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
Nick Stokes says:
March 28, 2013 at 3:04
Are you really surprised that scientists are reluctant to join in a segment called (in a fair and balanced way) “Green Tyranny”?
##########################
There are a couple ways to look at this. First, I have some empathy for scientists who are invited to debate with people who have called them frauds and crooks and cheats.
On the other hand, let’s turn the situation around.
Instead of right leaning Stossel, lets have left leaning Romm.
instead of right leaning Fox, lets have left leaning MSNBC
Instead of “green tyrranny”, lets title the show “Oil Shills and Conspiracy Nuts”
Question? If invited would Spenser appear? McIntyre? Monckton?, Anthony?
I dare say that all 4 would appear primarily because the have the strength of their convictions and they are not put off by stupid claims about being Oil shills or conspiracy nut jobs.
Green Tyranny. well if its a true description , then I can understand the reluctance to appear. If false, most folks I know would relish the opportunity to deliver a smack down.
– – – – – – – – –
Craig Loehle,
Do people with a tendency toward such low character behaviors have a tendency to migrate toward ideological movements like alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels or does that kind of movement create a tendency for the development of low character behavior?
I tend to think the latter is the more dominant.
John
It is interesting reading through this post and comments.
From the initial praise for Schmidt on the basis of his apparent agreement to participate, to the realization that in fact he had no intention of participating but was there to maintain the orthodox line in a manner that could not be directly challenged.
Whilst much of the initial praise might be attributed to encouragement to Schmidt and others to openly engage with the issues, or might just be good manners, was there ever any basis for having any confidence in this person?
As I understand it, his primary function and profile is based on being a “frontman” for the orthodoxy of CAGW. If he has appeared more amenable to reason in demeanor or on points of fact in the past than some of his more obviously rabid counterparts, is this the basic justification for being inclined to want to view him as capable of entertaining alternative interpretations?
Surely it is apparent that the advancement of any ideology has always been done by a variety of types of presentation?
How is he not first and foremost simply a salesman?
Gavin refusing to debate? I thought they had mountains of peer reviewed evidence and a consensus. Gavin should now ask himself:
“How did my actions look to the AGW undecided?”
“How did my actions look to the AGW convinced?”
Leo Geiger says:
March 29, 2013 at 6:31 am
Now, maybe that is because we know what Climate Scientist James Hansen had to say about coal trains; or because we read the Great Transformation plans of Climate Scientist Schellnhuber and his goons of the WBGU.
Please explain how the views of James Hansen, boss of GISS, or the views of Schellnhuber, boss of PIK, are not representative of Climate Scientists in general.
This is a simple debate and its being settled now. Are the sun, oceans and stochastic factors ( I call them the triple crown of cooling) the controlling factors of climate over a gas that admittedly does contribute .4 to .7 C to the essential 33C the so called GHG’s ( I still dont see how a gas blanket who’s density increases closer to the the earth can become a trapping pane, and neither does the actual data, but people get mad at me… so I guess we stick with the misnomer) but can really do mo more? Unlike a weather debate, where the answer comes quick, and I always can see the other guys idea before hand, in this debate the answer is over the coming decades, and the more I study the position of my opponents, the more I can not even understand why this is even a problem. And its not arguing the benefits of warming that should be a question, its the horror of the cooling that I and many others think is now starting!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg
The assumption that the earth is going to warm is questionable, if not just plain wrong and opposite of what is starting to happen!
This is a simple test. What will the temp be in 2020, 2025,2030. I have been advocating a stand back and actually measure what is going on position to see what is right and wrong for years. I cant understand how all this yelling over the fence even has merit unless it is to someones benefit to continue an argument that is wasting time and money and causing misery to men all over the globe.
I believe that most of the people on the opposite side of my argument love this. The delay tactic allows them to continue to push through policy that people will be forced to adhere to. It also gets them grants, and continues to cause a cult of worship that takes the place of hard science. In addition, issuing a forecast with bombastic proclamations that can ever be verified, or worse, can simply be adjusted to whatever you wish them to be, seems to be a pretty cozy set up if you are in on it.
With each passing day, the joke this whole debate is becomes more obvious to me. Its like a train wreck you cant get away from, each statement opposite of what was said to watch for several years ago, being attributed in a grander fashion to their idea. The strategy is not unlike lies told by propagandists in despotic Europe in the 30s.. so bold, so grand, that the uninformed believes them because they assume no one would tell a lie that big.
When this is over, it was never about the science.. Science was tool, and we were the fools
Gavin confirms the obvious, all that is necessary to expose the cause, is sunlight focussed upon the faithful.
– – – – – – – –
Steven Mosher,
Appreciate your circumspection about attending shows / debates where there is a perception by some potential participants of hostility / bias against them.
