Readers may recall that Dr. Mann had an unprofessional visceral reaction to the invitation. Kudos to Dr. Gavin Schmidt for taking the invitation and to follow through with it in a professional manner*.
![fox-business[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/fox-business1.jpg?quality=83)
Dr. Roy Spencer writes:
Stossel Show: Schmidt, Spencer, & Ridley on Global Warming
John Stossel interviewed me and Gavin Schmidt yesterday at the FoxNews studios in Manhattan, and I’m told he will interview Matt Ridley today, for (Thursday) nights Stossel Show entitled “Green Tyranny”. As is often the case, the show might air on FoxNews Channel once or twice this weekend.
Looking for a global warming debate, Stossel said they asked 10 natural climate change deniers (sorry, my term, I couldn’t help myself), and only Gavin took them up on it. Scott Denning was also willing, but unavailable.
At least Gavin knows what he’s talking about…I’ve debated people who so badly mangled the explanation of anthropogenic climate change that I had to fix it for them so the audience wouldn’t be misled.
…
Talking with Stossel afterward, he said he thought Gavin did a good job of articulating his position. I hope Gavin is willing to return, although I could tell he was somewhat annoyed by the conservative/libertarian vibe he was surrounded by. It will also be interesting to see what Matt Ridley has to say.
==============================================================
Look for it on Fox Business Channel 9 p.m. EDT Thursday, March 28th (tonight).
You can find FBC on DirectTV and Dish Network, as well as many local cable outlets. Check listings with your television service provider.
* UPDATE: After watching the Stossel show on Fox Business Channel, I was disappointed at how Dr. Schmidt behaved. Stossell interviewed Spencer first, then Gavin Schmidt, who came across as being afraid of debate, and unfortunately he made arrangements that he would not stay on the podium when Spencer came up. This in my opinion, lost his entire case with the public in one childish appearing action.
Spencer even agreed with some of Dr. Schmidt’s points, and said things that have already been said, so if Dr. Schmidt feared some sort of ambush, he was sorely mistaken. Then Matt Ridley was interviewed and pointed out how there are positive benefits to global warming and CO2 increasing global biomass. IMHO Both Roy and Matt were upbeat and positive where Gavin by his actions came across really badly. I still give him props for participating, as it was far and above the juvenile response of his colleague Dr. Mann, but I think making demands like he did hurt his trust with the audience far more than he realizes. – Anthony
Mario Lento says:March 28, 2013 at 6:57 pm
That is the point.
If a person is deciding whether to participate in something, they have to ask if anyone will actually listen to what they say, and whether or not the event is designed to favour one point of view over another. For example, if the title of a show is “Green Tyranny” and you are a climate scientist, you might pause to wonder about those things…..
If they conclude that many people are watching just so they can see ‘their side’ take down the “green tyranny”, “liberal hippie lefty loonies”, “deception”, “watermelons”, “stupidity” (to borrow words from just this comment thread), the person might reasonably conclude that those people are not really “open to being wrong” and won’t actually listen to them. Their minds are made up. Once they have accounted for those people, they then have to ask if enough people remain who might actually listen, ie, be willing to question their own opinions enough to make it worthwhile.
Declining to participate in many situations is not about being ‘afraid to lose’. It is just an assessment of whether or not it would be a waste of time.
The words of Leo Geiger, “Apologist at Large“? <grin>
.
JDC – Wrong! The ONLY “scientists” whoreally believe AGW are the ones whose politics has compromised their integrity. To this I would add that neither what passes for “climate science” nor “climate scientists” in the envirofascist colmmunity deserve those names. Sure,you can claim a majority – but it is a majority of a well-defined bunch of charlatans characterized by perverse motives, greed and amorality. That, unfortunately, wis what is advertised as “climate science” today, with zero relation to the genuine article.
Merely declining to categorically deny AGW doesn’t signifiy either a belief in it or the conviction that it is dangerous. Most likely, unbeolievers refrain from categorically denyiong for two reasons: very few things in science are absolutely certain (although the untruth of AGW comes as close to certainty as anything) and bewcause they don’t want to have a lot of crap thrown at them by the alarmies and their grooupies in the media. It is poerfectly understandable for hoinest scientists to not take an absolute position on something like AGW, but that should not be taken to be belief in it.
