CNN’s Campbell Brown & John Roberts with Chris Horner, Stephen McIntyre, Michael Oppenheimer.
Part 1
Part 2 below:
00votes
Article Rating
235 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
paullm
December 8, 2009 6:13 pm
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.
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”?
paullm
December 8, 2009 6:22 pm
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.
Chris Hirst
December 8, 2009 6:28 pm
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.
Michael
December 8, 2009 6:30 pm
All the President’s Men|Deep Throat: The Outer Edges
Dane Skold
December 8, 2009 6:33 pm
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.
Brian Macker
December 8, 2009 6:40 pm
What a stupid distracting way the stick the speakers in boxes and show text on the side.
Jim
December 8, 2009 6:42 pm
******************
Jeremy (18:16:19) :
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6945991.ece
*********************
What about GE? They are into nuclear, wind power, and have a financial unit that could profit from carbon credits. GE is in the tank for Obama and the greenies.
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.
Bill Illis
December 8, 2009 7:09 pm
Steve did really good.
And he did a 1000 times more before that panel.
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.
Laughin Jack
December 8, 2009 7:38 pm
@ur momisugly TurkeyLurkey: I was on climateaudit.org earlier but now I am getting a proxy error that says the directory cannot be found.
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.
rbateman
December 8, 2009 8:05 pm
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?
NickB.
December 8, 2009 8:26 pm
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
J. Peden
December 8, 2009 8:32 pm
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.
Buddenbrook
December 8, 2009 8:35 pm
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.
Benjamin
December 8, 2009 8:41 pm
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)
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.
savethesharks
December 8, 2009 8:53 pm
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
Benjamin
December 8, 2009 8:53 pm
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.
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.
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6945991.ece
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”?
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.
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.
All the President’s Men|Deep Throat: The Outer Edges
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.
What a stupid distracting way the stick the speakers in boxes and show text on the side.
******************
Jeremy (18:16:19) :
LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article6945991.ece
*********************
What about GE? They are into nuclear, wind power, and have a financial unit that could profit from carbon credits. GE is in the tank for Obama and the greenies.
Copenhagen climate summit: global warming ’caused by sun’s radiation’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6762640/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-caused-by-suns-radiation.html
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.
Steve did really good.
And he did a 1000 times more before that panel.
Is the new
http://climateaudit.wordpress.com/
working for anyone?
Not for me.
Hopefully it is just a cockpit error here.
TL
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.
@ur momisugly TurkeyLurkey: I was on climateaudit.org earlier but now I am getting a proxy error that says the directory cannot be found.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.