Yet, Schmidt did attend Stossel’s show. The interesting aspect is he attended either by his sole free and voluntary idea / decision or he was assigned / directed to attend by one of the following: a) by his boss Hansen of NASA GISS; b) by CSRRT’s Four Matchmakers; c) by the inner circle at RC; d) by the inner circle at John Cook’s blog; e) by directive from Mann; f) by someone higher than Hansen in the NASA hierarchy.
His behavior had a reluctant quality to it which I take as supporting the idea he was not there of his own free choice.
The reluctant soldier under orders? N’est ce pas?
John
@David Jones, re disappointed in presentation –
Point well taken, and I will take your advice and write to Stossel and Fox Basiness Network. The decline in temps and the majority of scientists rejecting AGW are critical points that the public needs to see.
I’m probably as guilty as anyone here of preaching to the choir, and we do need to get the word out to people who aren’t posting on WUWT.
By the way, JDC, can you show me 31 ,000+ scientists who accept the AGW theory? The signers of the Oregon Petition make no bones about AGW being false – they don’t accept it in any way, shape or form. Read their statement if you don’t think this is the case (Google). And I’m willing to bet you can’t find many more than those 70 smarms in the IPCC cesspool that really do buy into it.
Re: “natural climate change deniers” — Dr. Roy Spencer’s phrase to describe global warming alarmists. When I first scanned this I saw the adjective “natural” as modifying “deniers”. It might flow better as “deniers of natural climate change” (or variability).
– – – – – – – –
Joseph Bastardi,
Cheer up.
Will a host of individuals independently acting and independently reasoning prevail by sticking with observations verifying the results of scientific processes?
As long as there is free speech that is broadly accessible to most of earth’s population, then they prevail against an ideology like alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels.
The key to prevailing is the media’s treatment of open debate. The ideologists inherently look irrational in an open dialog through the media.
When the traditional MSM fails, it is required for freedom’s sake to create a new MSM with better principles. Anthony is doing pretty well creating one. : )
Take care.
John
John Whitman says:
March 29, 2013 at 9:14 am
…d) by the inner circle at John Cook’s blog; e) by directive from Mann; …
————–
🙂 I’ll be chuckling about this for the rest of the afternoon. Thanks John!
You know, the fact that I’m paranoid doesn’t prove everyone isn’t out to get me.
Joseph Bastardi says: March 29, 2013 at 8:46 am
Dittos, and better said than I could have.
When I first started to follow WUWT (6 years ago or so) there were few comments on the political aspect of this debate. Unfortunately, it was never about the science; it was always about the politics. THAT is now understood and there may be a chance for our children to have a prosperous future.
Thanks to Anthony for all that he does!
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
To all those questioning my statement that the overwhelming majority of actively publishing climate scientists accept AGW, allow me a retort:
Can you name any climate scientists who have published in peer-reviewed literature over the past 5-10 years who don’t accept it?
For reference, Lindzen does believe the theory to be correct. Spencer believes the theory to be correct. Christy believes the theory to be correct. So does Curry. So do Pielke, Maue, Lomborg, etc.
In fact, I don’t know anyone off the top of my head who outright rejects GHG warming.
I now turn it over to you to prevent your names that argue to the contrary.
For reference, as I’m sensing a few here misinterpreted my own position, I don’t see AGW as being a big issue and believe ECS to probably lie between 0.5-2.0C which, when combined with the advent of new technologies, would render political action rather unnecessary. At the most a slight carbon tax to encourage alt fuels or CCS would do the trick.
Gavin dissapoints.
JDC, “AGW” and “GHG Effect” are not synonyms. And neither is CAGW.
Since the word “Catastrophic” is the one crucial word that doesn’t just imply but -demands- political action, that -is- the debate.
Mischaracterizing one’s opponents position is sloppy. But typical of arguing based on polling.
– – – – – – – –
JDC,
Surely we do not need your claims. We have seen here at WUWT the references to the research and articles by most of the those scientists. It is well known here as several participate in various ways here.
The point is there is a major open and independent scientific discourse on whether there is a discernible net effect or if discernible there remains substantive doubt of significance in its comparative magnitude to natural phenomena. The estimation or observational calculation of the effect is continuing to be researched at an accelerated pace now that the IPCC’s ‘sensitivity’ assessment exaggeration is firmly exposed. The trend in the estimates and calculations look like it is potentially at a value significantly less than 1. Time is on the skeptical side. : ). The 25+ years if bias is being stripped away . . .
John
@ur momisugly JDC says: March 29, 2013 at 11:57 am
I’m curious.
For the couple of years I have been following this issue with any real attention I have read countless exchanges between those who willingly volunteer their opinion as to actual implications of CO2 concentrations on climate and quote a preferred range of sensitivity as you do. Every proponent proffers their reasons which cover a gamut of influences.
