s got a few interviews under his belt.

  83. This was CNN, not so much of McIntyre who had small spots to answer to quite specific questions. I actually liked McIntyre’s calm appeareance. He could do nothing to clips that CNN added and to answer to the argument of 2500 scientists.
    PR is so much about what it looks like. Talk about red hot lies is not the thing to do now. Linzen, Spencer and Pielke would have been better selections instead of that.

  84. I was not impressed. The warmist jerk repeated his talking points without much rebuttal. Come on guys! We know the meme is that it is only this group everyone else agrees, and that to say AGW is not proven is to say everyone is in on the conspiracy. There are good reponses to these lets be prepared next time.

  85. Please forgive me for a naïve, hypothetical, absurd off-topic question. If, when all is said and done, the US of A and the rest of the world end up as part of the British Commonwealth, what would we need the UN for? Would it not just close down and take the IPCC with it, end of discussion?

  86. polistra (11:29:28) :
    “Nick Griffin does a MUCH better job of defending science against the Carbon Cult.”
    Yes, but notice the differences between the Griffin and the Lib-Dem MPinterview and interviews with Steve Mcintyre and others, and Ross McKitrick and others.
    It’s an interview format best suited to politicians who can duck punches and land punches. Nick Griffin (leader of a controversial British political party) is well used to standing up for himself in hostile interviews. Sometimes, very hostile interviews. This wasn’t a hostile interview.
    The interviewer seemed fairly neutral.
    They were in the same studio and without comms lags, not one in the studio with the interviewer and the other elsewhere, possibly outdoors. That makes a difference.
    Steve McIntyre sticks to his area of expertise, not the state of the Amazon rainforest, the benefits of windpower, how CO2 affects corals, or any number of other things which might be introduced, and which he may not have looked at closely enough to feel comfortable speaking about. Since when have politicians had the least discomfort talking about things they know nothing of? If they are really clueless, then they are masters of disarming the question.

  87. I would have said to the host: Do you want to save the earth from CO2?….Then Stop breathing! because you are producing an approximate amount of 900 grams per day of carbon dioxide by merely exhaling righ now!

  88. So, China is the gold standard of “green” living? This is the same China that is building coal fired power plants a thousand at a time and had to shutdown their Capitol for a month just to make the air semi-breathable for the Olympics?
    That China?
    I was disappointed with the interview. I realize it’s CNN and they are going to tilt the coverage but to allow the untrue statements that “the data has been there for everyone to challenge” and “that CRU has it right because all the other data agree with it” to go without remarked was sad to see.

  89. Ipse Dixit (13:00:00) :
    “Alright. Answered my own question. JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency) global average surface temperature anomalies since 1890 may be found at http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
    I found the link on DotEarth where Andrew Revkin says JMA is in agreement with the other data, although a look at his graph and the one at the link don’t resemble each other to me. Although there obviously is warming in all the graphs, the Japanese appear to show a more conservative view of it and don’t hesitate to show the recent decline. However, the Japanese appear not to have tried to reconstruct temperatures earlier than the instrumental record”
    Please take a look at their “Data Analysis and Methods” page here: http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/explanation.html
    [quote] JMA estimates global temperature anomalies using data combined not only over land but also over ocean areas. The land part of the combined data for the period before 2000 consists of GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC (the U.S.A.’s National Climatic Data Center), while that for the period after 2001 consists of CLIMAT messages archived at JMA. [/quote]
    Same junk different vendor.

  90. Stephen McKintyre clearly made the most important point.
    Keith Briffa said in the emails that the temperature could have been as high in the C11th as it is now, but he didn’t put that in the IPCC report.

  91. I have just finished trawling round some of the AGW supporting sites – strange how quite a few do not seem to have any recent posts over the last month . . . I wonder why?

  92. SMc did exactly what SMc does best. He was himself. Why should the Statical David who slew the Climatic Goliath aka the Hockey Stick need to present himself any differently. He came over as honest, authorative and quietly spoken.
    Certainly not as the rabid, fanatical nut-job that “sceptics” are often portrayed.
    He clearly commanded respect from those in the broadcast.
    He deals with facts, refuses to be diverted, is ruthless when others dilute arguments with opinion and never gives up. Don’t believe go to Climate Audit and dig around through the archives!
    Clearly he was nervous. So what! He’s a newbie to televised debate but make no mistake, his dogged persistence and intelligence has made him the most feared
    man in the world to the Paleo establishment!
    I owe to Steve, as well as host Anthony, much. This is the man who opened my eyes to the possibility that not all was well in the state of climatology. Got to admit that much of what he wrote went right over my head. What was patently clear, however, was the integrity and razor-sharp intellect that underpinned his site.
    We, the public, are asked to trust the experts when it comes to matters outwith our capabilities. I trust SMc.
    The more that listen to Steve, the more will embark on the journey that I took.
    Thank you sir

  93. *sigh*
    CNN is still biased. Even here where they tried to present a fair and balanced report on the issue, the lead reporter couldn’t keep herself from laughing at the skeptics on at least three occasions.

  94. I have thought for sometime that it would be good to come up with a succinct set of replies that can be used in debating the AGW topic. Specific points that are clearly stated and are based upon the knowledge and understanding we have. If this could be kept in one place as reference and update and improved over time, then it could be given to people who are afforded the opportunity to debate/participate in discussions in the MSM. Below are some good comments from today, but to make it effective these have to be distilled into clear, concise responses. I don’t know the science enough, what I know I am trying to learn here, but would be willing to help edit, if it is something A. Watts would find worthwhile. It just seems a shame that with the tremendous amount of information that this site has accumulated, that it cannot be an even better
    Don Easterbrook (10:53:18) :
    Did you notice that when Campbell Brown asked Oppenheimer “Exactly what is the evidence proving that CO2 is causing global warming” he never answered the question and changed the subject. His comments that glaciers are still melting is not true and even if they were, the question is NOT whether or not we’ve had global warming (the facts are, we’ve had 4 periods of global warming and cooling this century, 25 warming periods since 1500 AD, huge warming and cooling 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, and most of the past 10,000 yrs have been warmer than now, all before CO2 could possibly have been involved)–the question is whether or not the warming is caused by CO2. JUST BECAUSE THE ATMOSPHERE IS WARMING DOES NOT PROVE THAT IT IS CAUSED BY INCREASED CO2!!!!
    The atmosphere contains only 0.038% CO2 and has risen only 0.008% since CO2 began to increase significantly. CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect and is only capable of causing less than 0.1 degree of warming. These are scientific facts!
    David L. Hagen (11:20:35) :
    Oppenheimer makes the classic logical error of Coincidental Correlation or Correlation is not causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
    The name in Latin means “after this therefore because of this”. This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.
    The obvious correlations are that:
    Fossil fuel use is increasing,
    CO2 is increasing, and increases atmospheric absorption
    “Global” temperature is increasing, which presumably
    Increases water vapor, increasing atmospheric absorption, and that
    Hotter temperatures melt glaciers and increase ocean levels.
    The alarmist projection of coincidental correlation is that therefore:
    continuing fossil fuel use will kill millions of people in low lying countries etc.
    Some unexamined and unvalidated links are:
    How is cloud cover changing and why?
    How is specific humidity changing and why?
    How are atmospheric convection and latent heat flows changing?
    The mantra “global warming” has purposely been changed to “climate change”. This enables the political accusation (and logical fallacy) that:
    If you question reducing fossil fuel by 80%,
    you must be denying the obvious fact that climate is changing and that
    you care nothing for the poor in developing countries.
    This ignores:
    Svensmark’s measured impacts of the sun and cosmic rays on clouds.
    McKitrick’s statistics that half global warming is the Urban Heat Island effect.
    Bangladesh’s delta is rising faster than the ocean etc. etc.
    ClimateGate exposes numerous problems with the received wisdom. We must require open transparent science with full auditing and validation of the causation links, not just feel good correlations and requiring us taxpayers to shell out trillions of dollars to be controlled by unelected bureaucrats in a centralized global government.
    yonason (11:55:51) :
    There are no “2500 scientists” who support the IPCC conclusions. That’s another part of their big lie.
    http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/climate-liars-the-political-elites-myth-of-2500-climate-sceintists-has-now-shrunk-to-25-fallout-from-climategate.html
    Whenever you hear someone parroting that line, you know they are either ignorant, or lying. That alone should disqualify all of their testimony. If they can’t get such a simple fact correct, why should I trust them on the more complicated material?
    It’s the same as the argument in defense of CRU, “yes they were lying about a few things, but you can believe the rest of what they say.” NO!

