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
@ur momisugly Dirk – I don’t even think a carbon tax should be implemented until sensitivity is constrained (hopefully within the coming decades, not years), and even then it would only be to internalize market externalities. The alternative solution (unless you consider asking nicely to be a solution) is to have each individual group file lawsuits against those emitting CO2 for damage done (if damage were indeed done) and would be a painstaking process that would be incredibly less efficient than a carbon tax. As I mentioned, this is merely hypothetical as we don’t have anywhere near the proper understanding of future consequences (or even benefits, let’s be honest) to set an accurate price at present. CCS is also a technology in progress, so I wouldn’t advocate installing current mechanisms as is until they are significantly improved, if ever (depending upon better sensitivity estimates they may well prove unnecessary).
As for the income tax, I want it to be entirely abolished and replaced with a marginal, uniform VAT. Considering I’m about as right-wing economically as one is likely to find outside of anarcho-capitalists, I think you are seriously barking up the wrong tree here. I believe all education, medical care, fire departments, etc. should be 100% privatized and even substantial portions of the police/courts/military, though those would be just about the only things with a state component. Again, if you are more economically liberal than I am, congratulations, you’re a severe outlier. That being said, I highly suspect that to not be the case.
– – – – – – –
Mark Bofill,
Hey, you are welcome.
It seems arranged, but Schmidt being perceived as taking initiative to arrange appearance in Stossel’s show makes good ‘pro-consensus’ press . . .
John
JDC says:
March 29, 2013 at 4:31 pm
“@ur momisugly Dirk – I don’t even think a carbon tax should be implemented until sensitivity is constrained (hopefully within the coming decades, not years), and even then it would only be to internalize market externalities.”
Survival in winter is an insufficiently internalized externality of combustion processes. To use liberal-speak.
“CCS is also a technology in progress, so I wouldn’t advocate installing current mechanisms as is until they are significantly improved, if ever (depending upon better sensitivity estimates they may well prove unnecessary).”
Yeah, just look at wind turbines and solar power – we carefully developed economic solutions before installing any of them. Otherwise, imagine the subsidies we would have to pay. /sarc
“As for the income tax, I want it to be entirely abolished and replaced with a marginal, uniform VAT. Considering I’m about as right-wing economically as one is likely to find outside of anarcho-capitalists, I think you are seriously barking up the wrong tree here. ”
Rightwingers in the US as in Europe are eternally in love with a progressive income tax last I checked. Maybe you should avoid using the false left-right dichotomy when talking about economics.
http://www.politicalcompass.org
“Again, if you are more economically liberal than I am, congratulations, you’re a severe outlier. That being said, I highly suspect that to not be the case.”
I’m German and I’m not a collectivist so I’m an outlier.
@ur momisugly JDC says: March 29, 2013 at 2:48 pm
No, I am not saying that AGW is overstated. I am saying I don’t know. I am saying you don’t know. I am saying nobody knows.
AGW is not equivalent to any effect CO2 may or may not have in itself.
To be so CO2 would have to act in the manner you claim, and there would have to be no further implications, feed-backs, forcings or whatever else.
There is no discernible basis for anyone to claim to know what these are or could be, certainly in magnitude and even in substance. The net effect is unknown.
You claim to base your opinion on observational data, however that is impossible.
So in reality, you like the sound of what you propose, and you may well be right as to effect, or you may well be wrong. You don’t know.
@ur momisugly JDC
Just to make clear what I think can be known, I DO think that proponents of CAGW are demonstrably incorrect. They have demonstrated beyond any meaningful doubt that they do not understand climate.
That is not the same as saying that CAGW is not possible. However, given the effort over 25 years to demonstrate this, and the realities we see now in global temperature, I consider it highly improbable.
However, anything is possible. A further certainty is that the current incumbents of the temple will add nothing to an understanding of this.
In short, develop some decent protocols to actually make measurements that are generally agreed to be robust, get real scientists to look at these things in the normal course of research rather than as “Climate Scientists”, and come back in 20 years. Or 50.
