Video: McIntyre-McKitrick on Fox News Global Warming Special – Mann chickens out

All six parts of the hour-long special aired during prime time Sunday night on Fox News featuring Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are now online below. Both Phil Jones and Michael Mann ducked requests for interviews. I can perhaps understand Jones’ situation, since he has not been giving other interviews, but in Mann’s case he’s been on a media blitz writing op-eds for the Washington Post and giving interviews to dozens more. His bias, (or perhaps cowardice) is showing. If his work is so “robust”, why not defend himself  in this venue?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 21, 2009 8:27 am

For WuWT readers just waking up to how tangled and corrupt this hoax is please come over to my site to see just a tip of the iceberg: Enron, Goldman Sachs, GE, Obama (through Chicago Climate Exchange) will make billions/trillions off of our backs, while regulating and taxing us – And allowing countries to pollute.

December 21, 2009 8:37 am

OT: NASA discovers upper atmospheric cooling due to slump in solar cycle.

December 21, 2009 8:40 am

Chickening out was the smartest thing Mann has done in this whole sorry saga.

December 21, 2009 8:48 am

I just wish anyone other than Fox News had put this together.
Most people who think Fox is a credible source already think AGW is a hoax.
Most people who think AGW is real think everything that Fox says is indefensible political jibber-jabber.

December 21, 2009 8:49 am

Thanks for this, it was on at 2am over here and i was in me bed by then 🙂

Flaude Graffs
December 21, 2009 8:50 am

Do you think they mean Mann Made Global Warming or Man Made ….

December 21, 2009 8:59 am

FOX did an excellent job explaining the heart of the issue.. the science is NOT settled, and WHY are we about to commit to EPA regulations in the face of all the evidence it is wrong, wrong, wrong..
I also like the expose on how the main advocates are in a conflict of interest position, ie, Maurice Strong and Al Gore, who will reap $$$$$$$$$$ from Cap and Trade.

Mark T
December 21, 2009 8:59 am

Maybe he finally consulted a lawyer and was promptly told to zip it?

Don Keiller
December 21, 2009 9:00 am

“A fundamental prediction of climate change theory is that upper atmosphere will cool in response to greenhouse gases in the troposphere,” says Mlynczak. .Scientists need to validate that theory.”
They do indeed, because what what comes next puts a large fly in the ointment!
“The TIMED measurements show a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun. In addition, the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the upper atmosphere by nitric oxide molecules has decreased by nearly a factor of 10 since early 2002. These observations imply that the upper atmosphere has cooled substantially since then. The research team expects the atmosphere to heat up again as solar activity starts to pick up in the next year.”
So despite cries from the AGW crowd that the “sky is falling” e.g.
and it’s all down to CO2 and the Greenhouse effect, now we see it is not quite as simple as the Alarmists like to think -Again.

Layne Blanchard
December 21, 2009 9:01 am

The only problem I see is that the accusations are not pointed enough. If a proxy diverges from the most recent (and presumably, the most accurate) data, then its value as a proxy is nil. What then, caused Mann to assert this proxy had any relevance? Simple. It presented the story he wished to tell. And when it ceased telling his story, he cut it off. Forget about the word “Trick”. What is the value of experimentation if you do not allow the data to tell its story, whatever that might be? Zero.

December 21, 2009 9:03 am

The unbridled confidence on the “warming” side of the DEBATE is really quite surreal. When I was a child I often wondered how, long ago, people could accept all those crazy superstitions. Their crazy logic often led people to burn women at the stake, or live in fear of sailing off the edge of the world, or to tremble at black cats, to put flowers up to their nose to prevent plague and drain blood to relieve sickness. Those people just accepted what they were told, even to the point of torture and murder. Well, I guess they still do even unto these “modern” times. And for as long as this has been going on there have always been sociopaths willing to take advantage of the gullible masses.
Not for one second do I believe the leaders at the top have any concern whatsoever about climate change, global warming or even pollution for that matter. There are $millions, $billions, even $trillions at stake depending on how far this is allowed to go. Y’all trust me on this: men start wars and get millions killed for that kind of dough. Hell, many men lie, cheat, steal and murder for little to no reward. What sort of mischief when trillions are at stake? Sigh. Just look at history for your answer.
I appreciate the souls at WUWT (and beyond) for working towards education and for fighting a very good and just fight. But I fear that “climate change” is simply one facet of a growing monster bent on annihilation. The concept of a devil character has never made more sense. I guess I, too, have fallen among the superstitious masses. Har har. [GULP]
“What luck for leaders that men don’t think.”

December 21, 2009 9:04 am

oxman: had this interesting point in their story on this …

This same cooling effect is expected to happen (somewhat counterintuitively) as carbon dioxide concentrations increase from emissions at Earth’s surface. So understanding the natural variability of this layer is important to detecting any changes from carbon dioxide increases.

December 21, 2009 9:06 am

I attribute the absence of Mann and Jones to the same reason why has McIntyre & McKittrick missing from their skeptics list, the good old fashion Amish “shun.”

December 21, 2009 9:13 am

Fox did a good job, but did not go into the science very much.
Helped confirm many of the AGW supporters will make a lot of money if controls go in place.

Richard A.
December 21, 2009 9:13 am

“Maybe he finally consulted a lawyer and was promptly told to zip it?”
– Mark T.
More than likely he has always seen the debate as primarily political as opposed to scientific, and as such sees no problem or hypocrisy in avoiding a Fox News special because of their perceived, and in my personal opinion correctly perceived, political bias. Problem is, who isn’t biased? Answer: no one. This is really just a continuation of the strategy to stifle or ignore anyone who might be in the least bit critical of their work. They can’t freeze Fox out of the peer review or the media business, hence ignore the special, and if it comes up question their bias and/or the credentials of those interviewed, and ignore equal but opposite problems on your own side.

December 21, 2009 9:16 am

Thanks for posting this .. our FOX out of Spokane did not air it (????). Will look at tonight.
When the AGW thing falls apart on of these years, it will be because folks like Anthony, Steve and many others. Much appreciated.

Mark T
December 21, 2009 9:18 am

Neo (09:06:41) :

I attribute the absence of Mann and Jones to the same reason why has McIntyre & McKittrick missing from their skeptics list, the good old fashion Amish “shun.”