  95. I get so tired of hearing how other data sets are so robust. Is there no way to get the info out that the USA data is corrupt in that the stations themselves are in disrepair or poorly situated… and that they have also been cooked many times by James Hansen, etc?
    Stephen

  96. It took how many years for Steve McIntyre to get the data to challenge?
    And then they turn around and claim the original data is lost or destroyed.
    And how many papers and findings and predictions were based on ‘priveledged information”?
    They (CDIAC) still haven’t found the 1871-1893 original observations thier station history says they have on my hometown.
    I wonder if CRU or other tentacles are responsible for this.

  97. Globe and Mail’s Avner Mandelman with some very wise words about Global Warming:
    Similar irrational manias included global cooling in the 1970s (when investors were urged to invest in thermal insulation, and the like); the Club of Rome’s fear that we’re running out of resources; the Internet dot-com bubble, when insane stock prices for companies without revenues were the norm; and others of the same ilk: mass hysterias that allowed a few media-savvy promoters to take the money of the many, by preying on their credulity, their emotions or both. Like global warming now.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/features/the-buy-side/dont-let-climategate-melt-down-your-portfolio/article1389653/#

  98. In case anybody needs a transcript I took the time to make one for everybody. I hope I transcribed this accurately:
    CNN: “I’m joined by a notable Princeton Professor who I trust with my own children, our own reporter, John Roberts, who has practically researched everything there is to know on this subject, and just knows everything about practically anything because he a reporter, and two crazy whackos who are all in a tizzy over being personally attacked in some emails that were stolen illegally by some nutcase climate skeptic hacker, while we continue to warm the Earth uncontrollably. Thank you all for being here.”
    CNN: “Steven, you’re a [crazy] skeptic, a moron, some guy off the street, with whom nobody agrees, certainly no SCIENTIST, what’s the big deal?
    SM: [Scenes of dead Polar Bears and bloody Walrus on a beach in the background] “Well when we analyze the data, I think…”
    CNN: “I see. Notable PRINCETON Professor, tell us how to really think.”
    Princeton: [scenes huge windmill farms, solar panels, and smiling people in clogs] “CO2 causes global warming. It’s settled. We all know that. There’s nothing here. We all agree.”
    CNN: “What about that Chris Horner? Why are you laughing like the crazy nutcase we all know you are?”
    CH: [scenes of belching smokestacks and glowing waste dumps] “We’ve known this to be a fraud for some time, and simply…”
    CNN: “I’m sorry to interrupt, but John Roberts, you know everything, what’s the story here.”
    JR: [panel behind JR with words ‘Everybody agrees that CO2 is killing you’] “No story really. CO2 causes global warming. It’s settled. We all know that. There’s nothing here. We all agree.”
    CNN: “Stephen, don’t you think it’s better to breathe pure oxygen than to breathe pure CO2?”
    SM: [scene of person suffocating, with the words ‘CO2 kills’] “Well of course I would say…”
    CNN: “Good. Professor, I really don’t want to ASK you a question, so please, make whatever points you’d like.”
    Princeton: [scene of pristine forests, crystal blue lakes, Yosemite] “2,500 scientists agree. And, of course, scientists are people. And all these agencies with complex acronyms, they agree. It’s written down in all these reports. So how can there be a conspiracy? We all agree it’s impossible to prove a conspiracy. Don’t you agree?”
    CNN: “Chris Horner, so everybody agrees.”
    CH: [panel with words ‘EPA agrees, We’re all going to die’] “Yes we agree there’s no global warm…[crosstalk by Princeton], and by the way, everyone in China is going to practically have black lung because…”
    Princeton: [scene of solar panels, brilliant blue sky, and smiling Chinese people waving from Prius] “Oh come on, in China they all drive Prius’ and every family has a windmill, and…”
    CH: [Interrupting] “They don’t drive hybrids over…”
    CNN: “MR HORNER, PLEASE! LET HIM MAKE HIS POINT! Please forgive that interruption, continue.” [under breath] “So ruuude.”
    Princeton: “China emits almost no CO2. Everybody agrees.” [quietly] “Agrees.” [even more quietly] “Agrees.”
    CH: [scene of calving glacier and last shot from movie Titanic before ship sinks, propellers high in the air] “Noooo. It’s like a daily Pinatubo over there. You’ll see what happens in Copenhagen. It’s going to get worse…”
    Princeton: “Well I already KNOW what’s going to happen in Copenhagen, thank you, not because there’s a conspiracy, but because we all agree.”
    CNN: “Well, we just have to see what DOES happen.” [gives wink to Princeton off camera] “That’s all the time we have. Thank you all!” [CNN and Princeton chest bump during commercial.]

  99. it is quite funny this japanese reconstruction, because before today, never heard about it, and since a couple of days it seems emphasized by alarmists: see Oppenheimer in the video, I just saw the post from Lucia about Steig comments on Revkin/Pielke saying which lead me to RC
    “1) independent assessments of the surface temperature data (such as by the Japanese Meteorological Agency) ” why not say “such as GISS”? japanese look more independent from US and UK? what a joke
    I am sure will hear about it more and more…
    when has it been released? any info about it? they still use GHCN provided by NCDC…. is it peer reviewed ? 😉
    last update of their page “Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies” is 2008/9/9…
    but I don’t recall seeing anything about it in AR4 nor latest 2009 compendium about climate change.
    Weird feeling….
    and quite funny (I dl all JMA reports 2003-2008) they changed their graph in 2005:
    2003-2004: reconstruction from 1880; anomaly in 2002 or so: +0.5 °C; anomaly between 1890 and 1900 goes down about -0.9 °C
    2005-2008: reconstruction from 1890; anomaly in 2002 or so: +0.3 °C; anomaly between 1890 and 1900 goes down about -0.7 °C
    wait another 3 years and we’re flat…
    many such small differences but no apparent back-changes since 2005

  100. Michael Oppenheimer said far too much BS on camera. It ought to be easy to clip and paste his comments, interspaced with evidence that refutes what he claims.
    McIntyre is not made for firey debates. He has been patient and polite with the likes of Mann and Briffa, and often snips the comments of people prone to outbursts (like myself) on his site. In this manner he brings a level of dignity to the discussions which Mann and Briffa sorely lack.
    Don’t try to change McIntyre. However others who can debate with fire ought be put foreward.

  101. Here is a giganormous chart breaking down the two sides to climate change. This is from “The Big Picture”
    http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

    One big problem with it is the black background it uses, making it ink-costly to print out (and it ought to be printed out for reference).
    I like the idea of a point/counterpoint boiling-down of the key arguments, and a compartmentalized framework is needed for the debate, and this is a good attempt, but it barely gets to the bottom of the disputes — and it gives the warmists the last word.

  102. Bret Baier Update on Climategate 12-08-09

    Does anybody want me to stop posting Video news on climategate?