So, JDC, I am not going to “stop it,” no matter what you say or think. I suppose you deny the MWP, the Romnan Optimum, the Hittite-Minoan-Mycenean warming? The AGW zealots would have to destroy all the historical records in almost every library on Earth to get around those. And what about the Oligocene glaciation, when therre was demonstrably much more CO2 in the air than now? I rthink 3,800 years of historical records and 40+ million years of paleontological evidence should be enough to shut the fanatics up once and for all.
I for one am not going to sit idly by while these genocidal maniacs mount their campaign to kill off the world’s poor people and destroy civilization. It’s the 1930s all over again, bro, and the envuiros are today’s Nazis..
Leo Geiger says:
March 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm
++++++
Well you have presented your point cogently. You make sense. And – I also think it makes sense that the title is boldly and contentiously correct. At this time, I think it’s OK not to shy away from being brutally honest about the tyranny. It’s up to the alarmists to have to prove their beliefs, not the other way around any more. Recall, it used to be that AGW proponents did the same thing calling us flat-earthers and anti science. They just assumed everyone would get in line (which many did) with the mantra that we were going to hit a tipping point and boil over. So now it’s time to eat crow for them.
But again, your point is taken, and given that context, it passes muster.
I mentioned Al Gore would be on Letterman, well it was a repeat from a January 29 broadcast.
“natural climate change deniers” — Dr. Roy Spencer’s phrase to describe global warming alarmists
Dr Spencer! You have hit upon a most AWESOME phrase. I look forward to using it moving forward. Might be cute to do an April 1st event where all links to alarmist websites are labelled or categorized as D-E-N-I-E-R websites … this will be tremendously fun
Remember Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”
Rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Rule #6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
Rule #8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance.
JDC:
You say “……… the vast majority of climate scientists ……”.
Please can you provide a figure or a percentage with a link to the origin of this claim?
Seems to me that Gavin did a great job… for the skeptics. My wife, who doesn’t know who any of these people are, could not believe the guy would not debate Roy Spencer… or even sit down next to him. I know it’s a small sample size (n=1), but I think her reaction is probably fairly indicative of what a lot of non-scientists thought about this. I would also imagine that the “Team” members who watched this had to know how utterly childish he looked… it was very awkward, and Stossel made hay with that awkwardness. I think that, in the future, they know they either have to actually debate face-to-face or just not show up at all. Last night, they would have been better off with the latter.
Leo Geiger says:
March 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm
“If they conclude that many people are watching just so they can see ‘their side’ take down the “green tyranny”, “liberal hippie lefty loonies”, “deception”, “watermelons”, “stupidity” (to borrow words from just this comment thread), the person might reasonably conclude that those people are not really “open to being wrong” and won’t actually listen to them. Their minds are made up. Once they have accounted for those people, they then have to ask if enough people remain who might actually listen, ie, be willing to question their own opinions enough to make it worthwhile.
Declining to participate in many situations is not about being ‘afraid to lose’. It is just an assessment of whether or not it would be a waste of time.”
As to whether my mind is open or not, yes it is. It is Good Friday and 5 cm of fresh white snow are outside my window and I’m living south of the Polar circle; my mind is open enough to accept that fact as objective truth and juxtapose it against the failing predictions of the Global Circulation Models.
As to whether the propagandist Gavin Schmidt sees it as a worthwhile use of his valuable propagandizing talents to participate in that TV show, that is indeed up to him. Now you might say isn’t that a bit harsh and closed-minded to call him a propagandist; no it isn’t. I have in fact tried to post comments at Real Climate and can attest that it is a propaganda organization because it does not allow open discussion, and it is Gavin Schmidt himself who is the chief censor at that Fenton communications outfit.
Leo Geiger says: March 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm “That ‘Green Tyranny’ title seemed like a reasonable thing to point out in the context of comments about the apparent reluctance of scientists to appear.”
Interesting that Leo equates Climate Scientists with Green, I thought they were supposed to be Scientists first and foremost.
So was the programme about Green or Climate or both?
Chad Wozniak says:
March 28, 2013 at 7:24 pm
“I am thoroughly disappointed by Fox Business’s/John Stossel’s presentation tonight.”
Then write to Stossel and Fox Business and tell them your views and why? They rely on their ratings to keep going and if they get enough feedback expressing similar views they will adapt. If you don’t tell them they will never know.