Uh, the underlying difference would be that Mann and Jones were probably invited to appear on Fox. The same cannot be said for RC.
^Richard A.: but Mann claims he is politically conservative.

December 21, 2009 9:21 am

Neo (09:04:07) Here too: TIMED measurements indicate that the amount of ultraviolet radiation emitted by the Sun has significantly decreased since the start of solar minimum. The amount of infrared radiation emitted by nitric oxide molecules has also declined, implying that the upper atmosphere has cooled

December 21, 2009 9:30 am

There’s so much bad blood between Mann and McIntyre (I had forgotten Mann was the inspiration for McIntyre’s Starbuck’s Hypothesis) that any sort of meeting between them is likely evoke images of Teller and anti-Teller.
(Not Penn & Teller, it helps to be old.)

December 21, 2009 9:34 am

News is all about entertainment and less about news. Fox News is the only right-wing news outlet there is. Since it exposes the left, it is hated by the left. Michael Mann has chosen a position the big government commies on the left love, environmentalism. That is his cash cow, Mann is not so stupid as to know what Fox will do to him. Fox will expose him. All of the rest of the news stations are left-wing to various degrees. CNN is as close to center as you can get, and even they are very left. Since they expose the right, they are hated by the right. But the difference is, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are so big the right has to work with them. MSNBC is to the left as Fox News is to the right. All are stupid and clearly biased. The only way to find out the dirty little secrets of the left or right is to watch the news that is opposite of the left and right.
The problem is for Michael Mann, Fox News has the biggest audience. Rupert Murdoch knows how to get ratings. Fox may be crazy, but Fox News is watched.
I learned a long time ago not to watch any of them. I used to listen to Glenn Beck, but then he started going really crazy. I mean Rush Limbaugh crazy. I couldn’t take it anymore. Then I tried to watch his program one night, and he actually is even crazier. To me, the only thing sadder than the eco-zealots is the people who take what is said on entertainment news at face value. It is sadder because such people can become zealots for a cause, that is the last thing this world needs.

Brian in Bellingham
December 21, 2009 9:36 am

Clive, it was the Fox News Channel, not your local Fox affiliate.

Jack Hughes
December 21, 2009 9:38 am

Thanks for this work, Anthony.
You can hold your head up high.

December 21, 2009 9:47 am

It is beholden to me to pronounce the inevitable sentence upon the accused. Courtesy of Merriam-webster.
Main Entry: un·man·ly
Pronunciation: \-ˈman-lē\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
: not manly: as a : being of weak character : cowardly b : effeminate
— un·man·li·ness \-lē-nəs\ noun
Unmannly he was unmannly he is, unmannly he shall remain. Date: 21st century

December 21, 2009 9:49 am

vboring (08:48:44) :
“I just wish anyone other than Fox News had put this together.
Most people who think Fox is a credible source already think AGW is a hoax.”
– FOX claims that roughly half of their viewers are not “conservatives”, and that those viewers watch FOX to get real information.
I agree that the GW program was short on science. Most unfortunate, however, very good one-half show “skeptic” exposure! Even a draw on any of the TV shows is a great plus compared to what we’re used to getting: nothing, or derision.
I reviewed the Glenn Beck show from a couple weeks ago with Bolton and Monckton – the best so far, I believe. The Mc’s and Michael did very, very well yesterday.
The lack of “Believers” appearing really hurt the AGWers.

P Gosselin
December 21, 2009 9:50 am

Mann is not the only one who has made a habit of chickening out.
Bolting from debate is pandemic with the warmists.
The few times they tried,they got their clocks cleaned out.
Overall it was an excellent documentary. It was one I enjoyed watching.

December 21, 2009 9:52 am

Thank you for posting this. I meant to watch this last night but I missed it. It is a pretty even handed coverage of the subject. It’s not Fox’s fault that none of the “pro AGW” side wanted to speak on camera about it. So, they let the skeptic side of the issue dominate the story. That’s how it goes.
Steve did very well on this. He came across as a very intelligent, well meaning, mild mannered guy, not some crazed “denier” trying to sell a story. Good job.

December 21, 2009 9:53 am

Reasonably balanced programme – I never realised the MMs were so good looking……

December 21, 2009 9:53 am

Steve and the rest — They did us proud …

Daniel M
December 21, 2009 9:55 am

vboring (08:48:44) :
I just wish anyone other than Fox News had put this together.
I think what we really need to wish is that anyone IN ADDITION TO Fox starts reporting this. Can you imagine how fence sitters might view this if Fox and, say, CNBC agreed on the issue?

December 21, 2009 10:00 am

I have read that the latest data from Nasa confirms AWG and also shows that AWG is not settled. How can the same data both confirm and add confusion? Again it is a matter of context. I am no Scientist nor do I play one on TV but I have been studying the Climate Science for about 12 years. I am by no means able to contribute any meaningful technical insight but I can say that everything I have read from all the sources I could find only confirm what I had long thought and that is that the Climate is the outcome of many different processes all of which interact and some in ways that seem counterintuitive.
What has always bothered me about the Alarmists is they have been controlling the message and shuting down debate. It is the total arrogance that first raised my suspicions. I just appreciate all the work that has been done on sites like this and Climate Audit etc.

Galen Haugh
December 21, 2009 10:04 am

According to the latest ratings and demographic breakdown, I saw:
Fox News has more Democrats watching them than the other cable news networks combined.
Do you want me to state that again?
More Democrats watch Fox News than the other cable news networks combined.
Which means?
A significant number of Democrats are getting an eye-full when they watch Fox–more so than any other source, especially if the other cable channels refuse to admit the sky is blue.

John Wright
December 21, 2009 10:06 am

vboring (08:48:44) :
“I just wish anyone other than Fox News had put this together.
Most people who think Fox is a credible source already think AGW is a hoax.
Most people who think AGW is real think everything that Fox says is indefensible political jibber-jabber.”
Well if the other mainstream media aren’t doing their job, where do they go to get their information? That’s been the whole problem all along.