  103. She has a scientist, McIntyre, and an author, Horner, who have been intrepidly researching the issue for years and years, and she seems to want to lead them into a discussion to say there is a “global conspiracy.”
    They set that “great conspiracy” issue up twice and scoffed at it.
    I thought that was a nasty little trick to try to get the interviewees to speculate on motives.
    Nevertheless, perhaps one of them could have directed her to government documents that spell out how to convince a skeptical public of AGW, which were also part of the leaks.

  104. I would like to point out that Steve Mcintyre was one of the 2,500 involved with the last IPCC report. I’m always amused by remembering that Steve is a joint winner of the Nobel Peace prize with Al Gore.
    I thought Steve spoke well, he has come on tremendously since his first public outings yet retained that sincere, mild-mannered commitment to hard statistical questions.
    People need to understand that the medium is part of the problem along with the hard-selling of particular versions of AGW. Its why Horner’s behaviour depresses me as much as Oppenheimer’s. I felt like Mercutio watching their performances.

  105. I believe McIntyre said he was a bit nervous about doing this but I think he did a really good job of coming off as the balanced rational one- as much as you can hope for given the short time to answer. If it was me I would hve been inclined to call Oppenheimer a lier every time he opened his mouth. These guys just don’t seem to have any sense of when they they are attributing way more to the data than it can support. For me, the question is whether it is cognitive dissonance or orchestrated lying.

  106. Has anyone considered asking Jo Nova to perhaps moderate a debate from REAL scientists – ? I think she has some expertise in this?
    I think Mr. McIntyre came across very well.
    I hold him in very high regard for his work for the people of the world and our planet.

  107. This low Sun activity is dam peculiar.
    Solar wind
    speed: 289.9 km/sec
    density: 0.6 protons/cm3
    Sunspot number: 0
    Updated 07 Dec 2009
    Spotless Days
    Current Stretch: 15 days
    2009 total: 258 days (76%)
    Since 2004: 769 days
    Typical Solar Min: 485 days

  108. So, that’s just great. All global surface temperature anomaly datasets in the world derive from GHCN and that is suspected of having been cooked.
    There’s no alternative but to start over.

  109. Wow.
    This Princeton professor knows absolutely nothing about economics.
    Seems to be a common problem at that institution.
    And these “newspeople” sure have a hard time getting their heads around the incentive (funding) to fudge data and present worst case scenarios. It’s shameful that they can’t put the pieces together.

  110. Horner missed a softball, when Oppenheimer claimed that the other three datasets (two in the US, one in Japan) independently confirmed the CRU conclusions. Why didn’t Horner jump in and tell the audience that all those datasets are really sharing most of their (massaged) data, and are not independent at all?
    We are letting the slick Alarmists like Oppenheimer, with his quick talking points, ride all over us, because we don’t have articulate spokesmen who can get on TV and make a convincing case.
    How about it Anthony? You know the arguments, and you know how to use the camera. You’re the logical choice!
    /Mr Lynn

  111. Did I hear someone in that second video actually claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere ‘forever’?
    I think it was Michael Oppenheimer.

  112. Further to my post above, I suggest readers here contact the news media, especially the TV networks (broadcast and cable) and recommend Anthony Watts as a spokesman for the ‘skeptics’. Maybe start with Bret Baier at Fox, since he and his producers are likely to be the most receptive.
    /Mr Lynn

  113. [ Senator: The war’s over. Our side won the war. Now we must busy ourselves winning the peace. And Fletcher, there’s an old saying: To the victors belong the spoils.
    Fletcher: There’s another old saying, Senator: Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining. ]
    : Excerpt from, ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’.
    Whenever I see advocacy for global warming, such as was spoken by Oppenheimer, that line spoken by Fletcher often surfaces up in my mind. I imagine many of us, the denialists of climate change and the status quo, have thought the same thing.
    But is there anything we can do to stop from being pissed on?
    There may be, but only time will tell.
    A sentiment among many a enviromentalist, is that regardless of the state of climate change, cleaning up pollution is the only pure crusade.
    ‘The conservation of natural resources and the protection of the environment from man-made pollution is the only crusade we must not surrender. The sceptics of climate change, are the enemy of the state.’ …. anonymous
    Somehow, a sceptic of AGW is not sensitive to the issue of protecting the environment. Instead, we are viewed as scum and miscreants, followers of Big Oil and propagandists for world destruction.
    And all of this is based on choosing a side on the theory of Manmade CO2 is the evil pollutant behind everything wrong with our planet.
    A message I would like to send to anyone reading this post is that most sceptics are in favor of protecting the environment. What we sceptics don’t support is the falsification and manipulations of corrupt scientists and politicians that would have you believe that CO2 is pollution and must be controlled. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
    If the truth be told, the majority of people, regardless what side of the issue they are on, are getting their backsides pissed on from only those that have a financial gain in all of this.
    It’s time that we all take up one cause, and that is to find those behind the lies and deceit and piss on them for a change.

  114. She said, “You’re suggesting that there is this massive global conspiracy to make a certain case, and logically, it just doesn’t make sense.”
    Someone should ask her whether it makes sense that the U.S. and other developed countries owe $24 trillion in “climate debt” to the rest of the world, as the UN has said.
    _Red Hot Lies_ looks like a good book.

  115. Stephen McIntyre was careful in what he said. Demeanor says more than words some times.

  116. The seas could fall up to 30 feet if the solar minimum keeps up. Some countries could benefit more than others. The UN should be planning for a redistribution of land in the wake of the increasing solar minimum.

  117. If anyone reading this ends up on tv and the ‘2500 scientists’ comes up could I suggest you bring up that the 2500 are not all scientists and of those that are scientists among them are people like Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Christopher Landsea?

  118. “Bill Sticker (16:59:38) :
    Did I hear someone in that second video actually claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere ‘forever’?
    I think it was Michael Oppenheimer.”
    Someone should make a funny youtube video to discredit these goofy people with their own absurd comments.

  119. Did I hear someone in that second video actually claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere ‘forever’?
    I think it was Michael Oppenheimer.

    I did hear him bring up the ‘2500 scientists’. Unimpressive of him, and telling.
    He also brought up George Bush. It doesn’t settle a scientific argument to bring up a politicians name.

  120. I’m trying to get om to ClimateAudit to give Steve McIntyre a pat on the back in comment.
    Can’t get on right now. They showed “Climate Audit” with his name. He is inundated now.
    🙂 🙂 :-):-)

  121. If you’re not a skeptic, You’re not a scientist.
    This would be a great headline for one of those ads people are putting in the news papers.

  122. Gary Plyler (09:50:45) :
    It’s going on 3 weeks since the emails and data hit the internet, and John Roberts has “looked at this for several days”.
    I caught that too.
    Campbell Brown said, “And back with me, who has been doing a lot of research on all of this, is our very own CNN’s John Roberts..” Later he said he’s been looking in to it for a few days—6:50 to 6:57 of part 1.
    I think many people caught that.

  123. I should have been a journalist.
    Looking For Climategate’s Deep Throat, would be the name of a story by me. Oh well someone else can use it.

  124. PeterS (10:57:51) :
    “Now that CRU data is losing credibility we are increasingly being told that NOAA and GISS show the same warming trends (so they must be true).”
    Now, hold on. I haven’t seen anyone here counter this with the argument that as the major data sets NOAA, GISS AND CRU all are based mostly on GHCN data set (Eshcenbach) and have common results that ALL the sets are suspect. Therefore, all sets must be examined and no actions taken based on their results.
    This seems to me to be a much more reasonable conclusion and call for action than to proceed using plausibly suspect CRU, and therefore NOAA and GISS, without in depth examination.
    Did I miss someone posing this? I am very interested in the Japanese data and look forward to seeing it examined.
    I have not viewed the debate, yet. Anthony seems a good rep. (tv experience), as would be Monckton, of course. I’m sure others could rise to the occasion. My best to McIntyre, maybe an interview setting would be the thing, instead of a debate.