Leo Geiger says:
March 28, 2013 at 4:54 pm
REPLY: Why not watch before bloviating about it Nick? – Anthony
How exactly was Nick Stoke’s comment ‘bloviating’?? That ‘Green Tyranny’ title seemed like a reasonable thing to point out in the context of comments about the apparent reluctance of scientists to appear.
It doesn’t matter if you agree with the opinion expressed in the title or not. If you asked 10 chiropractors to appear in a segment called “Chiropractor Tyranny”, it would not be surprising if 8 are reluctant.
===================================
So basically you are saying the Climate scient/scientists and “Green” are interchangeable terms. Frankly that very revealing, and also get right to the heart of the title of “Green Tyranny” in a way you never intended. Here’s a clue for you, “Green” is a political movement, and a very tyrannical one at that in that it wants to dictate how every one else lives and uses energy. And that’s what you equate climate science to. As I said, very revealing.
Spencer’s comment, “At least Gavin knows what he’s talking about…”, should give everybody considerable pause. If this is in fact a true statement, then his (Gavin’s] professional opinion that he presents through RC and and his position at GISS would indicate that he is deliberately misleading the public and obfusticating facts. For a civil servant, this would be a criminal act in most jurisdictions. Its one thing to be wrong out of ignorance, it’s something else to purposefully misrepresent the scientifc evidence for a private agenda. Now, since Hansen heads that organization, Schmidt is either culpable along with Hansen, or the agency itself is corrupt, and both are simply fulfilling the agenda of the government, since the agency answers to a higher authority than either Hansen or Schmidt, or, in the alternative, both are truly rogue, and are accountable under a variety of statutes.
About Green Tyranny. Now, declared goals of Greenpeace are
a) abolishment of all nuclear technology. As they don’t mention an exemption for medical uses I guess that’s that for cancer treatment.
b) abolishment of all gene modification technology. Well not much to say about that, except we won’t get some super algae that would be better at turning CO2 into oil, not that I think CO2 is a problem or peak oil.
c) Of course, abolishment of all fossil fuel use. So we don’t even have to think of the peak oil problem anymore as we won’t be allowed to use it.
So into which epoch of history would this warp us back? It will very likely not be possible to produce more wind turbines and more solar panels without fossil fuel or nuclear energy – there are no cranes that run on batteries, there are no steel mills driven by solar cells etc. Solar panels BTW would shoot up in price, as making them is energy intensive, and that energy currently comes from Chinese coal power plants.
We would end up somewhere in the 17th century, shortly before the industrial revolution, when Dutch merchants were running the world trade across the oceans. Shortly after the 30 year war.
But how would Greenpeace make sure these prohibitions are obeyed by all nations and by all people in these nations? This would require some kind of global supression regime; as anyone who would use the technologies abolished by Greenpeace would gain an enormous advantage. They could of course make an exemption for their own police state use; otherwise, how would their green police fight against say a helicopter owned by criminals; on horseback?
We basically arrive pretty much automatically at the concept of tiranny given Greenpeace’s stated goals.
A C Osborn says: March 29, 2013 at 4:39 am
John Endicott says: March 29, 2013 at 4:58 am
No, I don’t think that. But since other people unfortunately think along those lines (like many commenting here… see the first paragraph Chad Wozniak’s post at March 28, 2013 at 9:14 pm for a fine example), it would give a climate scientist invited to appear on a programme with such a name good reason to think it might be a waste of time. It’s almost as if they have been invited on a programme about Green Tyranny to represent the ‘Tyranny side’ for balance…
Several years ago I debated Michael Schlessinger, a big name climate modeler, at a local college. At the beginning he would not shake my hand or even make eye contact. I put my hand out and he turned away. During the debate he had an overly simple diagram of the radiation budget and gave a simplistic talk, including pulling out the Nobel Prize Winner trope (I kid you not). I actually have about the same number of publications as he does, but when I referred to him during the debate as “my colleague Dr. Schessinger published this..” etc he retorted “we are not colleagues”. he would not obey the moderator’s time limits or directions, would not address any of the points I made, was a total ass, and I won the debate according to the audience poll. There is a reason these guys won’t debate: there is not enough oxygen in a lecture hall for them and anyone else at the same time.
JDC says….
“The vast majority of climate scientists (not engineers, not scientists in other fields, but actual climate scientists who are actively working in the field) accept the AGW theory.”