December 21, 2009 10:07 am

OT would readers add some expert info on this post by the biggest Conservative blogger in the UK?
He’s trying to be helpful to open the debate but is over-run by warmists

December 21, 2009 10:13 am

Neo (09:06:41) :
… the good old fashion Amish “shun.”
Wait till they get theirs!
Is there enough crow for the AGW crowd?

December 21, 2009 10:18 am

Side note on media coverage of “climategate”: Thomas Lifson, from was the guest host on Dennis Miller’s radio show today. He had fellow American Thinker science editor, Marc Sheppard, as a guest. Sheppard was extremely good. He was degrees more accurate than some of the other radio and TV folks that support AGW skepticism. Sheppard explained a few of the controversial emails in detail and even got into the data “adjustment” area (Fox could have done more on this). At one point when asked about the veracity of the data, he said: “Anthony Watts has made mincemeat of the station data.” (that’s an accurate paraphrase).
Dennis Miller has been a voice of reason on global warming since he has been on the air. Props to him!

Mike Ramsey
December 21, 2009 10:24 am

I have often wondered about the lack of balance in the global warming science. Now we see evidence of the deliberate sabotage of the peer-review process.
Why should we think that such tactics are limited to just climate science?  What other branches of science have been manipulated?  What are working scientist going to do to try to restore some level credibility to their field?
Mike Ramsey

Galen Haugh
December 21, 2009 10:25 am

Wade said (in part)
“But the difference is, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC are so big the right has to work with them.”
Ans: Nope. Not anymore. The Internet has leveled the playing field. In fact, you might say the Internet has run over CNN, ABC, and the rest of the alphabet soup.
“I learned a long time ago not to watch any of them. I used to listen to Glenn Beck, but then he started going really crazy. I mean Rush Limbaugh crazy. I couldn’t take it anymore. Then I tried to watch his program one night, and he actually is even crazier. To me, the only thing sadder than the eco-zealots is the people who take what is said on entertainment news at face value. It is sadder because such people can become zealots for a cause, that is the last thing this world needs.”
Ans: Glenn Beck is quite the entertainer, but after the goofy looks, theatrics and tears, have you caught him in a lie? If so, please point it out. Better yet, email it to Glenn—his email addy is Since he gets about 4,000 emails a day, it might take a day or two for him to get to it. And if you can show where you have caught him in a lie, he’ll research it and offer a public apology. He’s done it before, which is almost never seen from the alphabets.
Having watched Glenn Beck for a while, I’d say what he’s zealous about is our freedoms and keeping our country something worth giving to our kids. He does it by asking difficult questions, and actually expects an answer—keeping our government (Republican or Democrat) accountable. If that’s being zealous, I’m with Glenn, thank you.
And if his theatrics bother you, you can read his message simply by signing up. I recommend it.

December 21, 2009 10:27 am

As a liberal AGW non-believer (I don’t like denier) I also wish it had been other than Fox. I detest that station and it’s loony sycophantic ravers. However the best suggestion is above, how about both MSNBC and Fox. CNN had a fear mongering bit on last night so are unlikely to switch. I have sent several letters to Rachel Maddow suggesting she look at the other side of the argument, to no effect so far. What if she got letters from 2 or 3 dozen WUWT readers?

December 21, 2009 10:33 am

As an Englishman who’s occasionally seen fox news, I wouldn’t want to go on fox to discuss any topic, as you’re not exactly going to get a balanced discussion.

December 21, 2009 10:36 am

What I find so very effective is the character of both McIntyre and McKittrick. They are clearly being honest and it shows in their interviews. No need to spin anything they say. That must infuriate the fraudsters no end. Dr Carter from Australia is another one to listen to if you want the truth. Kate at Small dead animals has some vids of Dr. Carter that are well worth seeing.
Thanks for this Anthony et al.

December 21, 2009 10:39 am

I don’t watch TV, but I watch the ratings. There is a reason that Fox is rubbing the noses of the alphabets in the playground sand: most people don’t want to be spoon fed their propaganda, no matter how slick it’s done. And they want to see both sides of the issues.

Jack Green
December 21, 2009 10:39 am

Thanks fox news. Well done and factual. At least the skeptics agree that global warming exits as I do. I don’t believe it’s due to a large man made pollution problem and I don’t believe it’s going to result in a catastrophic ending. The left is just using it to make money and grab power. That’s what I detest. I think we’ll know in 10 to 20 years for sure. I think we know now but it’s not settled yet. Thanks Anthony.

December 21, 2009 10:40 am

De Boer’s main scare scenario “a sea level rise of 1m would displace 20 million people in Bangla Desh” shows just how disconnected he is from other reality than climate change.
Firstly, a sea level ris of 1m/century is well above the latest IPCC scenarios, which themselves are in part due to a natural rise of sea-level since the ice age and the little ice age.
The main point is, however, that Bangla-Desh has currently a population of over 150 million increasing at a rate of 2.1% per year on a land of the size of New York State.
So, their population increases by De Boer’s 20 million in just 6 years. Where to put these people then, if this is a real problem, and isn’t this lifestyle then a much bigger threat to Bangla Desh or probably their neighbours ?

Mike Ramsey
December 21, 2009 10:41 am

Murray (10:27:09) :
The truth is a difficult thing to arrive at.  The founding father’s believed that a free press was the best way for a democracy to arrive at the truth.The marketplace of competing ideas would determine which way the democracy would go.
How free is the press?  Outside of the internet, the press is concentrated into the hands of a very few.  Try to image just how much less information you would be getting if Fox vanished from the airwaves?  Would you really be happier?
Fox News is averaging about the same number of viewers as MSNBC, CNN, HLN combined.
Why do you think that is?
Mike Ramsey

December 21, 2009 10:50 am

My apologies for misspelling Dr McKitrick’s name.

December 21, 2009 10:55 am

i’m not sure you can find a dozen or two people willing to listen to Rachel Maddow. Comparing MSNBC to Fox only reinforces how far left the media bend is that the two “seem” equidistant in partisanship (if only by the outrage from the main parties).
Fox is only far enough right to capture the middle and the right. The other stations are fighting over the left. CNN would be wise to shift back to the center, but the media and government seem tied at the hip these days.
There are many Fox hosts and contributors that have their “lefty” credentials. Fox can polarize in both directions without fear of losing the right.. where would they go?
We just hear the soundbites and clips of Fox that flog the left, because it’s the left that becomes outraged. What media outlet dares challenge the democratic party? They are supposed to be off-limits.

