CNN’s Campbell Brown & John Roberts with Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre, Michael Oppenheimer.
Part 1
Part 2 below:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CNN’s Campbell Brown & John Roberts with Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre, Michael Oppenheimer.
Part 1
Part 2 below:
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Honesty shines through and truth be illuminated.
Well done Mr McIntyre.
There is another smoking gun posted by Geronimo at Climate Audit.
FWIW, of the whole bunch, Stephen comes off as the most honest and knowledgeable person by far.
Brent in Calgary
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.
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.
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?
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.
WE HAVE TO FIX IT NOW OR OUR GRANDBABIES WILL DIE DIE DIE!!!!
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.
“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
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).
liberalbiorealist:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
“The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries,” says Hathaway.
This is as firm or firmer forecast than any co2 modelling, and we’ve had some pretty wicked minimums in the last centuries.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
We posted about that just about a month ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/countdown-to-an-unprecedented-warm-decade-2-months-to-go/
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.
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.
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.
She asks “Is this a global conspiracy?” while laughing…..
Well.. YEAH IT IS.
[snip], they deserve their coming enslavement.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Mr Tisdale,I linked to your article on the timesonline blog,hopefully they will publish it.I am being moderated,doesn’t usually happen at the times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6948629.ece