  125. That BBC reporter who first got the e-mail leak in October is no Woodward or Bernstein. That’s got to be the biggest lost opportunity of a lifetime ever. What was his name? Oh never mind, it doesn’t matter now.
    Who is going to make the movie, “All The UN’s Men”?

  126. Plato Says (11:09:40) :
    by TimT December 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm ”
    Can anyone substantiate this – my source is very reliable on other subjects.”
    You couldn’t mean Anthony’s site, could you? – http://www.surfacestations.org/
    YOu could also try searching this blog for surfacestations, I’m sure.

  127. Thanks for posting this.
    OK for what is was. Steve M was a little out of his element but he gave it a shot. Can’t fault him for trying.
    He needs to do more media. Better that he talks for the other side than ideologists like Horner. We need more discussion of the scientific aspects of this matter.

  128. Just watched another Campbell Brown segment between Pat Michaels and Bill Nye the Science Guy.
    Amazing that Nye did not acknowledge the scientific fraud. He dismissed the Australian data discrepancy as “local” only.
    Nye brought up the analogy that a small minority of “scientists” were critical of the consensus opinion that smoking is hazardous. The obvious rebuttal to that straw man argument is that Galileo stood alone against the overwhelming consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth. The evidence was before everyone’s eyes — watch the Sun travel East to West in the sky daily. Nevertheless, quite right, was Galileo.
    Only the intellectually dishonest fail to acknowledge that there is a legitimate question whether the surface temperature data is accurate. To that end, I have yet to read or hear any “skeptic” say that his/her opinion would not be swayed if the underlying data were proven to be accurate despite the emails and dubious code.
    I strongly urge Anthony to produce and self-publish a video hitting the salient points calling into question the legitimacy of the science of AGW.
    I’ve lost all respect for Bill Nye.

  129. One thing that struck me was that Steve and Horner didn’t challenge the claim that these other groups data is valid. Given NASA also wont comply with FOIA requests for the data, their GISS claimed temperatures are equally noncredible. So it would have helped to step in and challenge that claim when it came up and not shrink from doing so.
    As for the Japanese, I have no idea if there are any Japanese skeptics trying to get the Japanese group to disclose their data.

  130. Minor correction to earlier post; actual quote from Oppenheimer in video 2 was “for decades, for centuries, even for millennia.”
    Apologies for misquoting. Must try harder.

  131. @ TurkeyLurkey: I was on climateaudit.org earlier but now I am getting a proxy error that says the directory cannot be found.

  132. Some Notes:
    CNN – John Roberts, College Dropout
    I have told everyone that Steve McIntyre is NOT a spokesperson, he is however a brilliant analyst. So I do not see the surprise or shock of his performance as this is his demeanor if you have seen him in any of his other interviews. Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Chris Horner and Marc Morano are all better spokespeople.
    Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
    Oppenheimer repeated various lies,
    1. There are no 2500 scientists,
    The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Canada Free Press)
    2. CO2 Residence Time of hundreds of years is nonsense,
    Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 (PDF) (Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology)
    Potential Dependence of Global Warming on the Residence Time (RT) in the Atmosphere of Anthropogenically Sourced Carbon Dioxide
    (Energy Fuels, Volume 23, Number 5, pp 2773–2784, April 2009)
    – Robert H. Essenhigh
    4. Sea Ice is NOT retreating in Antarctica,
    Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (The Australian)
    3. We are not dependent on Middle East Oil,
    – Only 16% of U.S. oil imports come from the Middle East (EIA)
    And of course Mrs. Brown repeated the pollution lie,
    Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Not Pollution

  133. Yeah baby, CNN smells the ratings going up when there’s scandal on the table, and we’ll see more of this these days.
    Fortunately -and its not my intend to be condescending- the skeptics are much more pragmatic and well informed. Mose of the alarmists just repeat the propaganda, and nothing deeper than that.

  134. Poptech (19:39:16) :
    Well, how’s about we do a pop quiz.
    Those questions you ask and others.
    Let’s test drive it here, and then mabye it can appear on places like Fox News, etc.
    Call it “Test Drive your ClimateGate knowledge” T/F and Multiple Choice stuff.
    Think this is worth a poll, Anthony?

  135. LEAVE
    STEVE M.
    ALONE!!!!!!!
    Leave him a-lo-oh-oh-oh-one!!!!!! Bawhahahahaha
    But seriously, Steve is what REAL scientists should come across as. He’s a frickin statistician, not a political operative. I’d take a Steve M over Oppenheimer, Hansen or Mann any day if I really had to get to the bottom of something.
    He’s the real deal, and if people don’t listen to him because he’s as slick as the Hockey Team with their misdirection and rehearsed talking points so be it – 100 years ago they would have bought snake oil… some things never change

  136. tj (11:06:55) :
    These reporters are not liberals, they work for some of the most ultra conservative people on the face of the earth. Stay out of the left/right box they try to put you in — by pretending to be in one themselves. Communism and fascism are the alpha and the omega of a circle of totalitarian rule. They are the same thing.
    Only to correct your idea, tj, that Fascism is right wing/conservative. The NAZI’s were Socialists. State control of everything unites them with Communists. It’s basically a distinction without a difference between them.

  137. I think McIntyre came across very positively. Down to earth, sympathetic. Got his points across calmly and peacefully. Unlike the two ideologues present. Nothing like the evil big oil lackey the team would like to portray him as. Just a normal person people can relate to.
    But what comes to Horner.. Seriously, what is that talk of cooling? It is embarassing, unscientific and does the cause great harm. Someone should inform these people, as they can be used as examples to “prove” how sceptics don’t know the science.

  138. Makes it all look like a stalemate, at best, and that skeptics are still “light years behind” at worst. Came across as just a sound-bite, not meant to be anything more than that, I think. However…
    Good point made by Chris Horner, though, that fighting CO2 doesn’t nessecarily mean fighting real pollution. Also, that McIntyre was at least given the time/space to shed light on mention the MWP is a plus. The average person who hasn’t been keeping up with this will have something to look into (if they were ignoring the usual repeats and eurruption of interuptions, that is)

  139. From a PR point of view, I think Oppenheimer came with the best talking points. Unfortunately his plan was to divert attention from the real fraud. Most people believe in AGW because they trust the “scientists”, not because they understand the science. Oppenheimer played on that, suggesting to think there is fraud is to think all the scientists are committing fraud. Smart but evil.

  140. liberalbiorealist (10:09:25) :
    “This guy Chris Horner is an embarrassment.

    No he is an attorney. [lol]
    liberalbiorealist (10:09:25) : “You want to know why Climate skeptics exude such a bad odor to most educated people? Look no further than Chris Horner.”
    Well to extend your ad hom….your absence of criticism of the the Gore-like Oppenheimer (any relation to…..???) shows that you have no ability to be objective on this situation.
    Yeah Chris is an atty. Big deal. Something those in pursuit of justice and those have in pursuit of the Scientific Method have in common: The TRUTH.
    And frankly….Mr. Horner makes a better apologia than you do here.
    He can take care of himself.
    The same can not be said, about you.
    Chris (another one)
    Norfolk, VA, USA


    REPLY:
    Apparently he’s never seen Joe Romm. Horner is a saint compared to Romm’s rantings. – A

  141. NickB. (20:26:17) :
    Forgot to comment on that. Yes, I think Steve McIntyre’s words and conduct were just right. Granted, that wasn’t enough to get anything more than the usual repeats, but a sudden changing of mind wasn’t going to happen annyway. He probably did more for the skeptical side by keeping calm and quiet. If this were a real a debate, instead of the sound-bite I think it was meant to be, I think he would have articulated more points on the skepticism and why those points are important. But again, it isn’t like this was a moment where warmists were going to be strengthened or broken or anything like that. Just a re-stating of the two sides positions, basically, only this time from the mouth of one person who was mentioned many times in those emails.