How many scientists is that JDC? Source please. (ha ha)
As I’m writing this, there are three segments from the show on the program site.
Here’s Stossel with Lomberg.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html#http://video.foxnews.com/v/2261775975001/germany-pays-billions-to-delay-global-warming-for-37-hours/?playlist_id=87530
If anyone didn’t like how issues were presented or were missed, let them know.
HankHenry says:
March 28, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Gavin’s argument is a little simple. He states, the climate isn’t changing because of volcanoes, it isn’t changing because of the sun, it isn’t changing because of orbital changes, therefore CO2 must be the culprit.
============
so Gavin is denying that climate changes naturally. He is a natural climate change denier.
Problem is most people are too young to remember the ice ages.
I wonder how on earth Gavin could debate from such a weak position. Surely there is no discernible signal in the climate trend, temperatures are far below what their models predict, there is no mid tropospheric hotspot showing extra evaporation from positive feedbacks, satellite ERBE MSU shows that OLR goes up with surface warming, There is no sea temperature increase and no sea level rise increase.
The Mediaeval Warm Period was hotter than today and global (CO2science.org) Solar/Lunar/orbital and oceanic cycles seem to correlate with climate trends e.g. 11 and 60 year etc cycles and CO2 lags behind temperature by 800 years and while contributing, once released from the ocean in a warming phase does not lead to a runway effect.
So it seems that the ‘warming’ theory has no basis in empirical fact due to the overwhelming evidence of negative feedbacks.
It seems that their new focus is climate circulation anomalies caused by CO2. They claim that CO2 may contribute to sudden stratospheric warmings that affect the polar vortexes causing a chain affect to the ocean influencing circulation and perhaps upsetting the ‘achilles heel’ of the Atlantic current salinity conveyor belt.
They of course thus blame all ‘extreme weather ‘ on this, but studies show that extreme weather events have not increased, that SSWs have always been naturally occurring at 2 year intervals and that the mechanism for CO2-induced SSWs has not been proven nor fully realised as a model considering the relatively small heat transfer and large volume of water involved.
Anthony, I think it would be a great idea to have a ‘State of the Debate’ page, where the key points of contention are listed and the latest status describes what the evidence says after collating and analysing all the scientific literature (with links)
For instance categories such as ‘the climate trend’ and what the satellite data and land data says.
‘The tropospheric hotspot’, ‘previous warming periods and the role of CO2′ “Arctic and antarctic ice coverage now and historically’ ;sea levels and sea temperatures etc
Your site is amazing and comprehensive but something in a format similar to Dr Evans’ ‘The skeptic’s case’ would be great where the key points of contention can be broken down and the alarmist case debunked point by point.
Thanks
“natural climate change deniers”
I have used terms like this in the past and while accurate I think it just turns the discussion into a name calling event. What I now use is a more accurate and more powerful term … climate bullies. Think about it. Bullies use name calling, they’ve gotten people fired, they’ve threatened anyone who does not line up with “the cause”.
Given the emphasis (at least in the US) on bullying these days I think using that term could be extremely powerful (as well as extremely accurate).
The behavior of Schmidt toward the presence of Spencer on stage at Stossel’s show is what the Chinese (in Mandarin dialect) would call ‘shao ren’ behavior. The literal translation is ‘little man’, but the Chinese mostly do not use the term wrt physical size but wrt a person having a low / small character.
Schmidt acted as a ‘Shao Ren’.
John
re Poorly Titled
When the elderly in Europe are literaly freezing to death in an extremely harsh winter at the same time as energy shortages are looming because the coal fired power plants are being shut down because “the globe is heating up” Im not sure why the title “Green Tyranny” isn’t completely appropriate. The office of the President of the United States uses ignorance/lies (take your pick) about weather events to promote a new tax on people in the name of saving the planet and name calls anyone who dissagrees with them. Et cetera, et cetera.
The fact that the title “Green Tyranny” seems unusual or obtuse to people shows only how pervasive the green religion has become.
In my opinion JDC outlined the whole problem, both with AGW and most other huge problems we face, the term “liberal” has been hijacked and now means the opposite, while me might well win the AGW skirmish we wont win the war without disconnecting normal people who consider themselves liberal from the fascist lunatics who are destroying the west under the Liberal banner.
Unless I am mistaken and the word “libera” comes from “libertine”!
Typo 4th word from end should be liberal !