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.
Marty Ball writes: “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.”
The third option is that he is waiting until the case is fully made. Although, that said, I too was a bit bewildered that none of the more salient issues regarding the deficiencies in the current science were mentioned. Perhaps Steve M. will comment later on this.
Marty,
Steve can certainly speak for himself, but he has never made any bones about where he is coming from: Steve’s issues are not with AGW per se but with bad scientific practices of certain cliamte scientists such as Mann et al. He has never tried to represent himself as anti-AGW. Anthony is far more unabashedly anti-AGW as is John Christie. I am not sure I understand why you do not know this – unless, of course, you have not regularly followed Steve’s analysis at Climate Audit. IMHO, Steve’s position on this actually makes him a more potent critic of the Hockey Stick gang.
Sorry, but I agree with Marty Ball’s analysis. SM need a message! He is winging it and does not have the experience to make a cogent point in an ad hoc environment.
SM, get a message!! Stick to it and enhance it with examples. Study the counter arguments and have answers so to challenge. Your lunch is being eaten on these interviews.
This seems to be the tactic of the media now. Get Steven McIntyre on, and ask him this question:
“Do these e-mails invalidate all of climate science, all of the work done to show manmade global warming?”
Steve, god bless him, is an honest man, and answers this question correctly. So correctly in fact that he uses up all the time they wanted to have him speaking answering this one question and then they change the subject to something like policymaking.
This is highly dishonest reporting. There are implications to what steve found that while they may not *invalidate* everything, they do throw a major wrench into everything, particularly the political side.
The MSM is now using Steve and his honesty to whitewash the entire thing. So sad.
photon without a Higgs (04:40:46) :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?
Um, no. LOL That’s an appeal to ignorance. Logical fallacy. Someone should have called him on it.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Kay
@Marty Ball:
Steve’s a math guy, not a TV personality. If you want some smooth talker on TV that’s going to present dumbed down talking points that move the argument no where, that’s fine. I’m sure political types would think it’s necessary. I prefer to have real people on that actually tell the truth.
Transscript:
ROBERTS: The contentious debate over global warming on the front burner after those stolen e-mails from a climate change lab. Skeptics say they cast doubt on the science behind climate change, but supporters say it’s just a bunch of noise.
Joining me now to talk about the implications of the e-mails and whether in fact there is global warming, Stephen McIntyre, editor of the blog climateaudit.org. He was mentioned in many of those stolen e-mails. And Dr. Michael McCracken, chief scientist at the Climate Change Program at the Climate Institute.
Gentlemen, good to talk to you. Stephen, let me start with you. You’ve written extensively about these hacked e-mails on climateaudit.org. Do they cast suspicion on the entire science of global warming or just one particular set of temperature data?
STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG: There’s only one set of data that is in question. This is a technical area, but an important technical area, and it’s as though this is one expert element in a large prosecution case and I’ve argued against that technical aspect of the argument.
ROBERTS: Right. But does it suggest to you that the whole case for man-made global warming is a fraud?
MCINTYRE: No, it doesn’t. It suggests that in this one particular technical area scientists have, I believe, overstated the case, but this has nothing to do with other aspects of the argument.
ROBERTS: OK. Michael McCracken, can you say from your standpoint with absolute certainty that the global warming that we are seeing these days, the climate change that we’re experiencing, is in fact due to man-made factors?
MICHAEL MACCRACKEN, CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM,CLIMATE INSTITUTE: Well, no scientist really can talk in terms of absolute certainty, but we look at a lot of different aspects of it and there’s really no other explanation for the kinds of things that are happening. So there’s a possibility there could be something we’re missing, but it’s very, very small.
We look at changes in solar radiation and they can’t explain it. We look at changes in volcanic eruptions. They can’t explain it. There’s a question about whether there could be some poorly understood natural variations that could cause a little bit of it, but mainly it has to be human activities. There just isn’t any other way to explain what’s happening.
ROBERTS: And Stephen McIntyre, do you have another cause that you know of besides a human component?
MCINTYRE: The issue that I have is whether there has been a proper engineering quality analysis of the other explanations. I’m fairly conventional in my view points and I assume that scientists do a sensible job at what they’re doing, notwithstanding the fact that the scientists in the particular area that I’ve studied have, in my opinion, done a very unprofessional job.
I think it would be very healthy to have an outside engineering quality examination of the very best climate model to reassure the public, as well as policy makers.
ROBERTS: Right.
MCINTYRE: Having said that, policy makers make decisions under uncertainty all the time, and I think that policymakers are entitled to make decisions.