  142. “We need to get off fossil fuels” – these sort of juvenile remarks by economic illiterates such as Oppenheimer would lead to mass starvation and destroy every economy on the planet. Please tell me what is so evil about energy sources that have given us the highest standard of living and life expectancy of anyone on the planet? The reality is we use “fossil fuels” because they are the most economically efficient sources of energy. People who make idiotic statements like Oppenheimer have no remote clue about where our energy comes from, how or why it is used.
    Facts about U.S. Energy Usage:
    – 50% of U.S. electrical generation comes from coal (EIA) (22% Natural Gas, 19% Nuclear, 6% Hydroelectric, 2% from “Renewables” and 1% from Oil)
    – Coal Power plants being built today emit 90 percent less pollutants (SO2, NOx, Particulates, mercury) than the plants they replaced from the 1970s (NMA)
    – Emissions from coal-based electricity generation have decreased overall by nearly 40 percent since the 1970s while coal use has tripled (NMA)
    – Only 16% of U.S. oil imports come from the Middle East (EIA)
    – The largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Canada (EIA)
    – The third largest supplier of oil to the U.S. is Mexico (EIA)
    – Only 1% of the United States electrical generation comes from oil (EIA) (50% Coal, 22% Natural Gas, 19% Nuclear)
    – The U.S. uses 25% of the world’s oil supply because it produces over 25% of the world’s economy (World Bank)
    Getting off “fossil fuels” is the equivalent of returning to the 19th century. If there were other sources of energy that could replace fossil fuels we would be using them. This is what people do not understand, markets will always use what is the most efficient form of energy available so long as governments get out of the way. What governments are trying to do is force the usage of expensive and unreliable forms of energy. The average person has no idea that this means energy costs over 10x what they are paying now and this is for the developed world, these sorts of costs on the third world will lead to genocide.

  143. imapopulist (10:01:06) : “Campbell Brown is your existential liberal. She is so liberal she doesn’t even realize that she is liberal.”
    I thought [for CNN] she did a pretty damn good job. [And she ain’t bad to look at either].
    Stop with the “liberal” labels.
    Your method is so 1990s.
    It is a new era. And it is not liberal or conservative black or white.
    It is about truth and if we are going to defeat this AGW cult religion, then people of different political persuasions are going to have to get along in the same room for a hot minute.
    Stop the ******* polarizing and labels.
    That is so outdated it ain’t even funny anymore.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  144. I have to say I am quite disappointed: Oppenheimer completely controlled the panel and McIntyre and Horner did not challenge any of the recycled AGW claims. I will give McIntyre a pass because this was the first time he was on television, but for Mr. Horner this is just unacceptable.
    This was a golden opportunity to share the skeptics’ side of the story and, frankly, Mr. Horner blew it. Truly depressing.

  145. liberalbiorealist (11:03:38) :
    “Both Oppenheimer and Horner came across like shills for a cause. McIntyre projected instead an image of someone concerned about the legitimacy of the underlying science.”

    AGREED about McIntyre.
    However, your logic is skewed about Oppenheimer and Horner.
    Horner made a much more solid case. He was speaking as an atty….and the word FRAUD came out.
    What the **** do you expect???
    And he is right.
    In Oppenheimer’s case he is a professor, talking as the WORST of politicians.
    Sorry, liberalbiorealist, there IS no comparison with Oppenheimer’s embarrassment to the attorney’s.
    The atty. wins out….hands down.
    If you can not suppress enough cognitive dissonance to say no say it isn’t so…then there is no conversation here.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  146. JoeyD, McIntyre himself has underlined that he is not a climate skeptic (in the sense most of his readers are) and has no opinion on climate policies/politics. So if you are waiting for (C)AGW critical sound bites from him you are waiting in vain I’m afraid.
    Personally I admire his stance and persistence. There is no need for him to undermine his integrity and scientific neutrality by attaching his scientific criticisms to climate politics.
    I hope I haven’t misinterpreted anything, but as a long time reader of CA it seems the criticism of McIntyre in this thread is bit misguided and based on a misunderstanding of his stated position and views (or lack of them).

  147. eRtwngr (10:07:25) :
    What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW. Is that possibly because anyone who had an opposing view either couldn’t get grants or was laughed out of the “club” and is now washing cars for a living?
    The poll was not unbiased. It was flawed.
    If you want a more accurate poll of scientists that work in climate and weather look at this one:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/ams-tv-weathercaster-survey-on-climate-raises-eyebrows/

  148. What I would have liked to hear discussed is whether or not cutting emissions would have any meaningful effect on stablizing or slowing temperature increases. But like Oppenheimer said, global warming is more about wealth distribution and the prospect for economic leverage via “green jobs.” Because deep down, money is what motivates people, not the prospect of a insanely slow warming of the earth that no one in their right minds even notices or ever will. Climate won’t kill you. Weather will.

  149. eRtwngr (10:07:25) :
    What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW.
    You also have to be careful with the wording of polls. What you said isn’t really what the poll said. It didn’t say 97% of climatologists agree with AGW.
    What it more likely was saying is does man affect climate. Even if you think man’s effect on climate is minuscule or irrelevant you still think man affects climate—very small but still existing.
    There is a wide range of possible meanings in such a question. There should be more nuanced questions asked in these polls.

  150. JoeyD (21:04:55) :
    This was a golden opportunity to share the skeptics’ side of the story and, frankly, Mr. Horner blew it. Truly depressing.
    I think you should have reason to feel optimism. There was a time not too long ago that you would have never seen Steve McIntyre on CNN, or anywhere else on American tv. The fact that he was on tv tells me something good is brewing.
    ClimateGate is the shot heard ’round the world.
    And I think you’re right about Steve M’s inexperience and Michael Oppenheimer seeming control of the interview. Michael Oppenheimer, and all others of his ilk, have had the ear of the media for 20 years. They have felt at home and have been speaking uninterrupted—until now.
    But I think Michael Oppenheimer showed insecurities today. 🙂

  151. Brown was horrible and didn’t call’em out on the talking points. You gotta call a spade a spade or the war is lost before it begins. This “Can’t we all get along” is so 90’s, just drop it. Agreement on a subject does not preclude all else. Projection with disgust is a liberal art form, excellent! How can a conversation be had with these parameters? This has been the problem from the get go.

  152. “REPLY: Apparently he’s never seen Joe Romm. Horner is a saint compared to Romm’s rantings. – A”
    Yah. Agreed.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  153. Congratulations, Steve. Short. To the point. And substantial. And your talking points stood up well against those made by people who do the talking-head thing for a living. I’d have to say that’s a home run.

  154. savethesharks (20:53:07) :
    liberalbiorealist (10:09:25) :
    No he is an attorney.
    It’s odd how when the media talks about Bill and Hillary Clinton they never mention that both are lawyers, and that Bill Clinton suffered a disbarment.