Well, according to Gavin’s twitter posts, it wasn’t his fault:
“…Link to the video for last night’s segment on Fox: http://s3.amazonaws.com/TVEyesMediaCenter/UserContent/80680/1767920.2030/FBN_03-28-2013_21.43.24.wmv … Note that the musical chairs routine was their plan, not mine…”
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/statuses/317796471103688704
So that means he should have strenuously complained, demanding to be seated at the same time, right?
“Yeah, just look at wind turbines and solar power – we carefully developed economic solutions before installing any of them. Otherwise, imagine the subsidies we would have to pay. /sarc”
I didn’t argue for subsidies, Dirk.
“Rightwingers in the US as in Europe are eternally in love with a progressive income tax last I checked. Maybe you should avoid using the false left-right dichotomy when talking about economics.”
And Obama calls himself black. He isn’t. He’s biracial. Just because someone who supports progressive income taxes calls himself/herself a right winger in economic terms does not make it so. However, you are free to dislike the left/right labels all you want. Point remains that I personally don’t believe the government has a right to tax income and think all government functions should be financed via a modest VAT.
“I’m German and I’m not a collectivist so I’m an outlier.”
So I assume that’s a roundabout way of confirming my suspicion that you are more pro-state than myself?
I’m liberal in both social and economic matters. Don’t think government should have any say in marriage, drug use, religion, etc. nor in taxing income, imposing trade barriers, death taxes (!!!), etc.
henrythethird says:
March 29, 2013 at 7:33 pm
Well, according to Gavin’s twitter posts, it wasn’t his fault:
“…Link to the video for last night’s segment on Fox: http://s3.amazonaws.com/TVEyesMediaCenter/UserContent/80680/1767920.2030/FBN_03-28-2013_21.43.24.wmv … Note that the musical chairs routine was their plan, not mine…”
———————————————————————————————————-
Thank you for the link.
Anyone who watches that video can see a coward and someone who is confident in their position..
I again will ask if there are “ANY” CAGW supporters that would be willing to do an interview with a polygraph test attached?
I think not, and they know why.
Look in the mirror and assess things for yourself ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Opinion will be removed from fact in the end.
It is inevitable
Looks likes episodes show up online after two weeks: http://video.foxbusiness.com/playlist/on-air-full-episodes-stossel/
JDC says:
March 29, 2013 at 7:45 pm
““Yeah, just look at wind turbines and solar power – we carefully developed economic solutions before installing any of them. Otherwise, imagine the subsidies we would have to pay. /sarc”
I didn’t argue for subsidies, Dirk.”
So you don’t understand what I wanted to say. Fine. So a little slower. You want to internalize previously uninternalized exteranalities of combustion processes with a slight carbon tax (to use liberal-speak, and yes, I know, you don’t really think it would be all that necessary at all yadda yadda)
And you don’t want to subsidice CCS (but it might be necessary to have CCS to “do the trick”, i.e. save us from extinction through CO2AGW).
So what do you think. Would a CCS unit manage to sell its services in a free market. What market? Well a market that doesn’t exist. So you have to create one. An artificial market, Mr. freemarketer, yes, that’s right, just like the carbon trading market! Selling a make-believe product in a make-believe market that politicians, i.e. big government, i.e. the authoritarian extreme in the landscape of the political compass, create through regulation of all combustion processes!
Now that’s all boring collectivist authoritarian BS and goes down exactly the same crony capitalist ways the artificial wind turbine and solar power markets go. So… you want CCS to do the trick, and you call yourself a freemarketer; well assuming that you are not in fact an ordinary liberal, I would say you’re as much a free-marketer as the average EU commissionner. YES they are all for the free market AS LONG AS they get 50% of all the money (hence the EU countries are in the extreme of the authoritarian axis of the political compass).
