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.
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.
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!
Slightly OT,
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/
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.
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.
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.
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?
RE: anna v (12:38:58) :
I knew I should have used around my comment
http://climateaudit.org/ is back online, hit it!
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
TOlsen,
It is at that point that Star Fleet Command will be born! 🙂
Mailman
*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.
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!
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
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.
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/#
Brooker again on the unmodeled bit – the economics
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6763409/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Blindfolds-at-Copenhagen-are-hiding-the-crucial-issues.html
Bret Baier on Climategate, American Physical Society Members Dispute 12-08-09
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.]
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
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.
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.
Bret Baier Update on Climategate 12-08-09
Does anybody want me to stop posting Video news on climategate?
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.
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.