  155. I am disappointed that no one confronted Oppenheimer regarding his preposterous claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for “thousands of years”. He should have been asked some of the following questions: What are the reactants in the photosynthesis reaction? (CO2 and H2O) Why do greehouse owners pump CO2 into their greenhouses? (It drives the photosynthesis reaction and plant growth) What about the studies that show a 35% plus increase in plant growth when CO2 is doubled? What is the pH of Carbonic Acid in comparison to Sulfuric and Nitric Acid? ( about 5 compared to <1. Remember, pH is logarithmic, not arithmetic) What is the Ksp of Calcium Carbonate, and isn't it true that it precipitates out in the ocean as organic and inorganic Calcium Carbonate (Limestone)? Where did the huge beds of limestone on the ocean floors come from? Etc.. Any good grade school science student could have confronted him with questions like this!

  156. tj (11:06:55) :
    These reporters are not liberals, they work for some of the most ultra conservative people on the face of the earth. Stay out of the left/right box they try to put you in — by pretending to be in one themselves. Communism and fascism are the alpha and the omega of a circle of totalitarian rule. They are the same thing.
    And
    savethesharks (20:57:38) :
    imapopulist (10:01:06) : “Campbell Brown is your existential liberal. She is so liberal she doesn’t even realize that she is liberal.”
    I thought [for CNN] she did a pretty damn good job. [And she ain’t bad to look at either].
    Stop with the “liberal” labels.
    >>>
    Please stop trying to remove the liberal/left label. It’s a pseudo intellectual argument.
    The AGW movement was born of the far left, nurtured by the liberal left and sold to the masses by the mainstream left – period. Those are the facts and to remove them is disingenuous and revisionist history.
    1.) it’s not left vs. right, it’s just labeling the movement correctly.
    2.) Putting your head in the sand and wishing it was only about the science is what put us in this mess. Play the whole game or don’t play at all (and let them steamroll you…).
    3.) The weak link is the IPCC. They have been driving this and the smoking gun resides within their ranks. It would take too many deals to build that large a coalition. There has to be some buried bones !

  157. John K. Sutherland (10:45:44) :
    I never heard so many blatant lies issue from one person’s mouth in rapid succession, as I did with Oppenheimer.
    It really was pathetic that he brought up George Bush. At the same time though in that he brought politics into it he belied his political leaning–he didn’t just stick to talking about scientific data which is what all scientists are supposed to do. He knows he doesn’t have the power to sway people with his science alone so he put weight into his argument with politics. There should have been no need to bring up George Bush if instinctively he knew his science was enough
    Thankfully he stuck to the same worn out script we’ve all been hearing for years. I think that’s all the warming alarmists have. And people have turned a deaf ear to that script a long time ago. It just isn’t good enough.
    Nothing like beating a dead horse, hey Mr. Oppenheimer?

  158. Bob Tisdale (10:46:59) :
    Anthony: I believe we beat Campbell Brown to the scoop. She announced, “The big announcement expected tomorrow: that this decade has been the warmest on record.”
    It would be wonderful to see Anthony on CNN talking about UHI and also poor station placement. Stations by AC ducts and over blacktop would put a nice question mark in people’s minds about warming. 🙂
    http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/Tucson1.jpg

  159. mkurbo (21:58:11) : “Please stop trying to remove the liberal/left label. It’s a pseudo intellectual argument.
    The AGW movement was born of the far left, nurtured by the liberal left and sold to the masses by the mainstream left – period. Those are the facts and to remove them is disingenuous and revisionist history.
    1.) it’s not left vs. right, it’s just labeling the movement correctly.
    2.) Putting your head in the sand and wishing it was only about the science is what put us in this mess. Play the whole game or don’t play at all (and let them steamroll you…)”

    Uh huh….and the more you polarize, the more de-volved your argument becomes.
    Who’s head in what motha***** sand, mkurbo???
    No head in the sand, snow, or any other surface.
    Just trying to band together different factions….who (for lack of a better cause) might agree to band together for this common enemy: the behemoth of AGW.
    Lose your political ties, mkurbo, stop listening to Rush so much (yeah yeah, I listen to him to), have a couple of drinks, and come talk to me in the morning.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  160. Don Easterbrook (10:53:18) :
    I wish you could be on tv and give this same argument!
    You make sense and average people could understand you.

  161. “The AGW movement was born of the far left, nurtured by the liberal left and sold to the masses by the mainstream left – period. Those are the facts and to remove them is disingenuous and revisionist history.”
    Your polarization is part of the problem.
    Interesting that far “left” meets far “right” eventually, in an omega.
    Look back to the horrors of WW II and you needn’y look any further.
    All I am saying is that this is 2009.
    TWO THOUSAND NINE.
    If we are going to evolve and pursue what is best for the planet, then occasionally we are going to need to drop our egos and our labels and stop polarizing into a left-right thing.
    Left and right is outdated.
    Or are you stuck in the 90s??
    The real error….the REAL error is that we have been letting bureaucrats run the world.
    Everyone can learn what is wrong with the world by reading a couple of Rand novels.
    She was right.
    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  162. The amazing thing here is that CNN even covered this! Kudos to them, for a change. Also amazing is that in covering it that they actually spent more than 32 seconds on it.

  163. Who are those artificial humanoids on CNN? Campbell Brown ? Anderson Cooper? Pinheads with opinions and agendas, just what we need more of. The Cooper Pinhead just said he was tired of listening to scientists, so he was going to the arctic and get the real poop! he would be keepin’ those glaciers honest, believe you me. These kind of people impersonating Walter Cronkite or other real journalists make ‘me want to hurl’!
    What’s the deal with the small non sexual men on TV, those like Cooper paired with amazon looking babes, who can barely pronounce Kabul properly, but they can flex those lips to let you know what you’re missing!

  164. Mailman (12:52:24) :
    Jesus, give McIntyre a break. He is a statistician, not a magician!
    Mailman

    I agree. And I like it that he is that way.
    It seems some people were looking for P.T. Barnum.

  165. philincalifornia (21:44:01) :
    Naaah, not at all. The first thing I would think if I saw a huge iceberg off San Francisco is errrmmmm “Global Warming” !!!!!
    —————————-
    And how about the snow from the early Monday morning hours snowfall that still can be seen in the hills above Alamo and Danville west side of 680! Not to mention Mt. Diablo still is half covered from the same snowfall.

  166. Tyler (15:49:37) :
    In case anybody needs a transcript I took the time to make one for everybody. I hope I transcribed this accurately:
    CNN: “I’m joined by a notable Princeton Professor who I trust with my own children, our own reporter, John Roberts, who has practically researched everything there is to know on this subject, and just knows everything about practically anything because he a reporter, and two crazy whackos who are all in a tizzy over being personally attacked in some emails that were stolen illegally by some nutcase climate skeptic hacker, while we continue to warm the Earth uncontrollably. Thank you all for being here.”

    ———————————————
    “emails that were stolen illegally by some nutcase climate skeptic hacker”
    No wait, should have read
    “emails that were stolen illegally by some covert Russian government plot operative then sent to a nutcase climate skeptic/denier hacker who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, pollution is a-okay, the earth is, and I quote, “of course flat”, who voted for Bush and Cheney, twice, and who was paid by Saudi big oil money to lie about global warming”
    JUST KIDDING 😉

  167. 1. How good is NASA data? Check this out.
    http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
    2. Global Warming, Climate Change, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, etc. are all distractions to confuse the public, and divert attention from demanding proof of the idea that humans are causing AWG.
    3. According to 2001 report of IPCC, less than 5% of the co2 in the atmosphere is from human sources. Where are the papers that show that the probability of the human portion of co2 causing the global warming is greater than 0%???
    4. Studies during the 1960’s & 70’s showed that co2 from each year was absorbed by the earth in a logrithmic manner, ie, 50% gone in 5 to7 years, 75% in 10 to 14 years, 87 1/2%in 15 to21 years and so on. in 1000 years there would be so few left that Mr. Oppenheimer cound count them without having to take off his shoes.

