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.
“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.
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
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.
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
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).
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/
Iceberg 1700 km from WA.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/981660/giant-iceberg-headed-for-wa
Doesn’t that mean that the ocean is very cold?
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.
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.
Canada AM (CTV program) – Beverly Thomson interviews Lawrence Solomon, author of “The Deniers”:
http://watch.ctv.ca/news/top-picks/climate-week/#clip243772
I think many around here will appreciate how both Solomon & Thomson handle this. [FYI: This is not a partisan program.]
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. 🙂
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.
“REPLY: Apparently he’s never seen Joe Romm. Horner is a saint compared to Romm’s rantings. – A”
Yah. Agreed.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Noelene (21:24:30) :
Iceberg 1700 km from WA.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/981660/giant-iceberg-headed-for-wa
Doesn’t that mean that the ocean is very cold?
————————-
Naaah, not at all. The first thing I would think if I saw a huge iceberg off San Francisco is errrmmmm “Global Warming” !!!!!
No, seriously …..
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.
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.
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!
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 !
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?
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
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
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.
You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free….
“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
Michael (12:34:27) :
31,000 scientists agree man-made
The Oregon Petition
http://www.oism.org/pproject/