December 21, 2009 11:00 am
December 21, 2009 11:03 am

Well Fox news did a good job. But they should have cornered Edward Markey in obvious flaws in his argument.
He was sort of caught Fox – “You are saying here is a requirement figure out how we are going to get there. But if we don’t? What happens?”
Markey – “Oh we are going to get there. Our capacity for technological innovation is unlimited” –
Thats faith Markey – you havent answered the question – HOW?
Fox – “you know the critics say that’s just not do-able”
Markey – “The average vehicle in 1975 was 13 mpg but the United States made a commitment to double the mileage by 1986 and we did it, our new goal is to increase it to 35 mpg by 2016 and we will meet that goal – thats American ingenuity” –
Markey – you’re a bloody idiot. What has mpg got to do with cap n trade?
American ingenuity maybe alive and well but you are a living example of American stupidity. The reason why America is going downhill so fast.
The mileage increased because the price of oil went up. The Japanese and Europeans already had cars more efficient than yours. Do you even realise that the American car industry has gone bust? 35 mpg? – big deal ! The Japanese already have cars that do 35 mpg. How will cap n trade help you to reach that goal?
So when you say “WE” will meet that goal – what you mean is the Japanese will meet that goal. You may buy the cars that you cannot produce anymore because your industries are inefficient and will be more so after cap n trade. Eventually you wont be able to buy the cars, or anything else that you wont produce anymore thanks to cap n trade which will make you rapidly into another Zimbabwe.
This is just mad – insane. Is the western world just stupid? And the collective stupidity has sort of bubbled up into this global warming self destructing self deluding hoax?

P Gosselin
December 21, 2009 11:04 am

These alarmists all like to float out the big sea level rises. But if you ask them to place their bets, they suddenly change the subject.
1 meter per century means 10 cm in the next 10 years. Good luck trying to find an alarmist willing to put money down on this. You won’t even find one willing to bet on 5 cm. You might find a few willing to bet (only small money) on 3 cm.
They blow off lots of hot air, but don’t stand behind their own talk.
Send Yves de Bore a proposition to bet on a meter. But don’t hold your breath expecting him to jump on it.

December 21, 2009 11:10 am

Rupert Murdoch seems to be backing both horses on the climate news front.
Sky news UK is pushing AGW like it’s going out of fashion.

December 21, 2009 11:10 am

Mike Ramsey (10:24:12) :
“Why should we think that such tactics are limited to just climate science? What other branches of science have been manipulated?”
That would be the ‘social sciences’ if you can call them science as they have been infiltrated by political correctness for decades.
“What are working scientist going to do to try to restore some level credibility to their field?”
We may be seeing some of that now in the hard sciences as they must be very uncomfortable with the manipulation or the peer review process. The social sciences are more about ideology than science so I don’t expect all that much from them.

P Gosselin
December 21, 2009 11:11 am

Over the last five years you have about a 5 mm rise, i.e 10 mm/decade, 10 cm per century. Okay, maybe we’ve had a flat period. But even a doublng of that puts us at about the same rate as the previous centuries.

December 21, 2009 11:11 am

Mike Ramsey (10:41:06) : – The press is a controlled propoganda machine. The only media that is really free is the internet.

December 21, 2009 11:18 am

Light on the science, but far too many viewers would “tune out” if it were less light.
For those that say FOX is biased? lol ( small laugh, of pain)…we don’t have unbiased media in the US. I’m just happy that one of the major ones actually attempted to highlight why this is not settled science, and that there is a group think problem in a handful of gatekeepers.
Steve has vastly improved in his media presentations. Bravo!

December 21, 2009 11:18 am

Regarding the Fox special and the perceived bias. Can anyone point to any of the other networks that has run (or would run) a warming special that was as fair to the “other side” as Fox’s show? Also note that the special wasn’t run by the editorial section (Hannity, Beck, etc.)
The other “news” networks make it pretty clear where they stand on the issue, when they bother to cover it at all. With this hour long special it was tough to tell where the host stood. That’s a whole lot more “fair and balanced” than any other network will provide.
So Kudos to Fox and Steve and a big raspberry to Dr. Mann.

December 21, 2009 11:18 am

I cannot understand why people are so anti Fox. I would rate this as a surprisingly balanced documentary. If Mann et al declined to be interviewed, that is their problem. But this was balanced by pro warmists Strong, De Boer, Monbiot, Markey and others. The report didn’t seem to lean one way or the other, and if they did lean, it was subtle.

P Gosselin
December 21, 2009 11:19 am

How much money do you suppose went into this?
State of the Arctic Conference in Fla. in March. More BS.
Check out their outreach video.
Hey! Might be a good place to find someone to place a bet.

December 21, 2009 11:21 am

Anyone think the greenpeace activist in segment 4 is worth listening to? I think most people can understand his argument.

December 21, 2009 11:27 am

Yeah! Fox news! Great job!

December 21, 2009 11:31 am

“Rupert Murdoch seems to be backing both horses on the climate news front.
Sky news UK is pushing AGW like it’s going out of fashion.”
Stations have to bring in money and accordingly feed the public with what is believable and agrees with their prejudices.

R. Craigen
December 21, 2009 11:35 am

Mann’s bias showed the moment he opened his mouth about Sarah Palin. For him, evidently, climate is a partisan political issue. So it is — unfortunately so — but it’s just as well that he wears his bias on his sleeve. I’m sick and tired of those who pretend to be on a scientific high road but leave their political zipper down, obvious to all except perhaps themselves.

December 21, 2009 11:36 am

P Gosselin (11:04:39)
it is more than telling, that even a top IPCC official doesn’t quote official IPCC numbers but a huge exaggeration instead. Actually, he is damaging the reputatuon of his employer.

December 21, 2009 11:36 am

Dude .. has anyone noticed how this Yvo de boer guy looks just like Dr. Smith in Lost in Space? Dr. Smith was a serial liar and this guy’s eyes flutter and blink when he speaks of rising oceans etc .. all he needs is the robot in the background .. danger .. danger … anyhow no one will trust a guy who looks like Dr. Smith.