Oh no, of course you didn’t talk about subsidies, we call it a free market these days… A market whose rules WE, the authoritarian cleptocrats, have MADE… and all by inventing a theory about dangerous CO2 backradiation…
Thanks for the link henrythethird,
But I am pretty sure that Gavin’s
That this referred to the chair arrangement and/or how his refusal to debate was presented.
Not to the form or rules of any debate. It’s typical Gavin-speak, ie to present something cursory with a few words which technically are correct or true, but with the purpose of giving you an entirely different impression.
And these guys wonder why less and less people are convinced about them having all the answers, the moral highgroundor knowing the future calamities and remedies to fix them!? Probably because they’ve been preaching to another and the gullible for a decade, now hoping to move more poeple towars gullible by preaching more …
I just watched the video of Spencer and Schmidt (thanks for the link). I had never seen or heard Schmidt previously.
What has happened to peoples capacity to make judgements – even at an instinctual level – about those they come across? In this case are people so blinded by the idea of the Expert that they cannot see at all?
Even allowing for nervousness – or perhaps the fact of being in the spotlight in an “uncontrolled” environment gives better sight – this Schmidt is a very low-grade being.
Has he really been considered top-tier in this area? In anything? How is this possible?
Is he typical of “Climate Scientists” – are they all so palpably second rate?
It is genuinely disturbing to see this. How did this happen? Who gave such beings the keys to civilization?
Dirk, you’re are massively misunderstanding my position.
1) I don’t think any measures should be implemented until we know far more than we do. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were. This may take decades.
2) A carbon tax could be utilized to only pay down the deficit depending upon how it is structured so that there is no middleman pocketing considerable amounts of stolen money.
3) If you are so against any government intervention in markets, what is your solution to pollution externalities on the global scale (or are you outright rejecting the existence of such externalities altogether? I’d like to note that Milton Friedman and even AnCaps such as Rothbard and David Friedman accept these). This wouldn’t be a case of a company polluting the river that the town folks use downstream. That’d be simple, they’d sue the factory and come to an agreement on the damage costs. Done. This is far more complex and to do everything in this manner would be a clusterf()ck of massive proportions. Would you propose this court approach or do you not believe that people have a right to their own property as is? Would you prefer the approach where people in the Maldives or other areas hedge bets against future SLR as James Annan has continuously suggested?
4) Please stop pretending I am saying CO2 is super dangerous. I’m not even hinting that I think cranking levels up to 10X pre-industrial would cause humans to go extinct, if it were even possible for us to reach such levels in theory.
@JDC says:
March 30, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Dirk, you’re are massively misunderstanding my position.
1) I don’t think any measures should be implemented until we know far more than we do. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were. This may take decades.
2) A carbon tax could be utilized to only pay down the deficit depending upon how it is structured so that there is no middleman pocketing considerable amounts of stolen money.
3) If you are so against any government intervention in markets, what is your solution to pollution externalities on the global scale (or are you outright rejecting the existence of such externalities altogether? I’d like to note that Milton Friedman and even AnCaps such as Rothbard and David Friedman accept these). This wouldn’t be a case of a company polluting the river that the town folks use downstream. That’d be simple, they’d sue the factory and come to an agreement on the damage costs. Done. This is far more complex and to do everything in this manner would be a clusterf()ck of massive proportions. Would you propose this court approach or do you not believe that people have a right to their own property as is? Would you prefer the approach where people in the Maldives or other areas hedge bets against future SLR as James Annan has continuously suggested?
4) Please stop pretending I am saying CO2 is super dangerous. I’m not even hinting that I think cranking levels up to 10X pre-industrial would cause humans to go extinct, if it were even possible for us to reach such levels in theory.
++++++++++++++
In my opinion, you are all over the place.
In your point 1) You suggest you mean to do nothing until we know more. Then in your point 2) you suggest carbon tax to pay down deficit spending. These are contradictory, since a carbon tax is by definition what is used to thwart the so called evils of so fossil fuels. Your idea allows government to continue on the deficit spending by taxing the hell out of us all while making everyone poorer. A carbon tax raises the price of energy and food and everything else. You are not misunderstood, you’re confused and speaking from both sides of your mouth.
