American Morning is aired live every weekday morning from 6 to 9 am EST on CNN.
At 7:30 AM EST Friday 12/11 Steve McIntyre will appear at the invitation of John Roberts. Be sure to watch.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@max Hugoson (21:37:58) :
“Gave my 4th Presentation on “Atmospheric Physics” tonight Steve!
It went over well. One AWG “Believer” who learned a lot. One person on the line who said, “I take it you don’t BELIEVE in Global Warming”.
My standard reply, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints..” (The Apostle’s Creed.)…”
Max,
I have already written an appropriate creed for use in these circumstances. All warmists should use it, unless they wish to be accused of heresy. I reproduce it below:
AGW Creed.
I believe in Global Warming,
which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore,
Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a CO2 sensitivity figure of over 4 C/W,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting. AMEN.
Update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As emergency AGW conference continues, it is perhaps ironic to study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded.
In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C.
First day of Copenhagen: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.
Second day: a high of 7 C, the same.
Third day: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees cooler than the December high of the last 28 years.
Fourth day: a high of 6 C
Can someone please point this out to the eminent delegates?
Speaking of TV personalities – is it just my Englishness that finds Mr Morano so OTT – even when he’s being quite restrained he doesn’t fill me with confidence.
We simply don’t have many types like that on our TV.
Good news – the BBC’s Radio 5 [rolling 24 news/sport] just had a phone-in about whether it was ‘okay to be a climate change denier’. James Delingpole and the ubiquitous Bob Ward were on and did their usual.
The callers were on the whole very articulate, had facts about global temperature declines/ice sheets at their finger tips/MWP [cue bewildered presenter], as well as others who simply said – the Earth has been here for millions of years so what is all the fuss about.
For this national station to run this is a real breakthrough. They are usually very responsive to their listeners when it’s clear that the party line has broken.
I also heard a programme on BBC Radio 4 which was pretty even-handed [but ignored the code] – it was clear from the contributors [eminent scientist types] that they mainly thought AGW was still sound, but that the CRU had behaved disgracefully on peer-review/FOI/data loss.
It felt like big-time rowing away from UEA by their peers.
We’ve issued a recall for AGW burgers and fries due to salmonella poisoning. But we believe most of the meat & potatoes are still good, so we’re throwing out the moldy-looking stuff and repackaging for a big 99 cent sale. AGW Refried Burgers: where we let you out to pasture.
Bill Jamison (01:34:46) :
Perhaps James Hansen can show how well he really means:
California has passed it’s own version of Cap & Trade, falling for Ken Lay’s Energy Trading rat trap for the 2nd time. Sacramento Sapsuckers bamboozled again. Arnold is loading up his Hummer to get out of town before the whole place gets too close to the Carbon Singularity.
Anyways, Jim can make a trip to Sacramento and deliver his opposition to Californias’ latest tomfoolery.
Jasper Kirby over at CERN needs to get in front of a microphone as well. The world needs to hear from Scientists that figured this out long ago but kept silent for all the reasons already discussed.
NickB. (21:29:29) :
According to my calculations it would be
I know your trick—you subtracted three! Am I smart as Steve M ?
incompetent Mccracken
Ahhhhh–they played the cigarette card
Only caught the end of it but right after they had Steve on the next story mentioned is about Bernie Madoff. Does someone have a sense of humor at CNN?
Maccracken doesn’t present evidence that it’s manmande warming, but instead deduces it because he says he can’t find any other reason
is that science?
Did anyone see the new John Stossel Show on Fox Business? His first show was dedicated to AGW. I was somewhat disappointed but I had hoped to find it covered here today. Perhaps later in the day???
Please, someone over there, Youtube it for us old worlders !
John Roberts played soft pitch with Michael MacCrackenan and did not challenge him.
But he played hard ball with Steve McIntyre with the cigarette comparison.
McIntyre did a poor job on CNN. Similar to a recent performance by Christie. When asked by Roberts about whether his work had implications for the broader case for global warming McIntyre said no, he was just interested in a certain technical area of data analysis. He made no challenge to a pro-global warming guest who said that there were no other explanations for the “recent warming” than man-made CO2.
With spokesmen like Christie and McIntyre our side is toast. They need to read the wonderful post above by Max Hugoson.
