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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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]
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.
Got to love the way Bjorn Lomborg´s Wikipedia site is almost entirely devoted to the accusations of scientific misrepresentation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg
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:
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/swine-flu-alert-news-death-ratio-tuberculosis/
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.
Nice to see the video, but the audio is overdriven and distorted. Doe anyone have show files with good quality audio?
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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.
Just checked out Shawn’s bio on Fox news (http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/eric-shawn/) . 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.
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 ?
Sincerely,
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]
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 )
Stephane
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?