December 21, 2009 11:37 am

Exactly Richard – Markey is that smooth talking lefty that all the soft Gaia believers swoon over, male and female.
Rupert Murdoch said in an interview that he believed conflict is what people want on TV – they want to see both sides battling it out.
I thought that program achieved that very well – had it been on another channel no one would have accused it of being biased.
The program would have been an eye opener to all those aging lefty Democrats who are becoming more right wing as they age and find themselves watching Fox. 😉

December 21, 2009 11:50 am

If EPA can ban CO2 as a pollutant, on the basis that it is a greenhouse gas, shouldnt they ban water wapor as well?
I mean, clear logic says water wapor should be banned first?

dave ward
December 21, 2009 11:53 am

@ richb313 (10:00:50) : – In tonight’s “Norwich Evening News” is a brief article about dangerous road conditions (global warming, anyone?) In it Chris Bell of Weatherquest based at the UEA said there was uncertainty over the coming days. “It gets interesting from Thursday: it could be cloudy with a risk of sleet or snow, but one of the computer models brings rain in and leaves it milder for Christmas, while another model keeps us on the colder side”
He must be using very different computer models to the Met Office et all!!
In a further article it is reported that a Norfolk Euro MP held a “beach barbecue” in the snow outside the UEA CRU, to protest at the science of man made climate change. But Neil Adger, Professor of environmental sciences said “They have got it all wrong. They mix up the climate with the weather. The science produced at the UEA is sound, and ties in with science from around the world – climate change is real and experienced by all of us”
Shame there isn’t a real beach at the UEA – we could go there and pull their heads out of the sand…

December 21, 2009 12:06 pm

Scott (10:33:19) :
Actually that’s not true. I did a detailed “audit” of an episode of the Sandy Berger saga, to prove as I thought Fox’s bias. Well major fact for major fact all the main US newspapers (NYT WaPo) had the same content. Fox actually had longer more complex articles, with more information. What they did have was that the NYT didn’t were facts that made Berger look ridiculous (he hid documents in his pants). I like Berger and am sorry he looked ridiculous, but I don’t see why this was “censored”.
So actually you got a BETTER picture of what happened from Fox.

December 21, 2009 12:30 pm

I can see Rachel’s lip curling at the very thought of interviewing the moral troglodytes who, for silver in hand, pretend to have found something worthy of debate here.

December 21, 2009 12:30 pm

Even though they didn’t show them enough, McIntyre and McKittrick were really good. Contrasted with the emails, it painted a nice picture.

December 21, 2009 12:45 pm

Here is my problem… a decade ago I said that the temperature would not go up any further then it has and then all these people who are going nuts about CO2 will see the light… It has been a decade and they have not seen the light… Now I can say in another decade from now they will see the light… But I am not going to assume that anymore. From now on I am on the offensive, I am tired of people grabbing hold of a belief system that is not Validated yet. Now, if in 10 years the hypothesis ( which is all CO2 caused warming is ) does prove to be correct then I will apologize, heck I will be the first in line to pay for the increase in taxes needed to fix the problem… However the science does not add up… So I doubt ( though one never knows ) that I will be doing that.
I will not wait any longer, this has got to stop and I will tell as many people as I can as often as I can to look at the science. Not simply be spoon fed the answers.
Good Job Fox, right on.

John Edmondson
December 21, 2009 12:57 pm

OT but well worth watching:-
For those who really want to know what may be in store as regards climate change – pour a stiff whisky and have a look at this :
Its a research lecture from those seriously good research physicist at CERN. Looks like they think that we are about to have a mini ice age called a Maunder minimum caused by the disappearance of sunspots.

Dr Adford
December 21, 2009 12:57 pm

Would it be possible to make the volume any louder, to completely destroy my speakers?
What idiot transferred this to their PC? Retard.
How difficult is it to NORMALISE the volume? Asshole.

Claude Harvey
December 21, 2009 1:23 pm

Although Fox does make an attempt (a very modest attempt) at “balance”, its journalistic slant is clearly conservative. To deny that obvious fact is to lose credibility. I would not care to see Fox introduce any more balance to their reporting until their media competitors introduce at least SOME balance to their own editorial policies. Even when you throw Fox with its enormous viewership into the mix with the other major news media outlets, the overall effect remains biased both to the political “left” and in the pro-AGW direction. Although it should not be so, political persuasion and inclination to accept or reject AGW without understanding the science is quite clearly in evidence among the general public.

Lord Taylor
December 21, 2009 1:27 pm

“Here is my problem… a decade ago I said that the temperature would not go up any further then it has and then all these people who are going nuts about CO2 will see the light… It has been a decade and they have not seen the light…”
Some people never see the light. That’s because they’re blind.

December 21, 2009 1:31 pm

CNN ran “Planet in Peril” opposite the Fox News report. Hansen was on there saying they knew precisely what the climate sensitivity was BECAUSE of ice core measurements going back 700,000 years.
While I’m willing to accept the ice cores show the relative amounts of CO2 vs. temperature over history. The question I have is HOW DO THEY KNOW it was CO2 driving temperatures? Perhaps it was temperatures driving CO2 levels through ocean outgassing? With an external force (orbit, sun, etc.) driving temperature.
Is the global warming theory flawed because of a simple incorrect assumption?

Richard Bell
December 21, 2009 1:41 pm

Climate and Cosmic Rays
This Cern lecture by Jasper Kirby as mentioned a couple of comments ago can also be found on there server below with better quality and speed.
If all the people who watched the Fox show could watch the above I think most would agree the Science is far from settled.

December 21, 2009 1:42 pm

“Charles (11:21:45) :
Anyone think the greenpeace activist in segment 4 is worth listening to? I think most people can understand his argument”
Charles, that’s Björn Lomborg, a Dane. Go get his book “The sceptical environmentalist”. He’s collected mountains of data about economic development, resources, energy… and discusses the IPCC’s various scenarios in length. He’s collecting LOADS of flak here in Europe from the Greens but they can’t really shoot a hole into his logic.