ROBERTS: Michael MacCracken, when we look at the temperature record over the last I guess 100 or so years, there appears to be an up tick in and around 1960 to 1970. That continued until 1998 when temperatures actually started dropping. Many global warming skeptics say that’s reason to believe that maybe this is just part of a natural cycle, that the temperature is not going to continue to go up. What do you say to that?
MACCRACKEN: Well, there are some natural variations that go on. There are also needs to keep looking at the record. There’s an up tick, for example, during the years particularly of World War II and it’s being realized now that that may be because particular ship records that were taken when they were changing the measurement technique may have measured a little bit high.
But there’s always going to be some variation going on over the short term. Over the long term, which is what we’re talking about for climate change, what you see is we’ve come from a quite cool, industrial period in the 18th and 19th centuries to much, much warmer conditions now.
ROBERTS: Stephen McIntyre, Allen Leshner, who is the CEO of the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences is, also the executive editor of the “Journal of Science,” had an op-ed in the “Washington Post” yesterday. He said that the science on this is clear. He wrote, “don’t be fooled about climate science. In April 1994, long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking, seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.”
What do you say to the charge that skeptics may be so whetted to the negative financial impact of curbing greenhouse gases that they’re willing to ignore science?
MCINTYRE: Well, I for one am not particularly whetted to any position. I don’t think that analogies to the tobacco case are very helpful because certainly for someone like myself I don’t smoke. I don’t have any interest in the tobacco situation, and any concerns that I have are ones that are honestly felt.
So I think that rather than criticizing past issues like the tobacco industry that scientists would be better to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are doing the most effective possible job of explaining their case to the educated public.
ROBERTS: All right. One more week to go in the Copenhagen conference and this is the part where the leaders will, in fact, factor into it. So we’ll be watching that very closely.
Stephen McIntyre, Michael MacCracken, thanks for being with us this morning. Good to see you.
MCINTYRE: Thank you, John.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/11/ltm.02.html
WRT comments regarding how McIntyre (and before that Christy on another thread) weren’t assertive enough and/or didn’t focus on the right points, etcetera:
Trying to effectively explain a complex subject within the limits of that sound-bite environment is difficult at best. The fact that they got national (and international) major media exposure for even those few minutes is a major plus, and I still say that overall McIntyre and Christy came across well; as calm, rational, and professional scientists that were experts on the subject matter. And while it’s always possible to improve what amounts to a very short summary of a science lecture, overall plenty good enough, IMO.
BTW: Where in prior comment on this thread I said:
”Here’s hoping for a few more MSM guest spots like this by McIntyre, Christy, Lindzen, Singer, Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, etcetera. .”
And Anthony Watts, of course. A science blog that is fast closing in on 30 million hits clearly deserves some notice by the MSM. ;-]
My larger point is that there are more than enough professional scientists with impecable scientific credentials in the skeptic camp to effectively and persuasively tell the story; if they can just get a fair time slice in the print and video MSM. And while there is a long way to go, at least it’s starting to happen; which is a big improvement over the previous MSM stonewall.
“Truth of Trick”
Has anyone else notice the new CNN graphic when bringing up the topic of global warming? It’s a green rotating cube with the text “Truth of Trick.”
I didn’t see the interview. But the comments here pretty much confirm what I expected.
McCackan (sp?) was definitely more Steve’s speed, it almost seemed like we had two real scientists on instead of one (Steve M, Christie) vs, Gores-in-training (Schmidt, Oppenheimer, Mann). Steve was calm and steady and got his point across (i.e. it’s the science stupid), McCracken gave the standard lack of a better explanation is apparently scientificaly valid proof these days.
Score this one for Steve!
While I consider myself neither a “skeptic” or “believer”, I have been reading this website and others on the topic of AGW for a couple of years. Steve and others have made some excellent critiques of the existing science. Both before and after the material from CRU was placed online. Perhaps I am in the minority here to be somewhat peeved that Steve M., a seemingly gracious man and meticulous man of science, got derailed into a discussion on smoking cigarettes. Perhaps, though, I am being unreasonable and it is Steve who is exhibiting prudence and waiting for a more bullet-proof case to develop before speaking of the various data “anomalies”. I reckon he is worried about his professional credibility if he jumps the gun. I just thought the developments regarding the Tanzania connection, the splicing of proxy data, etc. warranted at least a mention. Some feedback on this would be greatly appreciated!
Want a Global Warming showdown? Sunday, 9AM EST, FOX News Sunday – Chris Wallace will have Rep. Ed Markey vs. Sen. James Inhofe on to wrestle over US politics, CapnTax and AGW. This should be a significant confrontation on a much bigger venue. Wallace’s should then be rebroadcast on FNC at 2 & 6PM EST Sunday.