  168. I think Mr McIntyre did a great job. He is genuine, sober and solid, contrary to the popular image of sceptics. I think he lends credibility to sceptical science.
    Good job.

  169. I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy – just a shared mindset that allows people to distort and conceal with a good conscience.
    See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:

  170. David Alan wrote:
    “A sentiment among many an environmentalist is that regardless of the state of climate change, cleaning up pollution is the only pure crusade.
    ‘The conservation of natural resources and the protection of the environment from man-made pollution is the only crusade we must not surrender. The sceptics of climate change, are the enemy of the state.’ …. anonymous
    Somehow, a sceptic of AGW is not sensitive to the issue of protecting the environment. Instead, we are viewed as scum and miscreants, followers of Big Oil and propagandists for world destruction.
    And all of this is based on choosing a side on the theory of Manmade CO2 is the evil pollutant behind everything wrong with our planet.”

    Conflict over many issues is largely social posturing — i.e., status-seeking and self-preening — in order to get “one up” on some demonized Other. By down-grading deniers as evil incarnate, the warmist on the other end of the seesaw elevates his self- and social image. The ultimate basis of this one-upsmanship is our ape-driven instinct, especially among guys, to be the troupe’s Top Banana. As Huxley wrote:
    Surely it’s obvious
    Doesn’t every schoolboy know it
    Ends are ape-chosen
    Only the means are man’s

    For more on one-upsmanship, see the book of that title by Stephen Potter. Or start with his first book, Gamesmanship, available here on Amazon:
    http://www.amazon.com/Practice-Gamesmanship-Winning-Actually-Cheating/dp/1607960192/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260362948&sr=8-1

  171. “What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW.”
    Here’s what I posted on the WSJ site yesterday about this poll:
    “”In a recent survey of more than 3,000 Earth scientists, 82% agreed that human activity is a ‘significant contributing factor’ in changing global temperatures. Specialists were in greater agreement: 75 of the 77 climate scientists who actively publish in the field—about 97%—agreed with the statement.””
    “Human activity” includes all the land use changes man has made, such as from forest to agriculture or urbanization. Therefore a Yes answer doesn’t necessarily implicate CO2. And a “significant” effect doesn’t necessarily imply a “catastrophic” one.

  172. mkurbo wrote:
    “The AGW movement was born of the far left, nurtured by the liberal left and sold to the masses by the mainstream left – period. Those are the facts and to remove them is disingenuous and revisionist history.”
    This may be true, but it’s counterproductive to harp on it here, as it alienates many potential backsliders from warmism. (Also, I suspect the warmists could cite a few Republicans among the notables in their ranks, if pressed.)
    I think it’s not so much leftism that’s the driver as “the anointed” — the self-consciously “aware and concerned,” highly educated cognitive elite who resonate with one another across all sectors of society and buy into one another’s rationales, tactics, credibility, and value-priorities.
    One of their main concerns is to avoid being consigned by their fellows in this group into the ranks of the “benighted” (the crudely selfish and ignorant), which is why accusations of being tainted by Big Oil or right-wing think tanks or Fox News or IDers or flat-earthers make such powerful and commonly used weapons by the groups’ mind-guards in keeping the rank and file in line.
    IOW, in large part their motivations are partly idealistic, but also partly social and psychological, in that they want to be part of the leading edge of a high-status in-group, and also want to nourish and bask in the feeling of self-approbation that this reflected self-worth, and this perception of acting idealistically, gives them. Here’s a link to a wonderful article exploring their motivations:
    vulgarmorality (17:48:19) :
    What emerges from the source code, data losses, emails, etc., is a sense that these climatologists believed they were playing a larger game than science: they were good shepherds, bringing us out of the dark. The same, with few qualifications, can be said of the media – which explains its spotty and off-center reporting of Climategate – and, for that matter, of many politicians and governments. See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:
    http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/climategate-the-good-shepherds/

  173. I find CNN’s poll that 97% of “scientists” believed that man was “responsible” for global warming, hilarious.
    Talk about nebulous statements and likely cherry-picked polling (like CNN hasn’t done that several times before).
    So CNN is a REAL news channel? Well, so were TASS and PRAVDA in their estimation.

  174. liberalbiorealist (10:09:25) :

    Seriously, is there really anything remotely resembling compelling evidence that we are now entering a period of global cooling? It’s one thing to say that we are in a fairly extended plateau in global temperatures that is starting to run against the predictions of the warmists; that seems to be quite a reasonable statement. It’s quite another to say that there’s good positive evidence of global cooling. Projecting such a trend is way, way past what the data might possibly signal.

    This is not a projection, it is current

    trend
    ,with the added feature of depicting impact of CO2 on temperature. Look at the graphs on this website.
    While no one really knows what the trend will be, we can clearly see CO2 levels, from the time consistent measures were started in 1958, have not correlated well with global temperatures.
    We can also see a downward trend in temperatures from roughly 2000 to the present. At best, for the AGW point of view, the temperature trend has flattened. In any event, is not correlating with the increased levels of CO2.

  175. You don’t need a conspiracy on a large scale.
    If 10-20 people generate the “data” that another 2,000 rely on, the the “conspiracy” involves 10-20, not 2,000. The other 1,980 are merely dupes, even if they’re doing it for the grant $$$.

  176. Maybe there is room for a precautionary principle here. If all the pertiinent time series (CRU, GISS, GHCN) have a common point of failure, then we should suspend decisions made on the basis of those time series for the time being. I mean, its much better to procede with caution and assume the data are unreliable, than it is to rush into some course of action without all the facts being settled…

  177. And those whose job it is to explain weather and climate to the world on a daily basis would heartily disagree in far greater numbers with the “consensus”. This reminds me of the history of Autism. Nearly all research scientists at one time thought that Autism was the result of poor mother-child interaction. When mothers found the internet and started talking to one another, they discovered a random nature to the affliction and a false notion that it was tied to mothering style. Turns out they were right. The folks on the frontline who experience a phenomenon everyday and then get to compare notes with other folks who do the same thing form the most important function in the chain of scientific steps: observation. Is this step beneath ivory clad scientists? One wonders.

  178. MB (11:31:37) :
    The false logic at the end is astounding.
    He posits that you have to accept that there is a massive conspiracy between all 2500″
    Since I may be one of the few scientists on this board that had done experiments on humans. If we give 2,500 scientists false data, we find they will all get pretty much the same conclusion.
    If we threaten 2,500 scientist with loss of grants and loss of publication priviledges, we reinforce behaviors and “shape their findings”.

  179. eRtwngr (10:07:25) :
    What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW.
    Notes about this “survey”,
    Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – Doran 2009
    – 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey
    – 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change
    – The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 “specialists” out of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of the 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.

    Result = Joke.

  180. photon without a Higgs (21:40:04) & Buddenbrook (21:21:11)
    I wasn’t suggesting that McIntyre comment on the policies, I was suggesting that McIntyre and Horner should have challenged Oppenheimer’s claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for “thousands of years” or “the glaciers are melting, globe is warming, blah blah blah.” Instead, they completely ignored those points and acted like they themselves accepted them as truth.
    Skeptics finally have the spot light, let’s not blow it (again).

  181. joeyD
    Take comfort in the fact that 1) McIntyre will be better prepared next time. See his post at Climateaudit, and 2) No one watches CNN!

  182. Some media advice from a self-appointed expert (expertise based on watching/listening to lots of news programmes):
    The important trick in this kind of interview is to keep rabbiting on without pausing for breath (doesn’t matter if you’re talking sense or not, but you should sound confident0. That way, the other guy doesn’t get an word in edgeways. Ideally, you will not only hog the airtime, but whenever the other guy, or even the interviewer tries to interject, you will complain in offended tones, saying “do you mind? Let me finish my answer!” People who are only half-listening (that’s most people) will think that it’s the other person being rude, not you. Fluent rabbiting requires one to rehearse talking points until they’re instinctive and can be rattled off mindlessly, regardless of relevance.