December 21, 2009 1:44 pm

I just started the first video (thanks for posting them, Anthony!) and I couldn’t help but notice that as they mentioned poor countries, they showed a kid on crutches (w/o a leg?). Uh… Since when did CO2 cripple people?!

December 21, 2009 1:53 pm

RR (13:31:51) :
CNN ran “Planet in Peril” opposite the Fox News report. Hansen was on there saying they knew precisely what the climate sensitivity was BECAUSE of ice core measurements going back 700,000 years.

This means that approximately 300 people watched it.
image, if allowed:

Brian D
December 21, 2009 1:57 pm

Pretty balanced reporting. When I watch news channels, it’s either Fox, or CNN. Fox leans right, and CNN leans left, but they both can provide some balance in their reporting (much better than other networks, anyway). A well done special IMO.

December 21, 2009 2:08 pm

A nice succinct explanation of the issues surrounding AGW, very easy for the casual observer to understand. Unfortunately, I think we’ll be waiting a very long time to see something comparable on Australian television.

David Segesta
December 21, 2009 2:15 pm

It’s very refreshing to see at least one mainstream news source finally reporting this. Maybe now the American people will begin to realize what a scam AGW is.

Henry chance
December 21, 2009 2:15 pm

Mann is on a media blitz/surge. he is chasing his tale to gain some traction on credibility.
It won’t protect his tail.

Mike Kelley
December 21, 2009 2:47 pm

Glenn Beck may be a little “out there”, but he has some excellent researchers and has covered the Climategate issue better than anyone else on tv. Fox leans conservative, especially compared to the other media, but they give liberals a chance to talk too. Lefties like Bob Beckel and Kirsten Powers are staples on primetime Fox News. I think it is the continual friction between ideologies that makes Fox more interesting than the usual liberal echo chamber of CBS, NBC, etc.

December 21, 2009 2:54 pm

Outstanding coverage of the science, and I really like how they minimized the politics so that we can all have a much clearer view of the issue!
But one question nags…
Where was McIntyre and McKitrick?! Oh, yeah… DUH…. they had the first few minutes! As I said, such wonderful coverage of the science!
Sigh… Four out of ten. Very frustrating to watch, for the most part. Do this one over, FOX!

December 21, 2009 3:03 pm

Sorry to pollute the forum with posts, but I have to change my mind. Upon further reflection, maybe if Mann wasn’t being such a MOUSE (and a wireless, infrared one, if you catch my meaning), they would have had more of the science on there, so as to balance both sides, as they did with the many areas that were covered.
So FOX did okay. I was hasty in my last assesment.

Mesa Econoguy
December 21, 2009 3:37 pm

It is unfortunate that this subject matter is now fully politicized, and that Fox had to be the outlet. They did a very good and clean job of presenting the issues, and if they reached a bunch more folks than have been following this, that’s a good thing – many more than the other networks, though as some observed above, the battle lines are mostly drawn now.
Bjorn Lomborg was really good, presenting the economic cost/benefit argument, which makes the catastrophist case look juvenile.
What’s really shameful about the entire situation is outside of a couple short pieces on CNN, this is the only expose of the AGW debate/Climategate emails in the press.
The failure to follow and communicate the overt distortions, obfuscations, and likely actionable obstructions within this scientific field lays squarely at the feet of uneducated, inattentive journalists, whose very job it is to do so.

December 21, 2009 3:47 pm

Smokey (10:39:18) :
I don’t watch TV, but I watch the ratings. There is a reason that Fox is rubbing the noses of the alphabets in the playground sand: most people don’t want to be spoon fed their propaganda, no matter how slick it’s done. And they want to see both sides of the issues.

Quite true Smokey. But also remember, Murdoch is an Australian, and if there is one thing Australians don’t like, it’s a lying Pom. And now the Torygraph has spilled the beans on Pachauri, all unholy hell will break loose.
It’s Rupert’s revenge.

Paul Vaughan
December 21, 2009 3:50 pm

Well, it’s MSM penetration, but they didn’t even touch on the interesting issues (natural climate variations) – telling (regarding orientation-bias).
Also: You don’t need to shout into a mic.
This “issue” just keeps getting uglier & uglier. People are catching on that something severely fishy is going on, but given where their focus is going with coverage from this angle, I would expect influential players (the ones who may have somehow managed to be naive) to now be concerned about how to get in on the profiteering.
The importance of understanding natural climate variations didn’t even seem to be on the host’s radar.
My overall impression is that political forces, of whichever orientation, aren’t concerned with removing barriers to truth — no sense of urgency there – none whatsoever. In other words, we can expect ongoing instability due to the nature of the framing being thrust. Clearly, influential players – from whichever political camp – see opportunity in instability.
Instability is just going to compound problems [along with boom-bust bubble-blowers interest, for a corrupt few], so it is not a sensible option for most of us. Perhaps sensible minds will start prevailing whenever the dust settles; at least circumstances are becoming more conducive to their speaking out.

December 21, 2009 4:05 pm

Hey look what the wikipedia (of all places!) has to say about this Mr. Strong who resides in Beijing (of all places!):

2005 Oil-for-Food scandal and hiring practice criticisms
In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to “Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would “sideline himself until the cloud was removed”. Since then Strong has not returned to his native Canada, and now lives in Beijing.[14]
Strong was the UN’s envoy to North Korea until July 2005. According to Associated Press his contract was not renewed “amid questions about his connection to a suspect in the UN oil-for-food scandal”, Tongsun Park, as well as due to criticism that he gave his step-daughter a job at the UN contrary to UN staff regulations against hiring immediate family
I guess you just don’t get up the ladder at the UN if you’re having the smallest honest bone in your body.