Initially I thought there was something going on with these discussions. That is, issues resolved, clarity being gradually obtained. But that is not the case.
It seems to me that the reality is that no-one , and I do mean NO-ONE, can actually point to any specific evidence as to whether CO2 has this net effect, that net effect, or no effect at all.
This “acceptance” by most that it surely must have some has all the appearance of a group of people who think this is a reasonable balance in the face of an extreme ambit claim.
I am not at all singling you out for particular comment, so I apologize if this seems to be the case. As I have said, there have been and no doubt will be any number of occasions (and people) to which I could direct this. Perhaps because this thread is not specifically about such things it seems less intrusive now than it might be otherwise.
My question is this.
Do you honestly believe that you can proffer observable EVIDENCE that supports your contention as to the net effect of CO2 that also negates different conclusions?
Please be aware that I am not asking you to present a case. I’m just asking for an honest statement as to whether you (or I would suggest, anyone) can DEMONSTRATE the validity of such a conclusion, or whether this, as others, exist at this time as one of a number of things postulated.
JDC,
So then, you are admitting that CAGW is a phony problem?
Are you admitting that over the now 25+ years of this scam being promoted, Billions and Billions of dollars have been wasted on a phony problem (for political and monetary gain) and a lot of people have died because of it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/9959856/Its-the-cold-not-global-warming-that-we-should-be-worried-about.html
Do you admit that a shorter growing season is a much bigger worry than a longer growing season?
Otherwise, what sort of “points” are you trying to score here?
JDC says: March 28, 2013 at 7:36 pm
“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. The theory being debated is CAGW and how to approach the issue from a policy standpoint.”
——————————————————————————–
This is true of all religions. If you poll only priests, they will agree that Catholicism is the one true religion. If you poll only Rabbis, they will agree that Judaism is the one true religion. If you poll only astrologers, they will of course point out that astronomers or engineers are not qualified to judge astrology.
The issue here is the lament that many western governments have adopted CAGW as the official state supported religion.
[b]Alan S. Blue says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:48 pm
JDC, “AGW” and “GHG Effect” are not synonyms. And neither is CAGW.
Since the word “Catastrophic” is the one crucial word that doesn’t just imply but -demands- political action, that -is- the debate.
Mischaracterizing one’s opponents position is sloppy. But typical of arguing based on polling.[/b]
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming. All of those I listed accept that humans warm the climate through burning of fossil fuels. All of them accept AGW. They dispute CAGW, as do I. I have not misconstrued anything.
@ur momisugly jc
A doubling of CO2 as per physics should create one degree Celsius of warming (emphasis on should, I’m not saying it is undeniably correct, just that it is accepted unanimously by those in the field, including skeptics). Of course, the Earth itself is not a laboratory and feedback factors will come into play, whether to amplify or mitigate the expected warming. I cannot [i]prove[/i] anything, just saying what I believe based on observational data. I can, however, prove that the comments about the temperature record made by the commenter above are bollocks, as could anyone with available internet. I get annoyed out repeatedly disproved claims being thrown out as reasons why AGW is a hoax. If you are suggesting that AGW is overstated and not a real problem, I have no issue with that comment. That may very well prove to be absolutely correct.
@ur momisugly Robert – “Admitting” is defined as: (confessing) to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance. So no, I’m not admitting anything, seeing as how I have never said CAGW was anything more than a fantasy in the first place. I’m also unaware as to why you think I support green subsidies and other wacky attempts to mitigate warming that have been implemented, as I certainly don’t. I’m not trying to score any “points.” Just correcting blatantly wrong information.
I found the slavery argument less than compelling and in fact insulting to those whose ancestors paid a price to end slavery.
JDC says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:57 am
“For reference, as I’m sensing a few here misinterpreted my own position, I don’t see AGW as being a big issue and believe ECS to probably lie between 0.5-2.0C which, when combined with the advent of new technologies, would render political action rather unnecessary. At the most a slight carbon tax to encourage alt fuels or CCS would do the trick.”
So this guy thinks of himself as a moderate…a “slight” carbon tax – meaning government control about every combustion process – and CCS – meaning a doubling of electricity prices, as CCS typically consumes half the energy produced in a coal power plant, not mentioning the unsolved question of where to safely deposit the CO2 – would do the trick…
So if that’s the “moderate” position, I guess the extreme positions are
a) Greenpeace style return to technology of the 17th century and eternal policing against any progress
b) full blown geo engineering or blocking the sun with giant sunshades orbiting the Earth…
BTW, the income tax was also only a slight taxation when it started.
At the moment I’m hoping that the collapse of the EU will show the rest of the world that it’s a stupid idea to cripple one’s own economy through high energy prices and government imposed control of combustion processes.
To update folks, Stossel is now listed on FNC at 8pm and 11pm, Mountain time on both Friday and Saturday evenings.