  183. Wow! As usual, the media trots out a “respected scientist”, and all he (Oppenheimer) can do is regurgitate the Greenies talking points. That was an example of a scientist being very unscientific.
    Atmospheric CO2 life expectancy is up to millenia now? Really? LOL!
    2500 scientists at the UN? Really? Well no, but he still thinks so, LOL!
    Clueless, just clueless.

  184. Pamela Gray (06:42:52) :
    “This reminds me of the history of Autism. Nearly all research scientists at one time thought that Autism was the result of poor mother-child interaction.”

    That’s an example with an eerie parallel to the current situation, in that the autism consensus was “engineered” in a similar way. One highly opinionated and overbearing psychiatrist, Bruno Bettelheim, author of The Empty Fortress and a master at media manipulation, ran a leading, well-funded autism in Chicago, and trained many of the specialists in the field. He and they in turn enforced an orthodoxy for decades and marginalized dissent with heavy-handed tactics. See the book, Madness of the Couch, for a rundown of the damage their blinkered arrogance inflicted.

  185. I see IPCC climate science as an upside-down pyramid resting on its tip. The tip was the “team” science results, which climategate have discredited.

  186. Clearly poor Steve is not accustomed to public speaking. Not to mention that instead of vigorously prepping for this interview, he was vigorously trying to win a squash championship. 😉
    However, that said the issue here and what showed that Steve, who doesn’t debate and Chris (who by being a lawyer SHOULD know how to debate) missed was the opportunity to BURN Oppenheimer when he claimed the science was settled and the DATA has been available to skeptics for DECADES! He LIED LIED LIED and he knows he got away with it! Steve McIntyre has been filing freedom of information requests for YEARS and the emails prove they had NO INTENTION of giving it to him!!!! This is the smoking gun that everyone is missing, the emails that say, “I’ll delete the data before I give it to those deniers”. and lo and behold the data has been DELETED!!!!???!!!! How STUPID is the mainstream media anyway? Oh wait, don’t answer that, we have 11 fact checkers for a Palin book and not a one on Climategate.

  187. Just how important is MacIntyre’s blogging to the history of science?
    This interview with Tom Wigley is worth listening to:
    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2766202.htm
    …and not just for a comparision with what Wigley says in his emails – as per Andrew Bolt here:
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wigley_denies_i_did_not_choke_on_the_deceit/
    Wigley confirms that a science blog has very much become part of the scientific process of, if you like, ‘falsification.’ The irony is that this has come about in a large part by the very exclusionary behaviour of the Alarmists in general, and the Hockey Team in particular.
    Wigley explains how he read Steve MacIntyre’s blog and found some valid criticism in it, which he then fed back to the Team.
    I wonder if this is a significant moment in the history of scientific communication: The whole peer-review journal system, long threatened by the online age, breaks down by the aggressive blocking of the normal falsification feedback that contols for error in (or abuse of) scientific method. While the public line of the Alarmist movement was to stick to the old peer-review system of authority, Wigley now tells us publically that privately he was doing something else — namely, channelling the criticism of a blogger with the clear objective of improving the quality of the Biffa’s science. This is just one suggestion that this dispute seems to be marking a turning point in the history of science.

  188. Kevin Kilty (06:32:14) :
    Maybe there is room for a precautionary principle here. If all the pertiinent time series (CRU, GISS, GHCN) have a common point of failure, then we should suspend decisions made on the basis of those time series for the time being. I mean, its much better to procede with caution and assume the data are unreliable, than it is to rush into some course of action without all the facts being settled…

    There is a single point of failure, it is called GHCN. NCDC Produces GHCN (thus the NCDC series agrees), GIStemp in 98% of the planet based on GHCN (2% of the surface is the average of USHCN and GHCN, sort of…). That just leaves CRU – and the email said they were 98% the same as GHCN.
    GHCN is “cooked” via thermometer deletions (recently since 1990) of thermometers in cold places. See here, down in the “Detail Studies” section:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

  189. John Phillips (10:07:38) :
    Oppenheimer is a pure propagandist. He says the Chinese are going to reduce CO2 emmissions. What China really says is they will decrease emmissions/unit of GDP. How hard is that? They of course fully intend to increase their GDP dramatically. Their CO2 emmissions will increase tremendously over the next few decad

    The Chinese are signing 20 year contracts for delivery of Coal and OIL. They funded PBR Petrobras in Brasil for about $200 B To Be Paid In Oil and the are signing deals for Wyoming coal with BTU Peabody coal to be delivered to ships by BNS Burlington Northern (Which is why Warren Buffet had BRKA / BRKB Birkshire Hathaway by BNS. He has guaranteed business for 20 years shipping coal to China).
    There is no doubt what so ever about what China is going to do. They are going to take delivery of the Coal and Oil they have already bought and they are going to burn it. Period.
    Everything else is “For Show” to negotiate a bigger payoff from the west (while doing NOTHING in return). They have promised to work on reducing the “energy intensity” per product, but what good capitalist does not try to make more with less per unit. They intend to make a whole lot more units and burn a whole lot more fuel.
    Don’t listen to the smiling sugar words, look at the contracts signed and the rail car loadings…

  190. Ipse Dixit (16:51:13) :
    So, that’s just great. All global surface temperature anomaly datasets in the world derive from GHCN and that is suspected of having been cooked.
    There’s no alternative but to start over.

    BINGO! You got it! BTW, I would not call it “suspected” I’d call it confirmed. I’ve got a whole series of studies of thermometer location bias (for each continent and most major countries). There is an absolutely clearly demonstrated bias: by altitude, by Latitiude, by airport percentage, and there is clear evidence in some counties for bias via “distance to cold shores” and “distance to warm water” (sometimes demonstrated in “by LONGitude” studies such as for Siberia where north is cold and south is mountains, so the thermometers run toward the ‘skinny part’ closer to water…)
    The most striking is the one for California where GHCN has 4 thermometers. One at the airport in San Francisco and 3 near the beach around the Los Angeles basin. Hard to get cold with no Mount Shasta, no Sierra Nevada, No Cascades, …
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
    But if you ‘stabilize the instrument’ by looking only at long lived records, the “warming anomaly” goes away:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/gistemp-quartiles-of-age-bolus-of-heat/
    And if you make latin America “spineless” by deleting the recent thermometer records in the Mountains, and moving them to the beach…:
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/ghcn-south-america-andes-what-andes/
    There are a lot more in the “global analysis” link above. GHCN is throughly cooked and biased.

  191. The interview took the wrong turn with the conspiracy theory. It is much simpler than that. Scientists are convinced by data. Once that is accomplished the concept of normal science sets in and the majority operates withing the paradigm of AGW. Media that loves a horror story, because it sells newspapers and commercial spots much better than good news, enhances this effect. This blind use of citation index doesn’t help either. Nobody reads articles and ponders over their logic anymore. It’s become too much. Just counting the number of citations has become the norm. If there’s one positive feedback I believe in, it is the positive feedback in science funding based on the use of citation index to award grants for all, but especially climate, research.

  192. As for Japanese temperature records, most measurement sites have problems similar to ones in USA although the Japnese Meteorological Agency does not want to admit it.
    According to Dr. Kondo (70 years old, Prof. Emeritus of Tohoku Univ.) who has been investigating the condition of the sites, only three sites are reliable: Murotomisaki, Miyako and Suttsu. You can check their temperatue data at the NASA GISS.
    Among them, Murotomisaki is particularly interesting.

Comments are closed.