As I look at the bio of Michael MacCrackenan I see he is a climate modeller in government funded agencies.
Climate modeller, government funding, now I understand him.
http://www.climate.org/about/maccracken-bio.html
Max Hugoson (21:37:58)
What he said.
Missed Steve on CNN. Where’s Fox?
Gotta get Anthony on these shows.
/Mr Lynn
Have anyone seen the program?
BTW, The Washington Post has made up for running an op-ed by Sarah Palin, by publishing a rabid pro-warming screed by the head of the AAAS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903860.html
It includes this quote:
I fired off a letter to the editor, which begins,
“It is truly appalling to hear the CEO of the AAAS, Alan I. Leshner, claim that the “millions” of scientists he purports to represent all agree with him that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is gospel truth. . .”
I’ll post the rest when they don’t run it.
Rational scientists: When you get on TV across the table from an Alarmist and a clueless anchor(ette), you have to do what Max Hugoson (21:37:58) does: Remain Spock-like, calm but forceful, and say: “Where is the evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere affects global temperature? There is none. It’s all hypothetical. And the hypothesis has been disproved. Here’s the evidence against it. . .” Keep asking, “Where’s the evidence?”
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn
You lose with that. CO2 absorbs and radiates solar energy, so it necessarily affects the global temperature by some amount.
The question is how much, how to quantify that, and to what probability.
Then what portion is from humans vs nature?
Key arguments:
1) The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming argument is based on correlations with little causation, denying most geological evidence.
2) IPCC’s climate models rely on arguments from ignorance – it must be human because we don’t know what else it could be.
3) The NIPCC documents numerous other causes ignored by the IPCC.
I watched this interview on CNN.
I have seen Mr McIntyre twice now on CNN and am very disappointed in the way he comes across on the screen. Either he is camera shy or he’s unsure of his position on this hoax.
CNN so rarely gives the skeptics any airtime and we need some credibility.
We need someone more eloquent and confidant in his position.
Sorry. MB
Saw the CNN piece this morning. It’s unfortunate that Steve is not a good public speaker. Great statistician, but lousy presenter. He really did not do a good job of stating what he so eloquently describes in his writings. Nevertheless, the point that there is now a debate at all is the take away message for most viewers. That’s a healthy start.
I saw this session this morning. I am pleasantly surprised that Steve was given such a large percentage of the time. Typically, the skeptics are given only a few words during the general beating. However, I am a bit concerned with Steve’s effectiveness. He has a powerful and compelling story which is getting lost.
With utmost respect, I have a few comments for Steve and any others planning on doing these quick “interviews”. Pick just a few points to argue, and prepare to argue them in common terminology. Stick with the good work you have been doing so far. In Steve’s case, his ongoing efforts to get the raw data. For example:
– The rules of science demand that data and methods used to analyze the data is made public so other scientists can confirm those conclusions are valid.
– Key climate scientists have not only not shared their data willingly, they have fought FOIA requests to get the data.
– The e-mails show there is active intent to not provide the data and possible illegal activity by suggesting data be destroyed. (this would get you invites for future interviews.)
– There is evidence there has been intentional manipulation of data to guarantee a specific outcome, contrary to the rules of science.
– Instead of calling for an “engineering” review, call for a public and transparent audit of the data and methodologies by independent reviewers.
Just some possible suggestions. Please choose your own talking points. The point is to be focused, be specific, be tenacious. Make statements that either they won’t respond to, or you know what their response will be and be ready to decimate those responses. While the science is important, PR is what will drive good science.
Keep up the good fight everyone.
Maybe I am the only one who has read ClimateAudit and seen McIntyre interviewed before but I am not sure what people are expecting? The people complaining seem to think McIntyre is Lord Monckton, he is not and never will be.
I just read the post on Climateaudit.
Then:
With spokesmen like Christie and McIntyre our side is toast. They need to read the wonderful post above by Max Hugoson
After coming here, it seems this week all the arguments have become more simple, explicit and hard to deny.
The CRU crew is circling the wagons. They hope to be validated by some nasty initiatives coming from Copenhagen.
It seems the IPCC is fraud seeking like they were in oil and food iniatives. I suspect the volcanic eruption from the EPA this week will drag this into court. In court, we can listen to “dull” testimony that to the bottom line will show they can’t connect a causal relationship between CO2 levels and warming/non warming.