Ben D
December 21, 2009 4:21 pm

Down with the Carbo-Phobes

Jim F
December 21, 2009 5:00 pm

I watched the FOX show after being alerted to it here. McIntyre is much too circumspect. McKittrick and Lomborg (although the latter is a AGW believer) are much tougher critics. Folks, we are up against people who don’t believe it wrong to lie through their teeth to publicize what they think (or perhaps have a vested interest in believing) is happening.
We’ve got to get tougher and we’ve got to get more plain-spoken. Can someone start putting these often far too complicated issues (witness Dr. Spencer’s recent post) into something that resembles a convincing argument that can be understood – or at least grasped – by the vast majority of people who have a high school diploma or a BA? Lord Monckton is one of the better ones at doing this, but we have to get far better at making the What – So What argument (Willis, here, has done some good stuff that fits in the category).
I’m not at all saying we need to lie or shade things, but let’s quit being dilettantes. For example, are we convinced that those several independent geochemical studies that show Earth’s CO2 content in the atmosphere to have been 10-20 times that of today to be true – with no ill effect on the earth (life burgeoned in that time)? Do we believe that the Earth may have been 8-10 or more degrees (C) colder just a few thousand years ago? Steve M. equivocated on the fact of global warming, particularly as to whether humans are affecting it. The simple answer – and true – is yes it has warmed enormously since the last glaciation, most of which time humans could have had little or no effect. Even if today we do have some effect, it has to be at the margin, and we’re so far inside the envelope that the Earth has exhibited over the last half billion years there can be almost no reasonable fear that we’re heading for an irreversible disaster. And so on and on.
Meanwhile the proponents of the disaster scenario have no compunctions against telling us a disaster on the scale of the end of the Cretaceous is about to be visited on us (from my point of view, due to their proposed solutions).
Anyhow, pardon my rant, but we had better become better at stating our beliefs and making accessible our science, or they will win.
Jim F. (geologist)

Tor Hansson
December 21, 2009 5:40 pm

As a regular critic of Fox News I will only say this: pretty good. It was sober, it was professional, it was understandable and palatable for a lot of people in the middle. McIntyre is still a little too cautious. McKittrick and Lomborg are very effective. The Fox journalists could have been a hair tougher.
Another step towards falsifying CAGW.
More of that, please.

Chris H
December 21, 2009 5:56 pm

Like some other commenters, FOX news isn’t exactly a great source for this show. But given the current state of the media, it’s not surprising.
I’m on the fence here since I think warming is probably occurring but I don’t know how bad it will be. Like Steve McIntyre said.
But why can’t any legislative proposals to cut CO2 emissions simply be made condition on more confirming scientific evidence for AGW from a neutral source. Probably there is no such thing as a neutral scientific source but at least if the notion of conditional funding were written into any agreement, it would provide some “exit strategy” in case the world cools, or new evidence is brought to light that shows the whole thing was hopelessly distorted etc.
I’m ignorant of the details of the various agreements but it would be somewhat reassuring if some conditional element were built-into it. Who would want to be pouring trillions of taxpayer money at this “problem’ just as warming stops.

December 21, 2009 6:22 pm

Don Keiller (09:00:31) : or anyone:
What could be an explanation, for laymen, of the stratosphere warming trend, based on a non-AGW theorry? Thanks.

December 21, 2009 6:30 pm

“If his work is so “robust”, why not defend himself in this venue??
Turn over a rock, and watch how quickly all the critters that live under it scurry to get out of the light.

December 21, 2009 7:06 pm

Jim F (17:00:36): “. . .we had better become better at stating our beliefs and making accessible our science, or they will win.”
Exactly right. To repeat: I’ll bet Anthony would be a terrific spokesman, as an expert who is also media-savvy.
Re the Fox broadcast: Needed more conclusive, challenging science: “Has there really been any global warming since 1900? The surface stations say, ‘Maybe not!'” “Is CO2 really a problem? Some scientists say, ‘Not at all!”
Call me, Fox; I’ll write it for you.
No accident it was Brett Baer who hosted. Fox News Channel is to some degree tabloid news, and their personality-driven shows are all opinion. But to my mind Brett Baer’s Special Report (6-7 PM Eastern) is the most solid (and objective) evening news broadcast on the air. Tune in and see if you don’t agree.
/Mr Lynn

Jeff Alberts
December 21, 2009 7:17 pm

Why are the mods allowing OT posts through? I’m talking about the ones where the poster says “This is OT, but…” There’s a thread for that…

December 21, 2009 8:45 pm

I just wish Fox News could find a reporter (or a producer) who knew the difference between “climatic” and “climactic”! It was a pretty serious show, but I kept giggling about the climaxes. . .

Mike Ramsey
December 21, 2009 8:49 pm

“Jeff Alberts (19:17:16) :
Why are the mods allowing OT posts through? I’m talking about the ones where the poster says “This is OT, but…” There’s a thread for that…”
Strikes me as off topic. 🙂
[REPLY – Well, although there are limits, we don’t play topic cop all that much. There ARE limits, though, I repeat . . . ~ Evan]

December 21, 2009 9:34 pm

Chris H (17:56:34) : I’m on the fence here since I think warming is probably occurring but I don’t know how bad it will be. Like Steve McIntyre said.
He also said “I’m not satisfied with the explanations its a big problem”. Remember McIntyre is not a scientist he is a mathmetician and a statistician. He is a hero in that he has uncovered, with intelligence and doggedness the flaws of Mann’s Hockey stick, Briffa’s hockey stick etc. But he is not the last word in understanding climate science, and in fact refuses to discuss the science on his blog. Try it there and you get snipped.
But here are a couple of things to ponder over while you get nervous and feel we aught to take some insurance just in case it is a “big problem”. If we were on a razors edge on the tipping point of climatic catastrophe, caused by a slight increase in CO2, then the Earth must be programmed to behave like this, and it would have happened by now.
It has never happened in our long, long history.
We have warmed by a scant 0.6C in a century and we have never ever made so much progress as in this time – no climate catastrophe.
The antidote to this alleged impending catastrophe is economic suicide. An insurance policy doesnt make sense if the premium is costly than what is being insured.
Would you insure your house if the agent told you, you had better insure because if you dont your house will burn down. Then you read in the small print that the demanded premium of only $500,000 p.a. will mean mean your house will burn down anyway, you will not get a new house and since you have given all your money you wont be able to get a new house.
The present proposals are something like that. They dont make sense.
Hey Chris why dont you have any clothes on?
Well no one visits me anyway.
Well that makes sense but then why the top hat and gloves?
Well someone might.