In your point 3) you presume that a carbon tax is the only or best way to deal with pollution. When in fact carbon is NOT pollution. Pollution is pollution, CO2 is not, just in case you didn’t understand that. So even though you say do nothing about AGW, you are saying do something which is exactly what AGW proponents want to do.
Point 4) You don’t say CO2 is “super dangerous”, but your suggested policy of a carbon tax is in fact in line with those who do believe it’s “super dangerous.” In fact, your own words seem full of duplicity at best.
If you say and want the same things as people who believe in CAGW which is caused by CO2, all while denying that CAGW is certain to be a problem, and then say we must implement policies which directly affect CO2 emissions you should expect to called on your statements. I do not misunderstand you. You want exactly the same things that the CAGW crowd want… all while telling us all that you are not one of them.
@ur momisugly Mario – You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. I said *if* it is found to be detrimental I think a carbon tax would be the best measure. “If” does not mean I support a carbon tax now, nor does it mean I will ever support one. It means exactly what “if” is defined as.
If CO2 is found to be damaging, then a carbon tax would seem the best fit. This is not controversial even among those in the skeptical movement, including Montford (Bishop Hill), Richard Tol, etc.
Feel free to keep blatantly misreading my comments, though.
Well, I finally got a chance to view the actual show (replay).
Nice Job Dr. Spenser!
You got to the core of the real matters at hand.
I found the level of interaction required childish, to say the least……………
I think the avoidance of debate on the subject is coming to an end.
Perhaps you could ask Stossel to help get a “willing” debate together?
I think he might be interested.
Anthony, could you do a Live debate on WUWT TV via SKYPE in HD ?
Just look how fun this stuff is! And everybody benefits……..
I applaud both participants in the below example of what we need more of !
Step up folks, on both sides of the discussion. It’s time.
@ur momisuglyJDC: You wrote:
“@ur momisugly Mario – You might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. I said *if* it is found to be detrimental I think a carbon tax would be the best measure. ”
Well perhaps you don’t understand what you wrote. Here is what I am referring to . JDC wrote: “2) A carbon tax could be utilized to only pay down the deficit depending upon how it is structured so that there is no middleman pocketing considerable amounts of stolen money.”
There was no “if” in any of that entire post.
@ur momisugly Mario – Here, have some quotes from the above comments section that prove you either cannot read or were too lazy to do so:
“I don’t even think a carbon tax should be implemented until sensitivity is constrained (hopefully within the coming decades, not years), and even then it would only be to internalize market externalities. The alternative solution (unless you consider asking nicely to be a solution) is to have each individual group file lawsuits against those emitting CO2 for damage done (if damage were indeed done) and would be a painstaking process that would be incredibly less efficient than a carbon tax.”
“CCS is also a technology in progress, so I wouldn’t advocate installing current mechanisms as is until they are significantly improved, if ever (depending upon better sensitivity estimates they may well prove unnecessary).”
“As I mentioned, this is merely hypothetical as we don’t have anywhere near the proper understanding of future consequences (or even benefits, let’s be honest) to set an accurate price at present.”
“I don’t think any measures should be implemented until we know far more than we do. Innocent until proven guilty, as it were. This may take decades.”
Please retract your accusation and I await your apology.
“At the most a slight carbon tax to encourage alt fuels or CCS would do the trick.”
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Not even a teeny weeny itty bitty tiny tax. There is absolutely no good that can possibly come from it and only that much more evil that will be done by stealing even more money from hard-working individuals in order to feed the giant insatiable maw run by the non-thinking stooges with bungling hands that is government today. The proper way to encourage the development of alternative fuels is to get the government out of the marketplace and let the free market go for it. Free individuals will sooner find profitable ways to produce energy than trillions of dollars stolen as taxes. Government in its current format does nothing but trample rights, mismanage money and tyrannize the honest and capable. It needs to seriously be put back into its proper box and kept there.
Amen….