May I suggest sending some encouragement Inhofe’s way – no matter where you live. He has really been carrying the load combating AGW in Congress.
It is far more important that Steve be honest. He was asked loaded questions, for which he gave honest answers. Best leave the spin to spinners. I can see a lot of folks looking up Steve’s site thanks to these two interviews with CNN. That is a good thing, and CNN should be commended for having put him (and Dr. Spencer) on.
We can become exausted by expressing arguments against these theories of global warming/climate change or whatever and that is not the point, neither their goal. We all know their goal is global government and they have already implemented several international institutions many years ago and they are working, from FAO to the WHO, and many NGO, etc.
Copenhagen “jamboree” it´s a goal in itself, it is a gathering of people well paid by them who represent the formation of a “convenient” “nomenklatura” or “soviet”, call it as you like it: That is why hosts have prepared everything to please and fulfill any wish from the attendants, from the “nevertastedbythembefore” caviar to free “companions”.
What we must do, instead, is write down their names and do not forget who they are.
Didn’t see it yet, but here’s the inventory on CNN’s American Morning video site (5 videos per line, top line latest):
Line one: The Halls: Al Gore’s poem
Line two: Gore speaks of climate crisis
Line three: Climate skeptics challenged
Line four: Cloud over climate summit
Line five: How skeptics battle climate change
Line six: Climate change questioned
It’s like using a bullet proof vest, absorb and spread the impact energy, then shoot back.
Only two things will change the policy momentum IMHO, colder and colder temps (snow in June, or glaciers wiping out a town), and when the lights go out 4-6 hours per day because power demand eclipses dwindling supply (maybe some people freeze to death because of it too). That’s the only data they CAN understand.
I think Steve did fine because and for this reason: If you can’t believe the messenger then you can’t believe the message. If the data is falsified then the story is false. Climate”gate” is just that. The politics have taken over the science.
Because of this attention the public is seeing the details of both the story and the solutions consequences. The public is clearly not buying the story that world is going to fail and isn’t willing to give up much to try and stop something that is viewed as weather not climate.
It’s come down to man caused or natural variation. Clouds and water vapor seem to be the key since 98% of greenhouse gases are water vapor and the earth is 70% water. Forcing = fudge factors. The modelers are proving true the old adage GIGO but we are learning something.
Poptech (06:08:24) :
Steve said there was only one point of error (paraphrase) in the ClimateGate emails.
I never thought Steve McIntyre, of all people, would be so far off beam. He must have misunderstood what John Roberts asked.
So now I’m starting to think I only want Monckton or Ian Plimer in these interviews.
——————————-
Gentlemen, good to talk to you. Stephen, let me start with you. You’ve written extensively about these hacked e-mails on climateaudit.org. Do they cast suspicion on the entire science of global warming or just one particular set of temperature data?
STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG: There’s only one set of data that is in question.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/11/ltm.02.html
Just tripped across this http://video.tiscali.it/canali/truveo/1235225618.html
Much more hard-hitting stuff and quoting emails that haven’t had attention so far.
TBH I find Monckton a bit OTT, wish he’d turn the volume down to 7 rather than InfoWars 11.
He really knows his stuff and doesn’t need to resort to hyperbole.
Either he is camera shy or he’s unsure of his position on this hoax.
His position on ClimateAudit has always been one of reserved skepticism. The same comes through in his interviews. That’s fine. Just not certain that’s what we need right now.
JonesII writes: “That is why hosts have prepared everything to please and fulfill any wish from the attendants, from the “nevertastedbythembefore” caviar to free “companions”.”
—————————————–
They were nice enough to ban Christmas trees in Copenhagen this year for some reason too. lol.
Source: Telegraph
Corey (06:36:05) :
Based on your transcript of procedings in the interview I can only suggest that what Steve Mcintyre could have additionally done is on being asked the question “But does it suggest to you that the whole case for man-made global warming is a fraud?” is for him to suggest that CNN invite a panel of top sceptics active within climate science to present the scientific sceptic case.
To date Steve has thoroughly fulfilled his role of climate reconstruction data auditor and advisor on best engineering practice. But others in the climate field must be given fair opportunity to run with his findings by CNN and the rest of the mass media.
Doggy Geezer (02:16:02) :
I was rolling on the floor at your official creed for the AGW Faith, Doggy.
Thanks for that. I am going to save to pass along to friends if that is OK.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
JonesII, Jamboree ! What a great word, how aptly used.