December 21, 2009 10:01 pm

Got to love the way Bjorn Lomborg´s Wikipedia site is almost entirely devoted to the accusations of scientific misrepresentation:
He is a remarkable debater and presenter and a real boon as an alernative view to the “IPCC consensus” group think. I wonder if he collaborates with Hand Rosling at all:
Clearly the world fixation on CO2 emissions is economically and socially unhealthy. There are bigger issues in this world that need our attention and could be readily fixed at a miniscule fraction of the cost.

December 21, 2009 10:41 pm

Nice to see the video, but the audio is overdriven and distorted. Doe anyone have show files with good quality audio?

Tony Brookes
December 22, 2009 3:50 am

What we have to realise is that most of the media is leftish of centre, and much very left of centre. Thus putting Fox News on the right is still fairly near to centre. It’s the same here in the UK – the editor of the Daily Telegraph is centre rightish but not sufficiently to allow the truth about CO2 and global warming to be stated. The paper tends towards the AGW proponents. Fox news just wants the truth on this subject. There is too much money invested in carbon to turn this oil-tanker around quickly – but turn it will.

December 22, 2009 6:31 am

A lot of Canadians here, McIntyre & McKitrick, (Superheros, in my mind) and Maurice Strong (former head of Petro (Pecker) Canada, Power Corp & Ontario Hydro, formally implicated in the UN -Oil for Food scandal) the Mastermind Evil Villain.

December 22, 2009 7:52 am

Michael Mann really wanted to appear on FOX news but its not because he didn’t want to , he couldn’t . He’s Snowed in at his home . . .

December 22, 2009 8:46 pm

Someone above said they don’t understand why people are so anti Fox News. Well, they’re group-thinkers. Everyone I know (all my friends are liberals) HATE, rabidly hate Fox, but claim to never watch it. They don’t even pause after to explain how they can hate something they claim to never watch.
They hate Republicans, but love me and don’t know I’ve voted that way since the Dems started getting nuttier over the years.
They call people like me – logical thinkers who didn’t get hysterical over global warming – “flat-earthers”.
I could go on about the exact same rabid cliched hatefilled remarks I hear from my liberal friends. It’s like they attend parties where they’re handed a box of what they’re supposed to think and they comply vehemently. Rarely do I hear any nuanced thought. It’s all knee-jerk spasm of hatred.
My professor friend tells me she hates (with a snarl) Repbulicans, “They’re all insane and go to protests with signs about how Obama is like Hitler.” For fun, I posted a liberal protest photo on Facebook of people holding “Bush is Hitler” signs. No response from my friend.
I am not speaking in generalities, I am speaking about people I’ve lived amongst for decades. I try to get them to open their minds, but they will not. Yet, they claim they are tolerant, do not judge and are very open-minded.
I watch all the news stations, read two liberally slanted newspapers and while Fox is not embarrassed to appreciate America (and the other media sources seem to), they do try their best to show both sides.

December 23, 2009 7:01 pm

I’ve now watched the special twice (live and DVR), and looked at comments on many threads. Steve, Ross, Patrick & Bjorn did a terrific job, as well as Brett Baier’s wrapping of the special. But in reviewing the piece (which don’t kid yourself, would not have seen broadcast if not for Fox), reporting and interviews by Eric Shawn’s were a HUGE and mostly unsung (to my knowledge) contribution to a great program, especially the stronger 1st half, IMO.
I wonder if Steve, Ross and others can comment on the process, and Mr. Shawn’s role.
Sidebar to Mr. Watt’s — any Surface Station volunteers contact you from Russia/Siberia. That accusation of Hadley’s cherry-picking to enhance warming stats. Perhaps the case would be bolstered by some onsite photos of some of the “what not to do” variety. If you’ve had contact, it would also be great testimony to WUWT & SS’s worldwide reach.

December 23, 2009 7:10 pm

Just checked out Shawn’s bio on Fox news ( . He seems to be a U.N. squandering funds expert, among other things. He’s certainly in his element here, with the known IPCC transgressions and power-grabs.

Stepahen Grijseels
January 2, 2010 8:03 pm

Can some body refer me to an expert opinion on the following ?
In Copenhagen Mr. Tarik Chekchak form the Cousteau Society mentioned the acidity of the oceans will rise by 150% between now and 2050 leaving very little time for biological sytems to adapt, if they can. They sounded alarm for the threat of catastrophic acidification of marine environments due to absorption of CO2. They mentioned carbon dioxide in our atmosphere had to be stabilized below 350ppm. To achieve this goal , global emissions must be reduced to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95% by 2050.
May I have a scientific opinion ?
Dr. Stephane Grijseels
REPLY – It sounds a little strange (esp. to anyone who’s kept aquariums). Not only are the oceans very strongly basic (so what does 150% “more acidic” mean, exactly?), but they are very “hard” and there are a lot of buffers present as well. Furthermore, carbonic acid is about as weak an acid as it gets. ~ Evan]

Stepahen Grijseels
January 3, 2010 11:47 am

Thank you for your response Evan.
So do you think there is no scientific evidence for the statements of Mr. Chekchak ? Is this an issue that requires further investigation ? Does it need to be more specific ? ( As you said what does rise in acidity by 150% mean )

January 27, 2010 4:05 am

I know this is a late reply (sorry) but the question above has been troubling me too.
My understanding of acidity is that it is related to the H+ concentration.. pH is defined as -log(H+ concentration) with neutral pH (7) being the point where H+ and OH- balance. From a chemical point of view, I can’t see the ocean being significantly basic (alkaline, pH>7) either.
As mentioned, Carbonic acid is about as weak an acid as you can get, and H2CO3 H2O + CO2 is an easily reversable reaction .. it’s what happens when you dissolve CO2 in water. If I remember right, it’s got more to do with temp and pressure than reagent concentrations (even if 300 odd ppm made a difference)
Second troubling point was just that I saw some eco type saying acidification would make coral and other marine structures dissolve. This I thought odd, because coral, shells etc are made of calcium carbonate (ironically, from dissolved CO2/carbonic acid in the water) and you are going to have a hard time reacting carbonic acid with a carbonate (C’mon, think about it…..)
Only one more thing, It’s almost the end of Jan and I’m still seeing the ActOnCO2 ads on TV… huh? WUWT?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights