Debate between John Cook and Marc Morano in Paris

John-Cook-Morano-Climate-Hustle

L- John Cook R- Marc Morano from Paris

Marc Morano writes:
A debate just finished within the hour here today.  Cook interviewed me on camera and I audio recorded for my protection.  He is going to post full video. But in meantime, anyone can post full audio.  The entire global warming debate was discussed. 97% claims, etc.  Richard Tol, Anthony Watts,  Steve Goddard, Fred Singer, Michaels, Curry, Monckton and others were cited.
Full audio follows, video may be available from John Cook at some point in the future but this assures us an unedited record of the event: (54 minutes)
NOTE: some people report no audio, if you are using Firefox, that’s likely the reason. I’ve dumped it months ago as it has become buggy, unstable, and mostly unusable in current forms.

Try Chrome – works flawlessly, and is faster. -Anthony


UPDATE -TRY THIS: for those of you with browsers that can’t play audio, it turns out the problem was that it was in Apple m4a format and not all browsers support it. M4A is an audio file format that is very similar to MP4. It is a proprietary file format of Apple. iTunes store contains the audios as M4A format. It uses MPEG-4 codec to contain audio files.

So to fix that, here is the file format in a much better MP3 format, which doesn’t rely on Apple formats and is much more standards compliant.

Direct download:

 

Advertisements

267 thoughts on “Debate between John Cook and Marc Morano in Paris

  1. sounds like a zinger, I’d like to hear this. But I’m not getting anything from the audio widget. 🙁

  2. No audio also, but my media-downloader (Video Downloadhelper plugin Firefox) could download the file after pushing the play button.

  3. Even with the tape, it won’t stop them from cut and pasting. How does the line go? A lie will run around the world before the truth has got its boots on. The msm will happily run with this bs and then hide any retraction on page 10.

    • Except that Marc Morano is always ON or IN the media somewhere, and he’s genius at getting himself on camera-the man released his movie about the AGW lie in PARIS during the climate summit! And it’s obvious to anyone who watches him even once that he’s not the type of person who would quietly allow anyone to misrepresent him.

  4. No sound working for me but I’ve just heard that they are now targetting 1.5 deg C not 2 deg C. I bet that is because with all the recent indications that sensitivity is much lower than previous, they realise there is not a cat in hell’s chance that temperature rise will approach 2 deg C so they can now chase 1.5 deg C without apearing quite so stupid as follwing the current el Nino the temperature will drop back.

    • WE ARE SORRY!! That was our hot but dumb minister of the environment and climate change.
      Yes!! We, Canadians, apologize!!

    • so they can now chase 1.5 deg C

      And presumably we already had an increase of 0.8 C since 1750 and nothing bad happened. Why would another 0.7 C all of a sudden be dangerous?

    • Spot on SOM.
      And we need to keep them to their 2C mantra which they have been rabbiting on about as gospel.
      So I propose that on every occasion you hear them claim the New Marketing Melting Point for Doom and Disaster demand of them their previous position, and in as mocking a tone as possible, ask that the 2C science wasn’t settled and inquire if this New settled Science is rock solid or is it likely to be changed next year.
      Now when they accuse you of being a Science hater you could go all Sciency in return – which the alarmaramas hate – you could ask them for the mathematics which underpins this New Disaster measure …as if Science and math verification has any thing to do with anything.
      This is marketing and this 1.5C is like Global Warming to Climate Change, Polar Bears, the 97% consensus, the Arctic and Vanishing Pacific Islands.
      The New Marketing Melting Point for Doom and Disaster is what this is about.
      The Mainstream Media will lap it up and it is our role to challenge it for The Marketing Strategy that it is.

  5. Audio working here. So far Marano doing very well. Currently talking about the consensus. What other field of science has ever accepted a squishy debate about consensus as a form of proof. That’s the rub.
    Audio cut out.

    • Exactly – this is a message to ascientific sheep who base their opinion on that of “the majority of scientists”. No one has pointed out that Cook threw out 2/3 of the input he got in a literature search designed to find only global warming support. The total number of scientists who support AGW in all similar studies is less than 1% of the number of scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. This fact, and the fact that signers consider UN limits to be HARMFUL to the environment. We have to establish the truth that WE are the herd of scientists the herd of nonscientists should be following – the message to the public is not a scientific discussion.

  6. “Try Chrome – works flawlessly, and is faster. -Anthony”
    Thanks for the tip. I don’t trust big G further than I can throw them, which ain’t far. If they are happy to install a audio surveillance device that records sound in the room and sends it to Google for voice rec. I will NEVER install Chrome.
    Of course, when they have voice rec’ed the audio content of your living room, they are not going to analyse, store an index it like their core business does with everything else they collect. No, they are just checking to see whether you said “back” or “forward” to give you a cool voice assisted browsing experience. The rest of the data, they just bin it right?
    This “cool” feature was installed and activated by default without the user’s knowledge. If it does so “flawlessly” that is even more worrying. Thanks but , not thanks.

    • In the beginning, Google was great, then good, then Google tried to be all things to tech illiterates and most recently has decided that ” playing ” big brother is valid and necessary. Will NEVER use Chrome.

  7. “Try Chrome – works flawlessly, and is faster. -Anthony”
    Thanks for the tip, but I don’t trust big G further than I can throw them, which ain’t far. If they are happy to install a audio surveillance device that records sound in the room and sends it to Google for voice rec. I will NEVER install Google Chrome.
    Of course, when they have voice rec’ed the audio content of your living room, they are not going to analyse, store an index it like their core business does with everything else they collect. No, they are just checking to see whether you said “back” or “forward” to give you a cool voice assisted browsing experience. The rest of the data, they just bin it right?
    This “cool” feature was installed and activated by default without the user’s knowledge. If it does so “flawlessly” that is even more worrying. Thanks but , not thanks.

  8. Added an MP3 download link and extra playing widget for MP3 format, should solve problem for all but the most ancient of OS and browsers.

  9. Audio fine on Chrome. Hilarious! Loved it. Cook’s only defense was that many sources of evidence support AGW even though there is no direct empirical line between CO2 levels and current temperature. Morano points out repeatedly that there are conflicting interpretations on phenomena which could be construed as supporting evidence, which Cook either is not aware of, or denies. Will John Cook seek out the contrary publications? If he does, clear victory for Morano and the battle for hearts and minds. If Cook doesn’t decide to look more closely, well then the whole exercise is a metaphor for the futility of arguing with the faithful. Morano wins on humour and familiarity with the science. Loses on leaving too many points hanging, which a clever editor could exploit.

    • Whether or not Cook believes the hype/science, he makes an income from it. Not in his best interest to know contrary info and have to deny it.

    • Almost certainly. The video will be published after much cutting and pasting and distributed widely through the warmist network. Any response from Marc will be lost.
      As per 97%. We all know it was fraudulent but it is still quoted by the network. Obama is still on the choom and calls it 99.5% but that’s just his stupidity.

      • The network will say what the network wants to say about Marc, with or without video that includes Marc. And Marc knows that better than anyone. It was very smart for Marc to record and present the entire “interview” immediately afterwards. It shows he has confidence in what he said, and, if Cook has even the smallest brain (again…IF) he’ll withhold any editing at all because doing so “after the fact” will reflect poorly on HIM, not Morano. Should he do it anyway, it’s just one more piece of evidence for our side that Cook can’t EVER be trusted to represent the truth over his own agenda.
        I used to hate, loathe, detest the 97% statements because I KNOW they are based in lies, misdirection and incompetence. But I found a way to use Cook et al 2013 as a VERY effective weapon against the AGW mindset. I just print out the paper and actually ask someone to read it. When they have, we have a discussion about what the paper actually SAYS vs what people like to say it says. We talk about why the President would misrepresent scientists so blatantly, and why any honest group of scientists would ALLOW the President and the world wide media to misrepresent their work so falsely and so often, without doing anything to stop it.
        The best part is that in the end, we both AGREE that anyone who purposely uses Cook et al 2013 or the phrase that “97% of scientists agree” to defend their position on climate change is either an uninformed idiot, or a liar.

      • The vast majority of papers which “support” CAGW seem to assume CAGW is happening, and then speculate on what might happen IF that’s the case.

  10. Cook sounds as clueless as he writes. His point that there is no debate in the literature is why climate science is so wrong and certainly not the evidence that it’s not as he seems to think, If there was open debate, this issue would have been settled decades ago and the IPCC would have been disbanded.

    • it is also dead wrong , lets not allow them the claim that ‘all literature’ agrees has that is not the case

    • ROFL! Apparently not. Why Cook would ever agree to debate Morano, much less want to interview him is astonishing. Of course, Cook is always surrounded by his own personal echo chamber, so it was probably a huge shock to not only talk to someone who disagrees with him, but who can back every thing up with facts and has little use for psychological social science babble.

      • No debate at all. Whenever Morano asked Cook a substantive question he did the usual tap dance. At other times, it seemed that Cook was either dumbfounded or was trying to get Morano to say something he can spin later in editing. Perhaps, when he edits the video, he will insert uncontested commentary.

      • So far I have not been able to verify any reports that Marc Morano will be prosecuted for tormenting the disabled as many may or may not have expressed after listening to Marc Morano being interviewed by the Australian Cartoonist and leading Global Warming Industry PR spokesman John Cook.

  11. Marc Morano, if you see this, At some point I will hear the audio. But a picture speaks a thousand words.
    Mr, Cook seems very uncomfortable standing next to you.
    Please don’t hurt him as he looks so fragile and helpless
    michael

  12. Doesn’t the fossil fuel industry have anyone other than Marc Morano to throw into these “debates”? His cover was blown a long, long time ago.

      • what’s the point of the pic?
        ===============
        good questions. since it is cook’s picture, why not ask him why he is dressed up as Reichsfuhrer SS
        Heinrich Himmler, the longest serving and best known Reichsführer-SS. Himmler was one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany and one of the people most directly responsible for the Holocaust.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HLHimmler.jpg

      • Alan Robertson,
        Please ask John Cook. It’s his picture. He had it made. And it’s not the only one where Cook and his pals in Nazi uniforms.
        Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? Can you imagine the outcry if Anthony or any other well known skeptics had presented themselves like that?
        So ask Cook why he’s so enamoured of Nazis. I suspect that he’s a neo-Nazi based on the way he dresses. But don’t ask me, ask him.

      • The charitable interpretation is that:
        1. The initials of his website (SS) suggested this dress-up, as a bit of silliness.
        2. Since all the insignia on Cook’s uniform are of a peaceful logo that probably is associated with some environmental group (it looks like a weather balloon), he was trying to visually communicate that he’s a storm trooper for climate justice.
        3. It was a only mistake that the German text in the corner didn’t say so, instead of “Reichsführer.”

      • The hat emblem’s look more like buzzards to me.
        The lapel images look like laurel wreaths; victory symbols, not peace. The center figure inside of the wreath looks like the classic gas flame symbol; only upside down.
        The battle bars above the pocket are pure Nazi.

      • I still say if he had gone with PzIIIJs, he’d have beaten PZ General 2 hardcore . . . No other good way to stand up to those T34s and preserve your core units.

      • None of which is meant to excuse his poor taste; he obviously intended the uniform to mimic the NAZI SS. Flat stupid even if it was a weird sort of self-deprecating humor.

      • I still say if he had gone with PzIIIJs, he’d have beaten PZ General 2 hardcore . . . No other good way to stand up to those T34s and preserve your core units.

        Panzer IIIs aren’t built for tank to tank combat, they’re infantry support. A handful of Tigers with veteran crews would run out of ammo picking off T34s from a distance. Which is a good thing, since the Tigers were automotively inferior. But honestly I’d go with Panthers.

  13. Its seems that they have become pals that’s what it sounds like. Maybe Cook himself is having second thoughts…

  14. Made it through 36 minutes. Audio got progressively buggier at about 28. Was fine until then. To continue a theme on the previous thread, this stuff is political. We need ‘killer’ sound bites. marc Murano is knowledgeable, articulate, and passionate. But he lays himself out rather than going for kill shots the way Markey tried and failed.
    Listening Cook’s questions, and thinking back to Titley’s opening remarks, here are two needed kill shot soundbites.
    1. Simple refutation of 97% climate science consensus. Why. Because used to marginalize disagreers. Made some rough suggestions on previous Markey post. We collectively can surely do better.
    2. The Cook/Titley angle that, well you might have some specific point, but when you look at all the evidence collectively, the CAGW result is clear. That is an effort to evade specific counters. One possible talking point reponse is to overwhelm with an avalanche of ‘facts’ (old debating trick). Along the lines of:
    Land based temps have problems needing adjustments (UHI), sea based measurements were crude and sparce until ARGO, and all surface stuff increasingly diverges from the satellite records. sLR was supposed to accelerate. It has not, neither in tide gauges ( once land motion is corrected) or in the satellite era. Predicted increases in extremes have not occured despite better observation systems. The beneficial impacts of CO2 have been ignored; the planet is greening (Happer’s point)…. Fiuture concerns are model based, and those models are not fit for purpose because of (1) resolution enforced parameterization necessitating attribution, which cannot yet be done (anthro v. Natural, a previous guest post) and (2) CMIP5 falsified by the pause using previous warmunist criteria. And so forth.
    Murano was great on facts and logic, but very short on ‘political’ knockout punches.

    • I think you’re exactly right. I listened to the Ted Cruz committee hearing, and every Democrat and Admiral Titley all cited the “97% consensus”.
      You can’t have one side giving succinct sound bites like “97% of all scientists agree that global warming is real”, even if that is untrue, and the other side launch into a rambling 5 minute response. After the first 15 seconds, you’ve lost the debate, no matter how worthy or accurate your response may be.
      Skeptics need to think long and hard about a succinct sound-bite response to contradict the basis of a 97% consensus. It’s going to come up every single time, until we have an equally succinct response, it will be perceived as an argument that scores points for them.
      And you’re right about the second point too. It doesn’t matter how many charts and studies you can quote to someone. If their response is “But if you look at ALL the data, then global warming is obvious”, and you let them get away with that then you’ve again lost.
      Frankly, I thought that Marc Morano did a poor job in this interview. He rambled too much and gave a very wide but superficial view of his perspective on the issue. He would have been better served if he focused on single issues at length. If he wants to talk about surface records versus satellite data, great, but he should drill down into that and give the audience (John Cook’s students, presumably) something to follow up on. Are the satellites really the very best system we have for measuring global temperature? Yes. Why is that? Why do we have confidence in the satellite data? They are confirmed by radiosonde data. Etc. Give people a reason to wonder why the Warmists focus on certain data and not others. That’s the root of a skeptical approach to the science.
      Likewise, he brings up sea level gauges versus satellites. Here he prefers the land-based gauges, why is that? Well, because if the threat is coastal flooding then the land gauges give us a direct measurement of that. The records are far longer, so we get a better view of natural rate of rise versus anthropogenic rise, etc. Give people a nugget of skeptical truth to follow up on and investigate for themselves, not a rambling summary of every possible example you can think of where people wonder about sea level rise.
      The Ted Cruz hearing was also good in some ways but in other ways was a missed opportunity. There were 4-5 Democrats that attended and only 1-2 Republcians. So the meeting time was dominated by Democrats asking Admiral Titley every question. All these great scientists just sat there mutely. At one point, they asked Titley to explain the satellite data, when Dr. Christy was sitting right there silently. Why not ask the EXPERT WITNESS about the satellite data? Because they don’t want to hear his answer, and Titley will spin it how they like.
      Skeptics have good ideas and good arguments, and I believe the actual facts are on their side. But they do a woefully poor job of engaging in this struggle, with missed opportunities and unforced errors.

      • Re soundbite rebuttal to 97% claim.
        How about “Citation needed. No – not that one. No – not that one either.”

      • Dermot O’Logical: “How about “Citation needed. No – not that one. No – not that one either.”
        I presume this is meant ironically. That is about the worst soundbite ever. It says yes, you have peer reviewed citations, but I am not going to listen to them. La LA LA.
        Ristvan. 1) There is no snappy response to the 97%. The best response as far as I can see is that the 97% does not include ANY estimation of damage or mitigation required. So you can say there is consensus that AGW is real and significant, but no proven consensus that it is dangerous or that we need take action to stop it. All the debunking attempts are simply chipping away at the edges. If you say in the survey only 79 active climate scientists responded, it could easily be said that 82% of the over 3000 Earth scientists agreed. if you claim that in Cooks analysis only 65 papers were in the strongest endorsment category, you could point out that there were only 10 papers in the strongest rejection category. If you say the assesors got it wrong, you have to explain why the self assesment was in good agreement with external assesment, and then maybe 97% becomes 95%. If you cite the Oregon petition, you will be laughed out of the debate by anyone who understands the difference between a survey and a petition, and there were only half the number of climate scientists (self claimed) in that petition than there were in the survey.. Whichever way you cut it, the existence of a majority in favor of AGW remains.
        The consesus is real. All you can do is point out what the censensus actually is -i.e. it is not about the dangerousness of AGW.
        ““But if you look at ALL the data, then global warming is obvious”, and you let them get away with that then you’ve again lost.
        If all the data makes global warming obvious, it would seem that you have indeed lost the argument, and your only recourse is to cherry picking.

      • seaice1:
        You say

        The consesus is real. All you can do is point out what the censensus actually is -i.e. it is not about the dangerousness of AGW.

        As stewgreen points out, “You mean the FAKE 97%” …….the line Mark Steyn used.
        I add that “consensus” is a political objective which is positively NOT part of the scientific method.
        Importantly, the only consensus about climate and in climate science is that
        (a) climates exist,
        (b) climates change, and
        (c) climates always have changed and always will change.
        And that consensus refutes your silly statement saying

        ““But if you look at ALL the data, then global warming is obvious”, and you let them get away with that then you’ve again lost.
        If all the data makes global warming obvious, it would seem that you have indeed lost the argument, and your only recourse is to cherry picking.

        Lost what “argument”? At issue is the CAUSE of the warming.
        The world has been warming from the Little Ice Age for centuries.
        Before 1950 there was negligible human emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
        About 80% of the human emission of GHGs was after 1950.
        The warming from 1900 to 1950 was more than the warming after 1950.
        What do you want to “cherry pick”?
        Richard

      • Richard – “I add that “consensus” is a political objective which is positively NOT part of the scientific method.” See my answer to Richard M below.
        ““But if you look at ALL the data, then global warming is obvious”, and you let them get away with that then you’ve again lost.”
        I should have made clear that this was a quote from a comment by KTM just above. In full:
        “And you’re right about the second point too. It doesn’t matter how many charts and studies you can quote to someone. If their response is “But if you look at ALL the data, then global warming is obvious”, and you let them get away with that then you’ve again lost.
        That was not my statement, silly or not, but it seemed to me that IF all the data resulted in you losing, then perhaps that is the right outcome.

      • seaice1, my point is that I could make the exact same statement. If you say “2015 is the warmest year on record and global warming is real” and I say “Perhaps, but if you look at ALL the science then it is clear that global warming is NOT happening”, then what?
        If you just wilt away and don’t contest my assertion about knowing “ALL the science” or what “ALL the science” means, then you’ve lost. It doesn’t matter what ALL the science says or doesn’t say. If I claim that it says one thing and that statement isn’t challenged, then it says whatever I say it does.
        The point is that anyone saying that “ALL the science says X” is stating an unsubstantiated opinion, not a fact. Marc Morano should have responded, “I have reviewed ALL the data and more that you consider heretical and won’t consider, and it disproves the hysteria”. Then you can engage in a pointed debate about individual facts or studies and what they mean in the big picture.

      • KTM – OK, you mean that if you let them get with the claim that ALL the science says warming is happening, not that the fact that all the science says warming is happening is letting them get away with something. I get where you are coming from now.

      • I’ve had this discussion MANY times KTM. In order to win the “marketing war” skeptics need to market their side better. Cook and Co openly, and giddily, discuss ways to engage in propaganda skills. “Sticky thoughts” “sticky myths” “sticky science”-are advocated by Cook. Quick, slick, and memorable. “widgets”, giving their charts names “the escalator graph” etc. They KNOW how to “sell” their side and they seem to do it well.
        BUT-there’s a reason why the majority of US Citizens are NOT “buying into” the AGW argument. There’s something holding them back. And I believe that there is a very obvious (except to Cook and Lewandowsky and others) and logical reason that they do. Let me offer up my theory for you to think about:
        People who are very common sense, very logical, very intelligent don’t have to be SOLD the truth. They live relatively truthful lives, they seek the truth in an unbiased manner, and they care about finding out as much as they can about something BEFORE they take a position. That lifelong practice has taught them that truth usually speaks for itself, is “self evident”, so they become automatically (and naturally) very suspicious (hesitant) the moment that the “used car salesman” approach enters any discussion. They KNOW that slick ads and slogans are tricks used by marketing companies to help their clients SELL something, and they cannot logically understand why anyone would feel the need to “SELL” saving the world!
        The propaganda/marketing actually BACKFIRES when/if it causes the audience to squirm or seems to contradict itself. For example to state that the world is in “obvious danger”, when there are no “obvious proof” of that turns on an inner dialog in some people: “If it’s “obvious”, how come I don’t see it?” “Are they lying or are they suggesting that I am BLIND?” Both conclusions are naturally offensive to a thinking person. Statements like “Do it for your children” might sound loving and sensible to some, but to others it feels like the speaker of that statement is insinuating that some people (their audience) might be parents that don’t naturally and consistently worry about their children’s futures every single day. Parents like that have to be REMINDED or TOLD to care about their children’s futures. These messages, so overtly designed to induce guilt, or fear, or shame, WILL work, but only on people who easily allow other people to manipulate their feelings. Logical, intelligent, common sense people by definition, not only do NOT allow other people to do that, they actually feel disgust, anger, and resentment towards those who attempt to do it. It pushes them one step past “I’m not listening to you now” to “I will likely never listen to you in the future either”.
        So-would coming up with slick, quick, ad-like slogans WORK to advance the skeptic argument? Or would it backfire just as spectacularly as it has for the “alarmist” argument? THAT is a real, logical concern expressed by those I’ve talked to. I’d LOVE to be able to spit out a quick retort, a catchy sound bite in response to every idiotic/stupid/incorrect one that comes from the alarmist camp. BUT, the evidence seems to indicate that such tactics only work on people who are easily manipulated sheep. Real people, honest people, smart people know that earth’s science is messy, gigantic, muti-layered and not completely understood yet. And to them, it just feels shallow, silly, or manipulative for someone to try to slap an advertising slogan on it, even if they might agree with the position of the person doing it. These people actually believe that knowledge is precious, sacred, and deserves more dignity and respect than to be treated like it’s just some product or idea to be “sold” to everyone. And these people would most likely respond JUST as negatively, with just as much disgust, anger and resentment to a skeptic using such tactics on them, as they do when alarmists or anyone else tries to.

    • One possible (and quick) refutation of the 97% claim.
      – 97+% of priests believe in God
      – 97+% of astrologers believe in astrology

      There were only a few dozen climatologists before MMGW became a concern. Climate science degrees were only available in this century. You didn’t get into climate science unless you already believed it to be true. Now there are thousands in the field. If MMGW turns out to be false where do you go if you have a climate science degree?
      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
      ~Upton Sinclair

      • Richard M. You have missunderstood what the consensus is saying. It is not that because 97% of scientist agree it must be true. It is that because 97% of climate scientists agree there is no need to “balance” the debate by hearing “both” sides. In reality there is only one side. There is pressure among the better media outlets to present a balance. If you interview a Republican, you also get the point of view of a Democrat. This balance works because about half the politicians are R and half D. One of each therefore balances the arguments.
        Those that disagree with “mainstream” climate sciece would like to have the same right to a rebutttal whenever global warming is mentioned. They claim is that “both” sides of the argumnent should be heard. The 97% consesus shows that there really is no need to offer time and exposure to the contrarians because they represent a very small sub-set, of climate scientists, and actually there is no debate to have two sides.
        Once you understand that, you may view it differently.
        A better comparison is 97% of biologists believe in evolution, so we don’t need to interview a creationist every time evolution is mentioned. 97% of doctors believe HIV causes AIDS, so we don’t need to wheel out a few mavericks every time AIDS is mentioned. That no more makes evolution and HIV as a cause of aids right than the climate consensus makes AGW right.

      • ‘seaice’ still doesn’t understand that the true consensus is heavily on the side of skeptics of ‘dangerous AGW’ (which is the heart of the entire debate).
        The OISM petition, which ‘seaice’ hates because he cannot refute it, has the names of more that 31,000 co-signers. Each one is a professional with one or more degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s. But ‘seaice’ cannot produce even 1% of the OISM’s numbers saying the OISM statement is wrong. There’s the real consensus.
        Those pushing the ‘97%’ fairy tale have always been a small clique of self-serving scientists who are playing to the mass of ignorant lemmings. They are assisted by people like ‘seaice’, who know better but who are happy to perpetuate the ‘97%’ lie because it is a means to an end.
        ‘seaice’ writes some pretty reprehensible comments here, such as:
        The 97% consesus shows that there really is no need to offer time and exposure to the contrarians because they represent a very small sub-set, of climate scientists, and actually there is no debate to have two sides… In reality there is only one side… Those that disagree with “mainstream” climate sciece would like to have the same right to a rebutttal whenever global warming is mentioned.
        ‘seasice’ lies for his climate alarmist cause, which he believes justifies his false statements and the censoring of scientific views that he does not want anyone to read. If he actually believes the nonsense he posted above, then he hasn’t read the Climategate emails, where alarmist scientists conspired to keep skeptical scientists from publishing in the relevant journals. They even got scientists fired for nothing more than expressing legitimate scientific views that the alarmist clique didn’t want people to see.
        That nefarious, underhanded corruption is endemic throughout the mainstram media. They all parrot the same meme that ‘seaice’ is repeating here: that skeptics are such a teeny-tiny subset of the scientists, they should not be allowed to be heard. That would play fine in North Korea, but here ‘seaice’ comes across as a mini-Stalinist, proposing to censor any views except those that his self-appointed climate Politburo approves.
        The fact is that the ‘97%’ number is the result of a heavily manipulated poll by neo-Nazi John Cook, in which thousands of polling questions were sent out, wherein Cook selected a mere 95 out of 97 of the thousands of questions and responses in order to arrive at his totally bogus ‘97%’. I’m sure ‘seaice’ knows that, but because he’s infected with Noble Cause Corruption, he has convinced himself that, like Steven Schneider, it is A-OK to lie for a good cause. Of course, ‘seaice’ presumes himself to be the arbiter of what is a good cause.
        If I were debating I would have pointed out that scientists are always arguing. They’re always in dispute, and presuming that 97% of all scientists are in full agreement that dangerous AGW is happening is no different than presuming that 97% of all knowledgeable baseball fans agree that Roger Maris should have an asterisk appended to his home run acheivement. You simply cannot find 97% of scientists who agree that human emissions are the cause of what, if anything, is claimed by Cook or anyone else.
        Every knowledgeable person who repeats the ‘97%’ canard is ethics-challenged. If Cook had invented a somewhat believeable number, like 54%, or 61%, he might have put together an argument that didn’t damage his already low credibility. But by fabricating his fantastic ‘97%’ number, Cook forces fellow travelers like ‘seaice’ to try and keep his fake number propped up — like the boxing opponent in Raging Bull, who was jabbed and promptly collapsed, only to be held vertical while DeNiro whispered in his ear that it was he, De Niro, who was supposed to take the fall. ‘seaice’ is trying to keep the 97% lie alive. But it is still a lie, and there’s no doubt that ‘seaice’ knows it is a lie. If it were not for the immense piles of grant money propping up the ‘dangerous AGW’ hoax, it would have taken the fall long ago.
        So every time ‘seaice’ tries to defend the indefensible ‘97%’, he exposes himself as a prevaricating partisan. That’s the low level the climate alarmist crowd has devolved to. They don’t have credible facts and evidence, so they use bogus propaganda like the 97% fiction. But the one thing they still tuck tail and run from is any fair, moderated debate in a neutral venue, in which each side selects their debaters. Every time that has been done, the skeptics demolished the alarmist side. So now they refuse to debate, instead assigning their anonymous lemmings to post the ‘97%’ and similar propaganda online while the cdentral clique hides out in its ivory tower.

      • “– 97+% of priests believe in God
        – 97+% of astrologers believe in astrology
        …”
        I like it. Having the Pope jump on the bandwagon has made this even more effective. They get a boost from the influence of faith on the masses, why not use the Pope’s blessing of Global Warming to undermine the perceived value of “consensus”.
        “The Pope believes in global warming, and he also believes in God. More than 97% of Catholics priests also believe in God, but that consensus doesn’t make it a scientific fact, and people should be able to decide for themselves.”

      • “Dbstealey, if skeptics reject the “97%” number, why hasn’t any skeptic published a scientific study that refutes this number?”
        The gatekeepers of the scientific journals would never allow it to be published, and if it was then the editors and reviewers would be attacked as heretics and thrown out of their jobs. It’s happened before (Soon & Baliunas, Climate Research 2004, for example).
        Many people have published critiques of these studies online, where the arguments stand or fall on their own merits rather than the whims of the scientific orthodoxy. If you search, surely you will find them and you can decide if the arguments they make are convincing.

      • Legates et al. on Agnotology, tho.’ Morano was too kind to mention it to the object of it. And not to mention Richard Toll’s correspondence with the journal about Cook et al

      • Here is at least one example that was published in a scientific journal.
        http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/095830508783900744
        Do you think some of the others are good enough to be published?
        http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/richard-tol-half-cooks-data-still-hidden-rest-shows-result-is-incorrect-invalid-unrepresentative/
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/consensus-what-consensus-2/
        Being published in a journal, even a vanity journal, doesn’t make something good. The studies you cited by Monckton and Soon that have been published were good, and obviously were able to withstand the rigor of peer review by the orthodoxy. In the case of Soon and Baliunas, being published hasn’t given the paper any more credibility, and in fact it only succeeded in sparking a firestorm of more controversy and getting people fired. Have you read this paper, and did you find it convincing?
        If you haven’t read the many critiques available online of the 97% studies, and you won’t read them even if they are published, what’s the point in trying to publish them in a scientific journal?

      • Chaam Jamal,
        At least one peer reviewed paper was published refuting Cook’s 97% number. Just put ‘97%’ into the WUWT search box and you will find it.
        There may be more. But as Albert Einstein said, it only takes one. And that refutation has never been falsified. Cook has been debunked, end of story.
        [Reply: ‘Chaam Jamal’ is a sockpuppet. Also posts under the name ‘Richard Molineux’ and others (K. Pittman, etc.) As usual, his sad life writing comments has been completely wasted, as they are now deleted. –mod]

      • seaice1-
        “The consesus is real. All you can do is point out what the censensus actually is -i.e. it is not about the dangerousness of AGW.”
        A “consensus” is defined as- “An opinion or position of agreement reached by a group as a whole”
        So in order to establish that the consensus you speak of is in fact “real”, please provide the following evidence for everyone- First, what was the exact and specific opinion or position upon which a group “reached agreement, as a whole”. Second, who specifically and exactly was in “the group as a whole”? Third, when did that very specific group, as a whole, reach agreement on the exact and specific opinion/position?

      • Chaam, if you are closed minded and looking for excuses NOT to read criticisms of your faith in global warming, then it doesn’t matter where those criticisms are made, online or in a scientific journal.
        I asked your opinion of two different published studies, and you balked. If you say that peer review is valuable, then address the value of the published papers. If not, then stop pretending like you’re open-minded.

      • @ Chaam Jamal December 10, 2015 at 12:21 pm
        [Reply: ‘Chaam Jamal’ is a sockpuppet. Also posts under the name ‘Richard Molineux’ and others (K. Pittman, etc.) As usual, his sad life writing comments has been completely wasted, as they are now deleted. –mod]
        maybe you should read the paper not just the headlines !!
        You could also do your own statstical aprasal of the Doran & Zimmerman 97%.
        original paper – http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/abstract
        Doran & Zimmerman chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.
        [ So…. not an unbiased survey OR a large and broad group ]
        The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.
        The REAL numbers of American Geophysical Union members agreeing on ‘anthropogenic global warming’ are –
        75 of 77 answering Question 2** is 97.4%… BUT
        75 of 3,146 respondents is only 2.38%.
        75 of 10,257 contacted is only 0.73%.
        75 of 61,000 possible is only 0.12%.
        The data states only 2.38 % AGU members actually agree Global Warming is manmade …
        … But the figures suggest it’s possibly less than 1%,

      • dbstealey wrote, “The fact is that the ‘97%’ number is the result of a heavily manipulated poll by neo-Nazi John Cook, in which thousands of polling questions were sent out, wherein Cook selected a mere 95 out of 97 of the thousands of questions and responses in order to arrive at his totally bogus ‘97%’.”
        That’s rather scrambled, db. It’s about that bad, except that I think you’ve conflated Mr. John Cook and Dr. Peter Doran.
        They each attempted to support the “97% consensus” hoax with laughably flawed studies, so it is understandable that you could mix them up. It was Doran and his graduate student who you’re mainly thinking of:
        Under Doran’s supervision, his graduate student, Maggie Zimmerman, identified 10,257 geoscientists (“Earth Scientists”) with email addresses at accademic and government institutions (liberal bastions, all). (That is an obvious source of bias, but it wasn’t intentional: to her credit, Ms. Zimmerman wrote in her thesis report that she attempted to obtain broader lists of geoscientists, but was unable to do so.)
        Doran came up with two “gimme” questions which almost anyone, including most skeptics, would answer “correctly.” An online survey tool was used to ask the questions. ZImmerman sent out the survey solicitation via email, and got 3146 responses.
        These were the questions asked:

        Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
        1. Risen
        2. Fallen
        3. Remained relatively constant
        4. No opinion/Don't know
        Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?  [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
        1. Yes
        2. No
        3. I'm not sure
        Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)?  [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
        Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
        Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
        Q6. Age
        Q7. Gender
        Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
        Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?
        

        It was Doran, not Zimmerman, who (mis)calculated the “97%” number. It was in an article he wrote, not in Zimmerman’s thesis report.
        To do so, of 3146 responses received, he first excluded all but 79 of the 3146, the most specialized climate specialists. (Richard M and Berényi Péter are right: that’s like surveying medical professionals about the efficacy of homeopathy, and then, after you get the responses back, excluding all the responses except those from practicing homeopaths.)
        But that wasn’t sufficient to reach his 97% goal. To reach the 97% threshold on the 2nd question, Doran excluded 2 of the 3 respondents (out of 79) who gave “wrong” answers to the first question.
        76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen” to the first question: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
        Two of the 79 apparently answered “remained relatively constant” to the first question, so they were not asked the second question, and Doran did not count them among the skeptics when calculating his “79%.”
        75 of the remaining 77 (97.4%) answered “yes” to the second question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”
        That means only 74 or 75 of 79 (93.7% or 94.9%) answered both “risen” to the first question and “yes” to the second question.
        And that’s in spite of the fact (3146-79) / 3146 = 97.5% of the respondents were excluded after the responses were received.
        Plus, neither of the two questions actually addressed anthropogenic global warming!
        The first question asked respondents to compare current temperatures to the depths of the Little Ice Age (“pre-1800s”), and asked whether it’s warmer now. Well, of course it is! What’s remarkable is that they didn’t get 100% agreement. 3 of 79 apparently didn’t agree even with that.
        The second question asks whether any human activities significantly affect global temperatures. That encompasses both GHG-driven warming and particulate/aerosol-driven cooling. It could also be understood to include Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.
        Since just about everyone acknowledges at least one of those effects, I would have expected nearly everyone to answer “yes” to this question. Yet 2 of 77 apparently did not.
        It is unfortunate that they didn’t ask an actual question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like (paraphrasing a politician), “Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”
        Refs: http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/97pct/#doran
        BTW, it doesn’t elevate the debate to call Cook a neo-Nazi, even though his bizarre, Halloween-ish, NAZI costume photo positively invites the appelation.

        • daveburton,
          Thanks for the correction about the authors of the ‘97%’ canard. I should have mentioned Doran. Cook tallied the papers.
          Regarding John Cook’s Nazi getup, he’s posted a lot of similar pictures. And Cook did it himself, not someone trying to smear him. I’m not the first or only one to point out his neo-Nazi pics. It’s interesting that Cook (as far as I know) has never explained why he chose that particular ideology, and he’s never denied it. If the connection is wrong, then the only conclusion I can arrive at is that Cook is amazingly stupid. Why would he do that? It wasn’t Halloween as you mentioned. Cook claims to be a psychologist. It would seem that he of all people should know the stir that portraying himself as a Nazi would create, and apparently his pals didn’t tell him in no uncertain terms to delete everything Nazi-related that had their pictures in it, too.
          Once again I ask: what if some prominent skeptics had done that? Would the alarmist crowd give them a pass?

      • [Reply: ‘Chaam Jamal’ is a sockpuppet. Also posts under the name ‘Richard Molineux’ and others (K. Pittman, etc.) As usual, his sad life writing comments has been completely wasted, as they are now deleted. –mod]

        • “Aphan, when the distinguished senator from Texas can’t find a fourth climate scientist to testify at his hearing , then has to invite a musical theater critic to testify in lieu of one, you know there is a problem .”
          Oh Chaam, please, PLEASE smother me with your evidence that the distinguished senator from Texas “couldn’t find a fourth climate scientist to testify at his hearing”, and thus was forced to invite a “musical theater critic to testify in lieu of one”. Otherwise, I’m going to conclude that logic and evidence are a problem for you. (I could have mentioned you seem to like getting your climate science from a cartoonist…but again…that would be petty and irrelevant like you chose to be)
          I had no idea Mark Steyn’s literary prowess included a book on the history of musical theatre! Here I thought his intellect and wit was reserved for his New York Times bestsellers, climate books, and extensive political commentaries for which he has won various literary awards. Good for him!

        • It’s all right, I think we got the “79” should have been “97” one.
          Love the one about reaching the 97% consensus only after excluding 97.5% of the respondents though and being the methodology being like excluding all doctors who aren’t homeopathists when asking who believes in homeopathy. Priceless, both of them.

      • Isaveenergy says:
        “The REAL numbers of American Geophysical Union members agreeing on ‘anthropogenic global warming’ are –
        75 of 77 answering Question 2** is 97.4%… BUT
        75 of 3,146 respondents is only 2.38%.
        75 of 10,257 contacted is only 0.73%.
        75 of 61,000 possible is only 0.12%.
        The data states only 2.38 % AGU members actually agree Global Warming is manmade …”
        No, no no. We have the actual figures for the number of the 3,146 answering “yes”: It is 82%. So we can say that 82% of AGU members agree, not 2.38%. Of the narrower (and smaller) group of AGU members who are also active climate publishers, 97% agree.
        This is how surveys work.
        A simple example to illustrate. Imagine a survey of 1000 people that reports 70% of all respondents thought that taxes were too high. Of these, 50 were tax experts, and 90% of these experts thought taxes were too high.
        Your analysis would be that 50 of 1000 thought taxes were too high, or 5%. This is obvious nonsense, since the survey result tells us that 70% thought taxes were too high.
        dbstealey: As I said, quote the OISM petition and get laughed out of the debate. If you don’t believe me, lets ask your statistics expert. You won’t do that, will you?
        “they should not be allowed to be heard.” Hell no, everyone is allowed to be heard. There is a huge difference between allowing people to be heard and offering them a platform. Everyone can be heard, but the media does not owe everyone a platform.
        Daveburton: “that’s like surveying medical professionals about the efficacy of homeopathy, and then, after you get the responses back, excluding all the responses except those from practicing homeopaths.”
        Well, this is not such a good analogy*, but going with it, you would have to be clear in your statement of what the consensus was. You would have to say 97% of practicing homeopaths think homeopathy was effective. You can easily see that this is the same as saying 97% of actively publishing climate scientists in the Doran survey. It would also be a bit surprising if you got 82% of all medics to agree that homeopathy was more effective than placebo. However, if this was indeed the result frm a survey of 3000 doctors, I would seriously look at my opinion about the degree of agreement among doctors about the effectiveness of homeopathy.
        *The reason it is not a good analogy is that to practicing homeopathy you probably have a belief in its effectiveness. Practicing research on the climate does not necessitate a belief in AGW, as a few notable exceptions demonstrate.

        • seaice says:
          “No, no no.”
          Did you stamp your foot when you wrote that?
          And:
          97% agree… This is how surveys work.
          That’s how propaganda works.
          And:
          We have the actual figures for the number of the 3,146 answering “yes”.
          So you claim. But what are their names? The OISM co-signers each published their names; every OISM co-signer’s name is online. What are your (probably fabricated) respondents afraid of?
          And:
          As I said, quote the OISM petition and get laughed out of the debate.
          Yes, as you said. You are the only one trying to make a serious petition — which was the major cause of the failure of the Kyoto Protocol — funny. That’s your best argument, so you lose. Once more for the mentally slow: What are their NAMES? Post them here, if they’re not fabricated by Cook or Doran.
          I expect that John Cook is cooking the books, because the truth is not in him. Anyone who claims that “97%” of a group thinks one way is of course fabricating the results. And YOU are supporting him. Why? Because that’s the best argument you have for the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ hoax. You certainly have no credible science.
          I suggest you go back to practicing homeopathy. That’s more your speed. Leave the real science to the grownups here.

    • I think a simpler argument is that there is no global temperature. So any graph you present with a single temperature for the entire surface is a sham, dishonest. Scientists need to do better and figure out a real way to determine the heat in the system. Global temperature ain’t it.

      • Very true, but isn’t temperature deviation still the best proxy we have for the effect of heat, when comparing like for like over time (‘like for like’ largely excluding the surface records because of vulnerability of large swathes of surface to adjustments at a few measuring stations) ?
        Radiation balance is a good away of checking what heating to expect, from the sun leaving us with such conundrums as Trenberth’s missing heat and no accounting for possible geothermal sources.

        • It can be if you trust the scientist/organization and method the measurements come from, or have a way to verify them yourself.

  15. Right at the beginning, Morano starts talking about Global Warming today and then refers to the Medieval Warm Period. Morano made a mistake. Global Warming refers to AGW, humans causing an increase in CO2 which heats up the planet. I have not been apprised that there was a CO2 increase in the MWP that caused the warming. If there wasn’t, then Morano was wrong using Global Warming in ref to MWP.
    In other words, I’m really tired of people on the skeptical side falling into the alarmist trap of using ‘Climate Change’, ‘Global Warming’, incorrectly.

    • It appears that you have also not been “apprised” of several things.
      1) Rational, intelligent people generally try to use words that mean exactly what they are trying to say. It is irrational to presume that a person “meant to say something” that they didn’t actually say, or to insinuate that because YOU define a group of words a certain way, that everyone else does too.
      2) When rational people only use the words “global warming”, they are actually referring only to the warming of the globe, irregardless of the causes of the warming. If rational people want to discuss human caused Global Warming specifically, they add an “A”, or the word anthropogenic in front of the words “global warming”.
      3) Anyone familiar with Marc knows that HE doesn’t believe that CO2 is driving either today’s warming, or the warming of the MWP, so it is completely illogical to expect him to be referring to AGW when HE uses the term global warming.
      Marc avoids the alarmist trap by using the exact words he means, rather than using some form of politically correct nonsensical speak.

      • irregardless of the causes
        None of us is perfect. That includes you. REGARDSLESS will suffice.
        Rational doesn’t come into this discussion. The warmers have been changing the name to avoid specification. A good example was Markey’s remark about climate change meaning cold and hot and all being due to humans. It’s a game.

      • Stephen Richards-
        “irregardless of the causes
        None of us is perfect. That includes you. REGARDSLESS will suffice.
        Rational doesn’t come into this discussion. The warmers have been changing the name to avoid specification. A good example was Markey’s remark about climate change meaning cold and hot and all being due to humans. It’s a game.”
        It usually goes without saying that none of us are perfect, but apparently the use of the word irregardless made you feel the need to say it anyway. I’d take issue with your declarations that “rational doesn’t come into this discussion” and that “it’s a game”, but something tells me it would be a waste of time. 🙂

    • kokoda – I don’t agree. Cook’s first question what whether Morano believed that the world was warming, i.e. global warming. Morano answered correctly in pointing out that, yes it is warming, but not any more than it has done in the past, i.e. the medieval warm period. Then he points out the little ice age, and that the globe has been warming coming out of the little ice age for over 200 years. I think it was the correct response to Cook’s question.
      I think Morano did better at the first. His incredible passion got the best of him a few minutes into the interview. I could feel how badly he wanted to persuade Cook through the audio, he wanted it so badly that he went overboard in talking at warp speed to try to convey his massive knowledge in one short interview. I am thankful for his passion though, similar to mine I think. Thank you Marc!

    • Kokoda – The point is that natural global temperature increases can occur, which is why the RWP and MWP occurred. 2005 happened to be the very peak of a solar grand maximum and also the ~60 year cycle. The recent global satellite temperature data has been relatively flat because we have come off the grand solar cycle peak of 2005, but had the AMO peak in ~2012, and the most recent solar cycle 24 peak this year. All three are now turning down, so we will dive in temperature in the next few years.
      Natural forcings explain most of the temperature rise last century, therefore CO2 doesn’t have much real world effect net of feedbacks.

  16. I was impressed by John Cook. Irrespective of his ridiculous 97% study, his denial 101 course and his alarmist bent, he allowed Marc to speak at length and that is a rare event. He even suggested that they collaborate on a review of the literature. Perhaps an olive branch from a side that knows it is losing the war.

    • Hey, nobody “let’s” Marc Moreno talk, it’s just that nobody knows how to stop him talking. He struggles to stop himself !
      Brilliant guy.

    • Marc Morano took Cook behind the woodshed with his chainsaw running. Yes he could have been more focussed but nonetheless he exposed Cook’s ignorance. This is a vast topic and Morano has an Olympian overview.

    • Here’s my take:
      (1) Mr. Cook was polite and amiable. My view of him has been elevated. It remains to be seen whether his interest is sincere or malicious. Seemed sincere, going to give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
      (2) Marc is so passionate, and it got the best of him here. He did present very good arguments, but they came rapid fire at warp speed. Hard to keep up, audience retention likely low. Still very good though.
      (3) Cook’s main point is the 97% consensus. There were a few times in the conversation where the best comeback to Cook would be, that the 97% consensus is bought and paid for by administrators of government grants. Somehow the climate activist scientists (Hansen et al) succeeded in skeptical viewpoints being considered to be crackpot science, which governments don’t fund. If there is a 97% consensus, it is because 97% of grants go to those who believe and support CAGW claims. I believe if governments took a red team / blue team approach with 50/50 funding, there would be approx. 50% consensus. However, there would be a 97% consensus that climate science is EXTREMELY uncertain.
      (4) Cook’s other main point is the full body of evidence. Every time I hear a scientist bring up the “multiple lines of evidence indicating CAGW” I just want to puke. No one ever pins them down by insisting they detail out each and every line, and what the evidence REALLY is for each line. It’s the standard “out” used by cli sci everywhere. There is never enough time to go into details of each line, and that’s why it’s an out. I wish Marc would have calmed a bit and allowed Cook to discuss his multiple lines, and then calmly refuted each of them.
      Overall I thought the interview was great, on both sides! I hope Cook is genuinely trying to better understand Marc’s viewpoint.

      • There is the same argument for evolution. There is no single “gotcha” that proves it. It is a massive subject, and pretty much all the evidence is consistent with it. If pinned down by a creationist and you come back and say 100,000 papers have evidence that is consistent with evolution, it is not possible to summarise what they are.
        “No one ever pins them down by insisting they detail out each and every line.” Because it is impossible.
        That is basically what the IPCC does. So the answer is go read the IPCC reports.

    • Yes, I enjoyed the simple( but usually ignored by AGW crowd) respect, from both sides of the microphone.
      An honest collaboration is long overdue.
      Maybe Mr. Cook has finally grown up, and put the wearing of offensive and silly costumes, and the making of silly claims, behind him. Sounded like he also may be sincerely interested in the actual science now.

  17. This is magical stuff, by why is Cook so calm and not saying much. He lets Morano talk & talk & talk. He knows it’s not about the facts, but how he can spin this with his Psych.hat on, no doubt with help from his guide & mentor Lew.
    Just watch how this self appointed propaganda chief of Warmist Alarmism tries to represent this material to confirm every bias he has contrived. It won’t come across anything like we have heard here, and his students won’t be seeking out the full transcript.
    Morano, the good sport that he is, will be spun like the fly in a spiders web.

      • stewgreen-
        +1 ..”some of the above commenters seem very naive..Cook has a reputation, I wouldn’t trust him.”
        Is there some kind of logic flu going around? Or has this thread just been targeted by a whole lot of “new” and completely illogical posters for some reason? I mean really…none of the regulars here are huge fans of Cook, for well discussed reasons. But suddenly we’re inundated with newbies that either want to opine about what Marc didn’t say, or what he did say, or how they liked him better before this or like him more now etc….or who want to project what Cook might do with the interview, or who want to insinuate that because someone said something positive about Cook that they must suddenly believe everything he’s ever said and done to be true.
        COME ON PEOPLE. No one here knows what Cook or Marc were “thinking” outside of what they actually SAID. Everything else is pure assumption, and we should all know what they say about people who ASSUME. Such lazy insinuation and arrogant projection is NOT the norm here at WUWT, and it’s a tad suspicious if not unnerving.

  18. You should always give people where it is due, therefore I think we should give Cook credit for coming from a third rate nobody to a third rate somebody by doing nothing more than selling BS. And we can all hope he lives long life ,as with ‘the team’ , so they get to see their work trashed for the rubbish it is and themselves held up for the joke , a rather bad and somewhat sick one, they are.

  19. I have to say, reluctantly, that it is very hard for me to get through this recording, and that it has sharply reduced my interest in the Climate Hustle movie. Morano is on the side of the angels, sure, but he seems to be off on a celebrity trip in his head that keeps him from focusing on the right things at the right time. There are so many fat easy targets that he is given a chance to take out here, the phony 97% consensus, the phony CO2 control knob, the phony 2 degree catastrophe deadline, etc., etc., etc., and yet whenever Morano gets a chance to cite real numbers and real facts he says something like, “But I don’t want to get into that now,” and lets Cook lead him on. I’m going to try one more time and see if Morano ever scores, but so far I get the impression that Cook sensed an opportunity in Morano’s self-love and has made it work for his corrupt alarmist enterprise.

    • There are three brilliant advocates on the sceptic side of the debate: Morano, Steyn and Monckton.
      However, they know so much that they can’t always focus on the knock-out punch. A second problem is that they don’t give the opposition any opportunities to make any mistakes. I thought Morano was going for that approach a few times but after Cook had uttered half a sentence he was off again.
      Asking Cook if the data behind his 97% survey really did find that only 0.3% of the abstracts claimed that man was mainly responsible would have been a good start. Could we have a copy of the data would have been a good follow-up.

    • So, you’re saying that because Morano didn’t respond in exactly the way you think he should have in one interview, that your interest in seeing Climate Hustle has been “sharply reduced”? Why? Are you worried that his movie also won’t address the climate change debate in exactly the way you think he should have, and therefor it’s not worth your time? I mean, isn’t it logical to conclude that Marc’s movie covered ALL of the stuff you mentioned, and that’s why he didn’t discuss them with Cook? (If you wanna know how things turn out….see the movie!) Clearly Cook felt like there was some information dumped on him.
      Marc might not be your style, but does everyone have to be in your world?

      • Look, it’s not that hard to show that, for instance, the Medieval Warming period is amply documented, that there is a a website showing hundreds of peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate it all around the world, not just in Greenland. But if you say, instead, “I won’t get into that now,” you’ve blown your chance, and I hear Morano doing that again and again and again in just the first ten minutes here. It’s got nothing to do with my style, it’s just competence in argument. Steyn is a showboat and an entertainer, but he knows he has to deliver that nugget of fact now and then to keep his authority. So far I’m not seeing that in Morano, I wish I did, I wish him well, but I’m not seeing that.

      • Too tight a circle and you wake up in the Idaho woods. It’s a good point for all of us to remember if we want to avoid the loneliness of the echo chamber. I listen to NPR on climate frequently. The stories are usually childish and the guests are often used as props but it sharpens my understanding just the same.
        Climate Science (as Morano says) is both science and politics. Those inclined to politics will not always sound like sweet to the ears of the science inclined. They are still necessary.

        • Hey, careful on the innuendo there, I was born and raised in Idaho! And I turned out just fine….fine…perfectly fine…*grin*

      • I’ve listened to NPR’s climate discussions, but rarely listen now, as my dander gets up. Unchallenged talking points from the likes of Bill McKibben, et al, do not add to my knowledge of anything.

  20. Marc is good with his facts but very loud & very me, me, look at me.
    I don’t like the way he shouts John Cook down all the time, he should have got Cook to talk more, put his side, dig him self in….then rip his ideas apart !!
    Missed opportunity.

    • Agree…Morano was sounding like a smarty pants narcissist. Something not quite right with this interview. There was a tone of lazy, self congratulatory triumph in the way Morano was speaking. If not a set up by Cook, it certainly showed a person not ‘on guard’ and on their toes in an adversarial interview.

    • 1saveenergy and mandrake9-
      Marc is being Marc. That’s how Marc has always been. These comments of “I don’t like….” “He should have…” “missed opportunity” all reek of an “I could have done it better” arrogance that is highly ironic, among other things.
      Dahlquist- If I chose to follow your example, I would state that your comment itself sounds like it came from a “smarty pants, narcissist” and that it had a tone of lazy, self-aggrandizing smugness that showed a person not aware of how ironic and arrogant they sound.

  21. Interesting a Cook not control of his kitchen?
    Fishing expedition for Paris? Probably thought it would be successful?
    But giving Morano such a platform was always a risk.
    No need for error bars, just put it down to bad judgment.

  22. Cook is not a scientist and he did not even interpret his own data correctly, you can see that in the published paper without asking for more data. He needs to be asked more questions, not lectured at.

      • I thought it was supposed to be a debate. Anyway, if the aim is to persuade people who are impressed by Cook’s line of argument to change their minds, then it may be more effective to ask Cook questions that expose his assumptions and his “data” rather than blinding the audience with a machinegun exposition of climate science. Impressive but not necessarily effective.

        • Changing minds isn’t about facts, truth & objective argument, it’s about politics, psychobable & spin, as these two academics seem to have discovered

          • Luckily, the evidence shows that the psychobabble and spin isn’t working like they’d hoped.
            http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/06/new_climate_change_poll_shows_americans_believe_in_global_warming.html
            “The new data also show that a majority of U.S. counties remain unconvinced that global warming is caused “mostly by human activities.” Majorities in a whopping 2,717 of 3,143 counties (nearly 80 percent) disagree with that sentiment, among them the liberal bastions of Brooklyn, New York, and Prince George’s County, Maryland.”
            (Americans also do not even believe the idiotic consensus statement)
            “The new polling data show Americans seem unconvinced by scientists in general, with majorities of 3,061 of 3,143 counties (more than 97 percent, including Mendocino County, California, and Bergen County, New Jersey) disagreeing with the statement that “most scientists think global warming is happening.”
            More people from Britain are rejecting AGW theory today than they did two years ago.
            http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/britons-now-reject-human/2015/11/29/id/703827/
            And the AP recently announced it would no longer use the term “deniers” when speaking of people who don’t agree with the AGW theory.

          • ” And the AP recently announced it would no longer use the term “deniers” when speaking of people who don’t agree with the AGW theory. ”
            Would they now be Climate Neutrals ?

          • I believe they now use “climate change doubters” or something close to that. Whatever it was, it made the AGW crowd howl and whine.

  23. Well of course the models wouldn’t have predicted the Arctic ice loss as they predict increasingly positive NAO/AO with increasing CO2 levels, but the NAO/AO turned negative from the mid 1990’s.

  24. Crap, Crap crap. I think Marc Morano screwed up/ He did most of the talking …so.. there is plenty of sound bites there for the taking. All of the things Marc Morano said that can be cut, spliced and then aired?
    Oh yes there is a complete recording. Really? was it live? drat drat drat.
    They can say anything and claim anything. Who controls the media? And which discussion will be heard.
    Sorry. I have a complete lack of trust, in the other side.
    michael

    • Michael, I think you’re right. Morano acts like he’s talking to someone who really wants to hear, someone he has a chance of convincing. I’ve seen Monkton do the same, but he has people film him and controls the conversation so it comes out at least once in context. That doesn’t work when someone else is holding the camera.
      It’s important to treat potentially hostile interviewers the same way you’d treat an attorney prosecuting you; answer the questions, don’t offer answers that aren’t asked. If you have an opportunity to question the interrogator I suppose that’s maybe OK since there isn’t anyone around to stop you.
      I think Morano was promoting the movie.

      • Lets use some reason here. First, Marc knew enough to record the whole thing to prtect himself. He planned to have the whole interview (not really a debate) readily available online, should Cook choose to edit, sound bite it. And second, it looks like its Morano also got it online before Cook could even mention the interview himself.
        SO, Marc acted like someone who not only knows his opposition’s m.o., but acted preemptively to rebut any cut/ paste/ sound biting that might occur. If he was THAT alert, then it is completely logical to assume that he knows, (or at least hopes) that SOME of the people who might hear his whole interview might NOT have been completely brainwashed by the Cook camp yet, and so of course he spoke like he”s talking to” someone who really wants to hear…someone he has a chance of convincing”. He info dumped for a reason.
        Illogical sheep who have already made up their minds were not his target. He’s not in Paris to debunk Cook personally in an interview (that would then, most likely, never get shown to anyone by Cook-and be a huge waste of Marc’s time) he’s in Paris to promote a MOVIE length debunking of the whole mess, including Cook. He’s showing just enough to get people to watch it. Even if people only buy tickets just to see what kind of movie this “nutjob” or “egomaniac” produced, he (and the facts) wins.

  25. Would love to have been there in person. Marc was positive throughout essentially the entire thing; Cook a couple times showed the true colors of the Believer. But on the whole, this *should* a positive contribution to the discussion–if for no other reason than that it was relatively civil (and Marc was so upbeat–not evil/vindictive like so many on the other side.) A real treat to be able to listen to this!

  26. I listened to the audio of the Morano & Cook ‘debate’. In some respect it was much more worthwhile than any kind of debate. It was a direct spirited interaction without formality, like you often have in a local pub over pints with someone who does not agree with you on a topic. Moreno was a lively forthright instigator of the direction and of the give and take; he was a force. He pretty much went where he wanted. Cook was mostly passive with various somewhat defensive remarks or overgeneralizations in response to what Morano said. Toward the end I felt Cook starting to respond the earnestness of Morano’s persistent enthusiastic appeals to Cook to be honest in response. I really think Cook was put in a situation by Morano late in the audio where he needed to look more responsive and agreeable, to be more like Morano. I felt a softening; a subtle thawing of his consensus mode. I could have just imagined that . . . : ) . . . but I got an emotional twinge that it was the case.
    This kind of rather informal interaction under conditions where there is some level of friendliness and good will are important. Especially when taped by both parties and made public.
    I listened to the audio on earphones at the local Mountain View (CA) public library in the ‘shush, be quiet’ reading room. I would put out a loud chuckle every few minutes at a Morano line and got some glares from nearby folks. I almost offered to show them what was so funny. Maybe tomorrow at the library I’ll watch it again . . . then when I chuckle maybe I will show them what I am chuckling about.
    John

  27. “UPDATE -TRY THIS: for those of you with browsers that can’t play audio, it turns out the problem was that it was in Apple m4a format and not all browsers support it. M4A is an audio file format that is very similar to MP4. It is a proprietary file format of Apple. iTunes store contains the audios as M4A format. It uses MPEG-4 codec to contain audio files.
    So to fix that, here is the file format in a much better MP3 format, which doesn’t rely on Apple formats and is much more standards compliant.”
    These statements about .m4a and .mp3 are not correct. The .m4a file extension is used with the MPEG-4 format, which is itself a container format that can contain audio and video files.
    Apple introduced, but does not own, the .m4a extension to indicate that the container primarily has audio files, which you can’t tell from the .mp4 extension. Apple also introduced the AAC (Advanced Audio Coding) standard used to encode audio files inside an .m4a container. AAC has been standardized by ISO and IEC, as part of the MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 specifications.
    .mp3 is an outdated audio format, part of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, which remains popular primarily because of a large number of legacy recordings, devices and software that don’t support more modern formats.
    An .m4a containing AAC audio is certainly standards-compliant, and arguably more so than .mp3 which was designed in the 80s, and standardized in the early 90s.
    Apple-bashing is fun, but not applicable in this case. If the format was proprietary, certainly Chrome would be the last browser able to play it.

  28. Very poorly moderated debate. In fact it was mostly Moreno giving a lecture about climate skepticism. I wanted to hear cook speak about his thoughts.

    • It wasn’t really a debate. It was an interview of a climate skeptic, Marc Morano (not Moreno) by Cook. John Cook has an entire online course called Denial 101 and you can hear him speak about his thoughts to your heart’s content.

  29. John Cook is “the” master at using marketing tools(like his 97% study) and putting a convincing sounding spin/interpretation on this issue, as well as effectively presenting himself as an objective authority.
    He is the polar opposite of objective. Go to his web site and you will see this in spades immediately.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
    One can only guess what he had in mind when conducting this interview. You can only get a good read on John Cook after you closely analyze the results of his work(s).
    Note: It’s important to have an authentic understanding in the realm of his work(s) because of his expertise at being able to sell junk science as authentic.

    • I hadn’t seen his site until just now. It also suffers from not allowing contributors to edit comments. I don’t proof read my own writing well (it’s why God invented editors).
      Other than that I did notice he’s fond of defining scientific consensus as “when scientists stop arguing” or something along those lines. I thought it was funny. I’ve never known a scientist that was unwilling to argue. In a pinch, I’ve known quite a few who argue with themselves if no one else is interested.

  30. Interrupting, fist pounding and yelling didn’t help Morano’s credibility. Cook came off as the rational one which we know isn’t true.

  31. John Cook The Books was very “wise”. What you heard was one half of the debate — Morano’s half. John Cook The Books will reply to Morano in another forum (most likely his blog where Morano has probably already been banned) where he can say whatever he wants knowing that Morano cannot respond or correct him. John Cook The Books will “trounce” Morano using a flood of alarmist hothead propaganda.
    A chipmunk can’t change his spots. Get ready for the bastardization.
    Eugene WR Gallun

    • “Chipmunk’s are a small striped rodent –” Wikipedia.
      My grandmother’s house had lots of squirrels and chipmunks hanging out in the surrounding trees. Those chipmunks were spotted, their stripes being broken up. They were spotted, dammit, and I don’t care what Wikipedia says.
      I am playing off the old sayings — A leopard can’t change his spots. or, if you prefer, a tiger cannot change his stripes. But John Cook The Books is certainly not a leopard or a tiger. Chipmunk seems to fit him best.
      Eugene WR Gallun

      • Hehe… but, technically, it’s true, Roger. Confused, but nevertheless accidentally true… unlike when he said that the Earth’s magma is “several million degrees.”

      • daveburton December 9, 2015 at 7:48 pm
        Hehe… but, technically, it’s true, Roger. Confused, but nevertheless accidentally true… unlike when he said that the Earth’s magma is “several million degrees.”
        As I recall, it was the Earth’s crust, (just a few km’s down) that was ‘several million degrees’. Furthermore, our magnificent scientists have developed tools to withstand that heat and, thus, we can enjoy the bounty that is geothermal heating. The only thing standing in our way is the all-powerful Solar & Wind lobby, which seeks to …
        OK, but he did say that bit about the tools!

    • “Wise”? If you meant “wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove” the problem is that Marc isn’t really a wolf…he’s more of a big St Bernard puppy, and most people like puppies more than snakes and birds put together. 🙂

  32. Half way through and Mark is a stream of affable climate info consciousness, totally confident and so far unchallenged.
    Mark comes across as very reasonable, friendly and right.

  33. The killer quote was to ascribe the current overblown rhetoric of CAGW to Cooks 97% being used incorrectly, and Cook not correcting the record. Cook agreed that he did not say that the 97% said it was DANGEROUS global warming. People assume that they did. Thus Cook is a public disgrace for not correcting the record, loud and often.
    I personally think Cook has done more harm to the CAGW cause than any other person, other than M Mann. That 97% number just sounds phony to Joe citizen, especially when it comes from President Obama.
    The other point would have been to emphasis again and again that Cook is not a scientist, but a lay person. And maybe that is why he has failed to release all of the data from the study? A failure to know the scientific method?

    • “The other point would have been to emphasis again and again that Cook is not a scientist, but a lay person”
      I just love this one. A “lay person”. I hold a couple of US patents in the sciences, did astrophysical research for NASA, atmospheric research for NOAA and never graduated from High School (technically). I know something about climate, astrophysics, statistical modeling and design of experiments. I read books, but no one ever offered to sprinkle holy water on my head. Darn. I have a few really big houses, does that count?
      When did science become a priesthood ECB? And why do we keep calling radical terrorists like Greenpeas liberals? I just hope to answer these questions so I can die happy.

      • Bartleby,
        How can you expect to die happy? For me, it will be a state of bewilderment, disenchantment and resignation.
        It occurs to me that that might be happiness, since it’s not misery.

      • Bartleby,
        Well, since you seem to be a newbie here and to John Cook, I’d tell you that John Cook and Friends have been trying for years to anoint themselves as patron saints or angelic emissaries of the great god Science. They revere those declared by any college to be a “scientist” and denounce all others as heretics and demons. They even actively plot to overthrow their opponents in their secret Skeptical Science forums…and then forget to actually SECURE those forums from the public. (and then they cry HACKED when someone wanders in)- http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html
        I personally refer to someone like you as an “expert”, because a piece of paper doesn’t prove you’re smart or capable. All it proves is that you spent tens (hundreds) of thousands of dollars to regurgitate the information fed to you previously. 🙂
        So question #1- You’d have to ask someone who worships at that particular church.
        #2- Liberalism is usually defined in the US as-: “believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change” (Merriam-Webster) and most Greenpeas self-declare themselves to be liberals (as opposed to conservatives) ?

  34. My take: this wasn’t a debate but more of an interview in front of Cook’s students. Was that the case?
    I’m sure it was me reading things that weren’t there but it almost seemed to me that John Cook was ready to concede that the GW skeptics have a legitimate science case and every right to present it. I suppose that came from the lack of substantive objection or probing to what Marc Morano was saying.

  35. If it weren’t for John Cook’s blog, I wouldn’t have found WUWT and become an avid reader here.
    When I initially began to question the science and was seeking answers from people I thought were more informed than I , I asked an honest and sincere question and posted it at his blog.
    When my post appeared there, it had been altered, and the answer given was not even related to answering the simple question I had asked. When I had the temerity to post again and point out that not only was my post changed, but the question I asked wasn’t answered, the entire exchange was deleted from his blog!
    My next stop was WUWT, and here I’ve stayed for years now (I lurked for a long time before I ever posted 🙂 )!
    Thank you Anthony, mods, and all who write and post here. You have taught me more than I ever thought I would want to know about climate.

      • I should add that I’m not an avid reader of John Cook’s “Skeptical Science (SS) blog,” but I have sampled it. The last time I read an entire comment thread was at the time of the big gotcha by Peter Gleick releasing Heartland Institute financial records to DeSmog and other alarmist blogs. This release would not have made much of a splash but for a clearly forged “strategy memo” in which Gleick attempted to punch up the narrative and strengthen the damnation of Heartland by inserting words into an alleged Heartland document that was authored in California, didn’t match in PDF details, any of the other documents, and in which were found terms he himself is famous for using, and which Heartland people would never use (like “anti-science”). The forged document also claiming himself and Forbes magazine, where he was a contributor, as targets of Heartland’s efforts to quash “science.”
        How this applies to John Cook: Following the document dump, the SS Kidz (as I call them) allowed the discussion to proceed for several days, wherein their readers generally favored the narrative of a climate-gate style reveal for THEIR side. That narrative derailed when Mosher suggested that Gleick had forged the strategy memo, and Megan McCardle wrote her wonderful and scathing agreement with the forgery theory in “The Atlantic” and Gleick himself admitted he had stolen a Heartland director’s identity, created a throwaway e-mail account, and successfully phished the real documents by theft, while remaining mum on the forgery aspect. It was then that John Cook decided that all commentary on the issue should stop. Stop, just when the damnation will blow back on Gleick and the alarmists who were cheering him. I’ll never read another thread written by the SS Kidz. He’s not a scientist. He’s a propagandist.

  36. How many 97% studies have there been? I was told that the cartoonist 97% study was not correct. I thought that is what the President of the United Sates was referring to…How many 97% studies have there been???

  37. Near the end now and its shocking and I almost feel sorry for John Cook that he seems so inept, I also feel this is a landmark interview and really brings home the weakness of the AGW side. Yes some will argue that John Cook is not a Scientist but he is seen as the mouth piece of the AGW community yet he when held up to scrutiny was sadly pathetic. The last two day with Mark Steyn and Marc Moreno have been remarkable as two conservative commentators have sunk two very massive torpedoes into the AGW bad ship of insanity of human foolishness being the main accuse of AGW.

    • hunter on December 9, 2015 at 7:55 pm
      Marc,
      Try for shorter answers. Make the interviewer work harder.

      – – – – – – – –
      hunter,
      An alternate strategy is that Marc would try to directly and civilly take over the interview to turn the interviewer into the interviewed. That is somewhat what Marc did, he should have done it even more in my humble thinking. The lengthy answers in part allowed Marc to achieve that strategy.
      John

  38. John Cook Hear Led Zep for the first time!

    Just what a retard like Cook needs after the COP21 debauchery party. Ha ha 😉

  39. I have to say, Marc Morano comes across as somewhat manic and his constant interrupting makes him look bad against a calm and moderate sounding Cook. What a shame as his points are valid and Cook needs to be pinned down.

  40. Since when is a model a form of evidence. Surely it is a means of analysing the evidence, but is not evidence itself.

  41. Of course Marc Morano nailed his responses. But I thought the way he replied to be very interesting as well. Marc projected both confidence and fun in such measure that I almost forgot that AGW politics may still win this war.
    Marc challenges Cook to give him his best shot, and the answer was anemic and disappointing like most of Cooks comments. Disappointing as in, no way this can be all the warmists have to offer. Yet time and time again, generally, the most effective AGW tactic is to claim the science is settled, that you can’t disagree with all the scientists, and that skeptics are some form of flat-earther. I’m not seeing their science up front like you do from the skeptic.
    Cook’s success here is that now he’s going to make me go out and find his arguments.

    • “Cook’s success here is that now he’s going to make me go out and find his arguments.”
      That will be fun for you! Most of us here already know what they are, and are embarrassed for him. Enjoy.

  42. Q: The 97% consensus claim was based on just 79 scientists?
    A: That’s how statistics works.
    No. That’s how false propaganda works because everyone knows the headline “97% of Scientists Agree” is far more persuasive than “79 Scientists Agree”. And manipulating the public to justify limiting their liberty and raising their taxes is what this is all about.

  43. He should have mentioned that unprecedented strongest of the strong hurricanes deepest barometer readings ever recorded by modern man, that only managed to knock over some deck chairs in Mexico last month.
    Why don’t we believe their numbers? Because they are the same people, who have been feeding us a steady diet of horse sh** since 2006.
    Climate science is as corrupt as Chicago’s police force. They have to fire all of those mofo’s. Start fresh with young apples straight from the tree and the original un molested data. The type that when it says it was 25 degrees in Davis in 1923, it stays 25 degrees in Davis in 1923.

  44. Morano succeeded in emphasizing repeatedly the reasons there are public trust problems with most of the key aspects of the observationally challenged hypothesis of CAGW.
    With Morano’s very animated style in the audio only version of the unedited interview, I found that he was polite, friendly and very openly embraced the topics; he had a joy de vivre. It didn’t feel like adversarial maneuvering and I sensed no hostility or resentment in the interaction.
    I think it was very prudent of Morano to make a full audio recording himself of the interview by Cook. Cook’s behavior on his site and in his published work products give good reason to question how the interview is to be edited and spun.
    Look carefully at Cook’s references to what his view of the nature of science is. That does show the fatal weakness of his pro-CAGW position. I am quite surprised he exposed himself by going there. That should be focused on by skeptics of the observationally challenged CAGW hypothesis.
    I look forward to a transcript of the audio tape and hope it comes soon.
    John

  45. Thought it interesting about 40 mins in Cook says that the reason the earth didn’t warm back millions of years ago when CO2 was much higher was because the sun was weaker and it cancelled out the effects of the high CO2 which to me is an admission he understands other factors besides CO2 have a stronger affect on global temperature – isn’t that the climate skeptic point of view.

    • Cook in a coin flip will call heads and tails, and claim both and neither as proof of global warming.
      Always get a screen grab if you post at skeptical science, because your post will be subject to alteration as Cook’s needs arise.

      • Cook’s purpose is to maintain the climate bandwagon. Nothing else. He has qualms only about being found out, and that he hasn’t been too careful about up till now, but Lew has been teaching him how to be undefensive & truly shameless.

    • Here’s a simplified (slightly hyperbolic) reason Cook mentioned the early CO2 levels.
      Some skeptics say that CO2 doesn’t cause much warming because the CO2 level in the atmosphere used to be much much higher and the seas didn’t boil dry.
      The warmists reply that the sun was probably dimmer back then. They say that without the CO2 in the atmosphere the seas should have frozen into a solid block of ice.
      It’s called the faint young sun paradox. There are alternate explanations (besides CO2) for why it was warm enough for life to develop in spite of a dimmer sun. It’s complicated folks.

  46. I conduct a lot of interviews and chair meetings. Here’s my take on what happened:
    One or two points well made and hammered home might have been more effective. A snipers’ rifle versus a machine gun.
    As it was, it could be construed that Marc overwhelmed Cook because he was reluctant to address specific questions. And the people who hear this will not be unfamiliar all of the arguments that Marc makes.
    I wonder who the audience Cook’s video is. Be sure he and his chums, especially Lew will be going through frame by frame looking for ‘tells’ and even if they do the honest thing and put out the video with all of Marc’s diatribe there is nothing to stop them colouring it with commentary and subtitles.
    Marc is an excellent salesman for scepticism and may well appeal to undecideds but the hard sell never works against those who ain’t going to buy at any price. For those you need a little more subtlety.
    I wonder if, for part 2 of the series, Cook would like to try it with Steyn?

    • Clovis, I may be wrong, but didn’t this “debate” seem more like it was orchestrated by John Cook for the benefit of his class? Multiple times, Marc refers to the class. I believe he deferred to Cook for questions. Isn’t there a reference above to Cook possibly editing the video to his benefit? And at the end, he says he can take only 3 more questions before leaving when his alarm or ringer goes off. So it seems this Q&A was not meant for the general public, best I can tell, and Marc could only answer the questions asked as thoroughly as he could.

    • “I wonder if, for part 2 of the series, Cook would like to try it with Steyn?”
      THAT would be so amazingly hilarious….Santa…I’d like to revise my list!
      Something occurred to me this afternoon while all these posts came in, from “newbies” who seemed to instantly like/hate Marc or like/hate Cook. What if, the deliriously mental Cook et al and Co. DID meet in their secret little forum (after making sure it was secured this time…chuckle) and plotted this whole thing out?
      Permit me to act like a rabid, skeptical, Lewandowsky-created, conspiracy theorist for one minute:
      *********************RABID CONSPIRACY THEORY FOLLOWS************
      Idea Person #1- Let’s have John Cook-the pastiest, calmest, least assuming one of all of us- appear to “interview” Marc Morano in Paris! Marc will be Marc-wild, talkative, throwing facts around in machine gun fashion and John will look so calm, and polite, and “sane” in comparison with his responses (Except THAT part didn’t go well for them!)
      Idea Person #2- WOW! That would be fabulous! We probably wouldn’t even have to edit it! Just have John ask him specific questions, and let Marc answer them with his mindless propaganda. Then John can easily rebut him with facts! (Again…this part didn’t go well for them at all)
      Idea Person#3- You know what else? We could also have fake “forum posters” set up and waiting for the interview to come out, and we could inundate places like WUWT with reasonable sounding comments that make Marc look bad, and Cook look good! Because Marc can be charming and appear informed, we can’t be TOO blatant about it….maybe compliment Marc but then say something like (someone actually said earlier) “Cook’s success here is that now he’s going to make me go out and find his arguments.” Put little seeds in their heads!
      Idea Person #4- We could make this an experiment! Conduct a “study” on it! Publish another paper on how “normal skeptical posters at WUWT” (which will really be our fake plants) react when they are confronted with John’s facts. See if they believe him, or refuse to and cling to their previous positions. We could use it as “evidence” to support some of our colleges recent claims about “tribalism” and “core beliefs” etc!
      ***************END OF RABID CONSPIRACY THEORY******************
      Whew…that was exhausting. I need to shower just to feel clean again. Of course I have ZERO problem being completely and utterly wrong (and/or labeled insane) about it. I even HOPE I am. Just wanted to point out that it doesn’t take an evil genius….to plot like these people can, and have before.

      • Very Good. How could it possibly be anything else ? That evil smirk says there’s a lot more going on than anyone’s saying.

  47. The debate I would like to see.
    I would like to see a live debate streamed and also televised without any time constraints. The debate would have to be moderated by an honest broker who should have some understanding of how science is supposed to work. Rules of the debate would be agreed upon and published before hand so all could see any moderator favoritism if that happened.
    The debate would have to be technical at times but all involved should strive to make it understandable to the reasonably bright high school kid. Maybe the debate should be divided up into various catagries so that later the viewer could go to the topic of interest easily.
    Since the alarmists work so hard to avoid debate, the skeptical side will have to make the challenge. Maybe we could issue the challenge to some government scientists who have a duty to respond to the public. Maybe a challenge to others, I just don’t know.
    Anyone have any thoughts on this?

  48. Sat here in our armchairs musing about this and that, what’s right what’s wrong. We owe a real debt of gratitute to the likes of Marc, Judith, Lidzen, and many others.

  49. No one except Goddard and WUWT have done more to stop the AGW hype, so even though it appears Morano is now pals with arch enemy Cook, lets cool it LOL

  50. 97% of all mainstream scientists as stated by The Global Warming Industry are more likely to ignore observational data and instead present findings that are as much as 20X the observed data.
    Why the heck would anyone want to be one of the 97% mainstream scientists that are constantly wrong?
    Why is it that a hair-cutter needs a government license and a member of the 97% of all Mainstream Scientists that effect the theft of the public treasury can go on and wreck havoc with impunity?

  51. Anyone who wants to understand how SkepticalScience will attempt to misrepresent and thereby discredit its perceived “opponents” would do well do examine the following evidence.
    Exhibit A – here is Muller discussing the exact meaning and implications of the late 20th century “decline” produced by the tree-ring proxy – and the “hiding” of the decline. In which he is quite clear that the “decline” is that produced by the proxy methodology:

    And yet here is the SkepticalScience misrepresentation in which the idea is given that Muller interpreted the “decline” as meaning an actual decline in global average temps.
    This is done very simply by pretending to refute Muller’s position with the explanation:
    “The ‘decline’ refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature”.
    Of course, Muller was completely clear on that point. But a reader of Skeptical Science would be lead to believe that such a simply clarification effectively destroyed his argument.
    This form of misrepresentation is neither clever nor truthful. Nor does it contain any specific “lie” as such.
    But it is clearly intended to deceive – and it is effective for all those who are guided to SkS by preferential Google search rating, and who then look no further:
    So here is the pathetic SkS tear-down of Muller’s position (Exhibit B):
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Muller.htm

    • Nor does it contain any specific “lie” as such.
      Nothing was hidden in Mann’s “hockey stick”; “hide the decline” refers to tree ring data which was a very minor component of the “hockey stick”, and the “decline” was discussed extensively in the peer-reviewed literature – from the heading ‘what the science says’ at the Cook link.
      That’s a lie. That’s the type of lie if you said it to the FBI you go to the federal penitentiary all day long.
      That’s a three o’clock in the morning lie. A coyote ugly bite your arm off so you don’t wake it up while you sneak out of the hotel room lie. The truth doesn’t even nod it’s head if it happens to encounter Cook’s take on “hide the decline” in the hallway to give it a “whassup”. No. The truth glowers and sprays disinfectant when it accidentally passes Cook on “hide the decline”.

      • Erm…yes you are quite right. In line with the conventional definition of a “lie”. The SkS page was actually full of quite transparent lies.
        BUT – also, some slippery deceptions which were not technically lies, only diversions and deceptions.
        It’s basically total bullshit from start to finish. Sadly I have encountered many leftist/liberal goons who have accepted all these distortions and now consider that “climategate” was a hoax, which they call climategategate. It’s very sad to witness. Very few people understand MacIntyre’s critique.
        So the wool has now been pulled very firmly over the majority of eyes.
        It was all amazing to witness.
        I certainly learned a lot about the politicization of science. And what it means to live in an age of delusions.

      • Oh….my….word. I am laughing SO hard! The following is absolutely priceless writing:
        “That’s a three o’clock in the morning lie. A coyote ugly bite your arm off so you don’t wake it up while you sneak out of the hotel room lie. The truth doesn’t even nod it’s head if it happens to encounter Cook’s take on “hide the decline” in the hallway to give it a “whassup”. No. The truth glowers and sprays disinfectant when it accidentally passes Cook on “hide the decline”.”
        Again….hilarious perfection!

  52. I have always believed the power of an argument comes from the concessions one can extract from an interlocutor, such that an objective observer would be convinced of the merit of one’s stated position as reasonable and willingly accept the stated facts. The persuasive power of the concession is determined not only by the absolute degree of the concession statement, but by the accessibility of language of that concession to the widest possible audience.
    By this measure, Morano has not extracted very much from the discussion. Cook conceded very little.
    For clarity: I’m a huge fan of Morano and I’m not being critical of him personally. I think many sceptics have been goaded into this communications trap by the Alarmists Appeal To Authority and the Peer Review meme.
    Most of the points Morano made were based in jargon and required of the listener, a significant personal investment in study to land the intended blow. Many people will simply tune out because of lack of knowledge in the science behind the jargon and judge Morano poorly because of his aggressive demeanour (Which is SO effective for the 4 minute TV debate) less so, contrasted with Cook’s passive demeanour in a long format interview. Already disconnected, many will judge whether the criticism was valid by the concessions in Cook’s response. The “True Believers” will not have heard any concession from Cook that punctured the beliefs they took into the exchange.
    Like so many sceptic’s arguments, in this forum, Morano’s style brings a complicated communication strategy of “Machine-Gunning” from the “Bottom Up”, instead of easy to digest “Top Down” sound bytes that can be defended with incrementally expanded, coherent explanations of increasing and comprehensive detail, within an established context to persuade the observer.
    Without first establishing an agreement with the interlocutor of the specific issue at question and what evidence would be required for them to concede the point, they are under no pressure to concede. It’s like holding a debate and expecting the audience to guess the proposition in question after the closing arguments.
    Hence, Cook was forced to concede very little.
    Even when Morano exposed the weakness of the ludicrously small number of scientists that constitute Cook’s 97% meme. Sceptics with a deep understanding know this talks to Cook’s poor methodology. To the less educated, less engaged, warmists, students and casual listeners heard Cook’s plausible rebuttal: That’s how science is done!
    The meme is “97% of scientists agree…” Some alternate questions could be:
    Exactly, how many Scientists constitute the 97% in your study?
    Where have you published a List of their Names?
    Why don’t you publish their names whenever you invoke the 97% statement?
    Do you believe 75 Scientists constitute 97% of Scientists in the World?
    Was Barack Obama wrong when he said 97% of Scientists in the world believe in CAGW?
    The Alarmist position is based in politics, so they take their communication strategy straight from politics:
    Top Down Sound Bytes based on layers of Half Truths and Plausibly Deniable Deceptions. In order that they can be incessantly repeated by their proponents!
    Consider an eight year old processing the following Alarmist Arguments:
    – We have known for a century that Co2 is a Greenhouse Gas!
    – More Co2 means more Warming!
    – 97% of scientists agree the world is warming and Mankind is the cause!
    Sceptics, often fearing the “Not a Climate Scientist” meme, respond with the most comprehensive, detailed, technical, complex dissertations to refute these simple statements. (Such as we heard in the audio)
    How did we get here?
    Alarmists have boiled down their message so that advocates can be indoctrinated even before they develop critical thinking skills, at primary school. (Hard to convince someone later of a question to which they think they already know the answer)
    Sceptic arguments, as they are generally constructed, require a middle school or better command of English and a many hundreds of hours study into complex technical material, across multiple disciplines. That is a serious barrier that makes enlightenment inaccessible for millions of the people, most grievously affected by the policies of Alarmists. (e.g. A valid metric is: How many hours of study would be required to understand every point raised by Morano?)
    Rather than complex dissertations on the failings of Computer Models, talking about Model Runs, Parametrisation, Boundary Problems, Resolution Problems, Lack of Fundamental Physics, Lack of Computing Power etc. (which immediately excludes the majority from engaging)
    Sceptics should be confident enough to use a simple message. For example:
    “It is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the Global Temperature a 100 years into the future!”
    From that position, the Alarmist has to establish the skill (or lack thereof) of the Computer Models relied upon by the IPCC. Now 99% of the public are incapable of mounting the complex argument to validate their previously held beliefs. For those with the motivation to try and educate themselves in the attempt to do so, they will be exposed to the myriad of failings of the Alarmist use of modelling.
    The point isn’t that it IS possible to make a poor prediction, (it will just be very wrong). The point is to level the playing field when fighting for the hearts and minds of the audience and causing them to enquire. The trouble with the status quo is that Alarmist have created a web of plausible statements that satisfy the information needs of the many for responding to the sceptic arguments. One key is simple statements that provoke people to make enquiries, that lead to enlightenment.
    Until the Sceptic position on Global Warming can be communicated to an eight year old and BY an eight year old, there will be hundreds of millions of people in the world that will be held captive to the over simplified sound bytes of the Alarmists and inactive in the fight against politicised science.
    WUWT has some great communicators, with a wealth of knowledge. I believe there is a great opportunity to craft those messages to increase the accessibility to the average person. The key is defining the pivotal propositions that expose the over reach of the Alarmist argument. Then develop the incremental layers of evidence that establish the salient arguments.
    Anthony, I know most people with an idea want to leave it to “Someone” to do the work, so I’m happy to offer time and energy towards exploring these issues. if you believe WUWT could accomodate the content, great.
    Either way, I offered a simple example. It would be interesting if any of WUWT’s great communicators had any thoughts on the opportunities of opening up new communication paths to the truth, for the masses.

    • You make a very good point Geoff. Skeptics are too ready to play by the rules. Cook is only looking for sound bites he can use. Remember he sees himself now not as a scientist but as a psychologist. He has learned how to let the other side talk and use it oh medicalise dissent later.

    • Geoff, we sing from the same songbook !! I’ve been traveling down this path for some time,
      1st realising that I was being scammed,
      2nd learning about the subject/s,
      3rd trying to put it into some sort of understandable format (for me)
      4th passing that info on when & where ever the opportunity arises.
      Although I’m NOT one of WUWT’s great communicators
      I would be happy to assist
      I’m in UK.

    • Yes. I get the impression that Mark has demonstrated how not to conduct the debate, if the aim is to change the minds of people who accept the alarmist story For a start we need to explain that the consensus appears to be about the reality of warming over the last century and the likelihood of some human influence (however small).
      We have to talk TO people, not AT them. We have to find out what they think and WHY and what would count for THEM as a reason to think differently.
      We need to promote the attitude “You may be right and I may be wrong, and by making an effort we may be able to get nearer to the truth” which is Karl Popper’s critical rationalism in a nutshell.

      • Rafe Champion-
        Well I’ll be darned. And here all this time I’ve thought that Karl Popper would have openly and loudly proclaimed the “consensus” to be as pseudoscience as anything ever was! You see, Popper vehemently opposed the traditional “inductive” views of the Scientific Method and proposed empirical falsification instead.
        This means that Karl Popper abhorred the idea that someone could say that “this scientist believes in AGW” and “this scientist believes in AGW” and so on until a universal statement of consensus was declared! It would be so obviously deductively invalid, because unless one has asked “every single scientist” that exists, it’s certainly very possible that there are scientists who do NOT believe in AGW. Popper made “falsifiability the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.”
        You got closer to quoting Billy Joel than Karl Popper.
        “I may be wrong and you may be right and, by an effort, we may get nearer the truth.” Karl Popper
        That “effort” according to Karl Popper-was critical thinking, using reason critically, and valid deduction and falsibility of arguments, NOT inductive reasoning.

        • Aphan, I was responding to Geoff Connolly’s suggestion about effective communication that is designed to change the minds of bystanders by forcing alarmists to reveal their assumptions, and to challenge them with evidence and arguments that the bystanders can understand. I am not aware that I was making a case for induction. That is most unlikely because I have a letter from Karl Popper, jokingly descrbing me as his “champion in Australia”.
          It is unlikely that climate science would have deteriorated to its current state if Karl Popper’s philosophy of science was accepted as the norm but that is not the case because he has been sidelined and misrepresented by the philosophers. It is apparently possible to spend a career in philosphy without encountering a straight feed on Popper’s ideas. I have addressed this situation with a set of guides or cribs to Popper’s books.
          http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=rafe+champion

    • Geoff-with all due respect, you couldn’t even introduce your post in a manner that an 8 year old could understand or communicate to another 8 year old. I blanked out almost immediately and I understood every word.
      “Until the Sceptic position on Global Warming can be communicated to an eight year old and BY an eight year old, there will be hundreds of millions of people in the world that will be held captive to the over simplified sound bytes of the Alarmists and inactive in the fight against politicised science.”
      “held captive? “hundreds of millions of people”? WOW! Good thing you’re here to save us Captain Arrogance! You see, you just showed up here, attempted to establish a terrible catastrophe in the world of climate science communication, and then offered yourself as the humble hero we’ve long needed need to solve it! And that was AFTER insulting Anthony by saying that you “know most people who have an idea” (even though this isn’t Anthony’s idea at all) “want to leave it to SOMEONE to do the work”. People can identify cow crap by how it smells, they don’t have to swallow it to be sure.
      The problem is not communication. The problem is that the “average” person does not care. The “average person” will never see the interview (which although called at debate by Marc himself-is clearly NOT a debate in any sense of the definitions of that word known to mankind) and thus cannot be affected by it in any way. Currently, the “sound bite”, slick slogan, easy to spew gimmicks are NOT working for the AGW crowd-as evidenced by poll after poll of US citizens (and other countries) showing that the number of people who doubt the AGW mantra is GROWING not shrinking. Wanting to adopt propaganda tactics that are FAILING to convince people that the Earth is at risk, on THIS side in an attempt to convince people that it’s NOT is ludicrous.
      Your “simple example” was 20+ paragraphs long. You’re clearly not qualified for the job you posted yourself.

      • “Currently, the “sound bite”, slick slogan, easy to spew gimmicks are NOT working for the AGW crowd-as evidenced by poll after poll of US citizens (and other countries) showing that the number of people who doubt the AGW mantra is GROWING not shrinking. Wanting to adopt propaganda tactics that are FAILING to convince people that the Earth is at risk, on THIS side in an attempt to convince people that it’s NOT is ludicrous.”
        Their goal is not to convince people. Their goal is to mollify people enough with sound-bite science that they won’t RESIST the major actions they have been orchestrating for decades.
        In that context, simple doubt isn’t enough. If people are uncertain about whether global warming is real, etc, then they can rationalize letting “the experts” hash it out. We need to push back back against the sound-bite science so that people are armed with enough contradictory knowledge to motivate them to resist.
        Yes, global warming is very low on the list of concerns in some polls. But those are lists of items that people think we should take action against. My guess is that if you asked the poll in reverse, to see which subjects people feel strongly about being on the right track or that proper action is being taken, global warming would again end up near the very bottom. People just don’t know enough to have a strong opinion, to take action or to oppose it.
        These actions are coming, the Warmists are on the march, if we can’t arm people with enough knowledge (or at the very least win the sound-bite war) to motivate them to resist these actions, they will be enacted sooner or later.

        • If we engage in their tactics, the average person will STILL not understand the science, and will hear and see no difference between the sides at all. You cannot force feed people knowledge. You cannot educate someone about our climate system with sound bites. If you could, atmospheric physics would be one semester long. People FEEL it when they are patronized. The SENSE when someone is attempting to manipulate them. And the moment you make them feel either one, they stop listening to you at all.
          Our current society is the result of us “dumbing down” everything. Making everything “easy” for everyone. No expectations. No effort. No morals. No responsibility. And now you want to put science on the chopping block too? Where does it end? You can actually BE a communist in America today without hanging your head in shame. You can support eco-terrorists and radicalized religious terrorists in America today and your neighbors won’t stand up to you! They will most likely just ignore you. Or move themselves. Do you actually think that when push comes to shove that the average American citizen will even know WHY the grid went down? Or why there are tanks on their street? Or what One World Government even means? No way!
          BUT…you talk down to someone or act like they are stupid….and they will get “all up in your face”…because even at the most basic level, humans recognize condescension. Suspicion is easily triggered. You want people to “feel” and “sense” the marketing when skeptics like they do AGW or CAGW propagandists? then just do the same thing they do! But if those tactics are NOT working FOR the AGW side, why on Earth do you think they WILL WORK for ours?

      • I’m not interested in responding to your personal attacks and vitriol Aphan. I think your comments do more to clarify what you represent than I could ever hope for.
        I’m really not sure if Aphan is a parody account, but thanks for the amusing reply.
        I will treat the reply as if by the typical Alarmist (May contain traces of sarcasm.. and nuts!)

        Aphan December 10, 2015 at 8:51 pm
        Geoff-with all due respect, you couldn’t even introduce your post in a manner that an 8 year old could understand or communicate to another 8 year old.

        See Aphan, you telegraphed your motivation in the opening sentence. The rest was just more of the same straw man arguments, projections and nastiness.
        I’m sorry you can’t differentiate between analysis and an example of communication (If you understood the topic at hand, you’d recognize that a comprehensive Communication strategy requires several layers of targeted messaging. (Your straw man argument falsely proposed I intended to target the example message to an 8 yr old.) I promise you, when Nike’s agency created their slogan, they provided analysis to justify the rationale behind it. They didn’t just send off a three word email that said “Just Do It” I was writing about the objective of talking to Eight Year Olds, I didn’t realise there was a danger I would be.

        “held captive? “hundreds of millions of people”? WOW! Good thing you’re here to save us Captain Arrogance!

        Apparently, you don’t think the poor of the world being forced into inferior, higher priced, or harmful energy sources by UN politicking can be deemed as being “held captive” to legislative frameworks they can’t control. Many would beg to differ.

        You see, you just showed up here,

        Seriously? I apologise if I didn’t RSVP to you before commenting. Somehow, after many thousands of visits to WUWT and my various previous comments, I was unaware of that obligation. Many are content to visit WUWT or other sites and not comment. They don’t feel the need to see their ideas in comments, whether to just say the same thing again (and again), or derail a discussion of the science. Many people understand, the worth isn’t tied to the volume of posts but in the merit of the idea. The majority offer them with a great sense of community and goodwill. They expect a discussion of the ideas, not projections and personalized attacks. Your reply breaks down the community and discourages participation of any sort. While you’re speaking for Anthony, is that one of his goals for WUWT?

        attempted to establish a terrible catastrophe in the world of climate science communication, and then offered yourself as the humble hero we’ve long needed need to solve it!

        I’ve often found when someone wants to create a straw man argument, they might try inject absurdities into your point through use of hyperbole. But I’m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt with the use of “terrible catastrophe” .. “humble hero”. Neither of which appeared in my comment.

        And that was AFTER insulting Anthony by saying that you “know most people who have an idea” (even though this isn’t Anthony’s idea at all) “want to leave it to SOMEONE to do the work”

        Apart from the absurd logic fail (Clearly, the person I was referring to with the idea was me), do you often feel the need to speak for someone else when that party has an even greater opportunity to speak for themselves. I have the utmost respect for Anthony, as I do for the vast majority of contributors on WUWT.

        People can identify cow crap by how it smells, they don’t have to swallow it to be sure

        Interesting phrase. I googled it, but couldn’t find a reference. I will have to defer to your experience. Just a thought. It might be helpful to the reader to identify a specific point of fact before improvising such a classy metaphor.

        The problem is not communication.

        Oh, really? So, in the absence of, (or contrary to) hard physical evidence and by utilizing dubious methods, Global Warming activists managed to convince billions of people of a completely fanciful story that Co2 threatens the future of Mankind, but YOU don’t think that is evidence of the superior communication strategy? The fact obvious to many, as the group with the weakest argument, all Warmists have is their superior communication strategy. Through that strategy, people now correlate any unexpected natural event with Climate Change caused by Co2: Hot, Cold, Drought, Flood, Snow, No Snow, Fires, Dead Animals, Too Many Animals, Too Many Insects, Not Enough Insects, etc.. Despite the fanciful pseudo science and ample evidence for alternative explanations.
        Sorry if it bruises your ego Aphan, that epitomizes a problem that can only be solved through communication!

        The problem is that the “average” person does not care

        The degree to which people care has more to do with “the Pause” and evidence such as Climategate than does an imaginary surge in the effectiveness of combating the superior messaging of Warmists. Warmists rely on slogans. They are rarely pressed to justify their positions with a traceable connection to objective science.

        The “average person” will never see the interview

        Oh, the irony! Finally, we come to some agreement. That is my point. Regardless of the value of one form of communication at connecting with a segment of an audience, there are others for whom the message will be completely lost. To argue otherwise, is to argue against the existence of Demographics.
        Sceptics are very good at talking to other scientists and the highly motivated, citizen activist. The rest of the community (Billions) are substantially vacated to the Warmist Politicians, Educators, MSM, NGOs and activists all specializing the messaging to their particular audience, BUT always based on the same Framework of high level messaging and false attribution. Simplicity and Repetition is the key!
        The various information sources for objective Climate Science are great. Scientists talking to scientists and highly motivated citizens is essential. Recognizing that form of exchange represents only a small percentage of the global population, leads one to ask: What are the information needs of the rest of the population? Remember, unless you’re considering imposing a Scientific Autocracy, even the best scientists will need the majority of the population to vote for appropriate Climate Policy to avoid Alarmism.

        (which although called at debate by Marc himself-is clearly NOT a debate in any sense of the definitions of that word known to mankind) and thus cannot be affected by it in any way.

        et tu Marcus!
        I note that you have also found the need to correct others. It must be very busy policing the Internet. I’m flattered to be in such esteemed company.

        Currently, the “sound bite”, slick slogan, easy to spew gimmicks are NOT working for the AGW crowd-as evidenced by poll after poll of US citizens (and other countries) showing that the number of people who doubt the AGW mantra is GROWING not shrinking. Wanting to adopt propaganda tactics that are FAILING to convince people that the Earth is at risk, on THIS side in an attempt to convince people that it’s NOT is ludicrous.

        Extreme Sarcasm Warning:
        Well, I was only saying the same thing to Obama the other day. Just before he and 40,000 world leaders act with the sovereign authority of 190 countries lead by the United Nations, contemplate the terms by which they wish to redistribute $Trillions in wealth DESPITE the pseudo science and the fact the majority of people “evidenced by poll after poll of US citizens (and other countries) showing that the number of people who doubt the AGW mantra is GROWING not shrinking”. At least we can be sure it isn’t a communications problem and draw eternal comfort that some people talk to each other on the Internet about the injustice of each successive COP, in the highly jargonistic language of science!
        I am only too grateful that you are here, Aphan, to provide the standards and police them as vigorously as you have done. What could go wrong?

        Your “simple example” was 20+ paragraphs long. You’re clearly not qualified for the job you posted yourself.

        Let’s be clear, I didn’t post a job for anyone, least of all myself. I talked to the limitations in the M&C exchange that many other people also raised. I chose to provide a detailed analysis to make a positive “CONTRIBUTION” to an existing line of discussion.
        I clearly deferred to what I called the “great communicators” of WUWT, but as is customary in my upbringing, you don’t suggest work be done by others unless you are prepared to DO some of the work yourself. Otherwise, you are leaving it to “SOMEONE” else. See the context, Aphan?
        The assertions in your reply brings to mind the writings of Edward DeBono. To paraphrase for brevity:
        Critical Thinking is the simplest form of Intelligence.
        It doesn’t take much to tear something down, but it is much harder to create ideas.
        Looking forward to your solutions, Aphan.
        But please, don’t reply to me! The questions were rhetorical and I don’t have any interest in the manner in which you engage with people.

      • Geroff said:”But please, don’t reply to me! The questions were rhetorical and I don’t have any interest in the manner in which you engage with people.”
        Don’t worry Geoff. No reply is really necessary. Of course the questions were rhetorical, because both of your posts here are nothing but pure rhetoric. You also provide ZERO evidence to back up any of your claims, and you engage in almost all of the tactics used to identify propaganda. (http://www.rbs0.com/propaganda.pdf )
        I know that WUWT readers are intelligent and logical enough to see the flaws in both of our arguments all by themselves. And I’m not just saying that because in all my years posting here, not a single one of them has ever been mystified by one of my “fancy, non-googlable metaphors” either. 🙂

    • I’ve often wondered how Warmists can assert that they can predict the temperature of the earth 50 or 100 years hence to the nearest degree without getting immediately laughed off the stage.
      Not only do they claim this, they say they can predict the future temperature with very high confidence.
      They can’t stand being laughed at, and this particular statement should always elicit raucous laughter from skeptics. The rebuttals are very low hanging fruit, with “the pause”, the obvious failure of models, the obvious failure of past predictions (NYC and DC underwater by 2000, major world cities underwater by 2020, Arctic ice-free by 20XX, Snow a rare and exciting event, etc). The Warmists have a VERY POOR track record of making predictions if you look back. The only reason they continue to assert high confidence in predicting the future is that they aren’t challenged often enough or effectively enough.

  53. As temps stay flat and this AGW meeting fails I reckon AGW will end this year, next year. Also you have to factor in that the MOST ardent Warmist’s tend to become the MOST ardent deniers in older age. I reckon we are beginning to see this phenomenom across the spectrum

    • You are right, BUT I think your time scale is a bit short.The process wont start while obarmy is around & there’s a lot of face saving to be done & scapegoats to be found, I predict that Mann, Jones & Hanson will be sacrificed, the likes of Gore will be protected.

  54. Fundamentals:
    1) The amount of CO2 in reservoirs, (45,000 GT) and the fluxes (hundreds of GT/y) cannot be determined with certainty and mankind’s contribution (8.9 GT/y gross & 4.0 GT/y net thanks to the magically appearing sequestering sinks) cannot be differentiated from large naturally variable source/fluxes.
    2) A CO2 RF of 2 W/m^2 (RCP 2.0) is trivial in the overall magnitude (ToA 340 W/m^2 +/-) and absorption/refection fluxes of the overall atmospheric power/energy flows (W = energy/time = 3.412 Btu/h) and high energy water cycle.
    3) The pause/hiatus/stasis/lull has proven the GCMs are total failures.

  55. I was most intrigued by the questions and statements of the female assistant or whoever she was. Marc and John Cook (mainly Marc) are discussing various claims that make up the case for CAGW. She seemed most interested in responding about the psyche of researchers and how they are humans that can’t be unbiased and must have an agenda. It had overtones of all the politically correct controversy going on at college campuses, which makes me think she is a younger generation individual.
    If so, it’s a bit disconcerting that the next generation going into science thinks that biases are okay, and that people should not be expected to set aside their personal, social, and political biases when it comes time to communicate or evaluate science.
    It’s alarming that James Hansen is a radical environmentalist agitator in his spare time. It’s alarming that scientists in this field are compelled to kowtow to the orthodoxy to such an extent that if they publish anything contrary to the narrative they have to go to elaborate lengths to reassure everyone they are a true believer and not a heretic. This stuff has no place in science, period, and if the next generation thinks it’s not a problem or perhaps is even desirable then the future of science is bleak indeed.

  56. Since Marc asked John Cook a couple of questions along the way, I would have loved it if he asked him what it would take to change his mind.
    That’s a key part of the debate that is often overlooked. If someone believes that the science is rock solid and convincing, then naturally the should be able to discuss what sort of evidence would disprove it. If the global warming hypothesis isn’t falsifiable, it’s not scientific. Based on one of John Cook’s responses, it sounds like his primary evidence is that atmospheric CO2 is high and continues going up. If that’s the foundation for his belief, it is quite weak and could easily be rebutted by pointing out the clear lack of correlation between CO2 and temperatures, the issue of climate sensitivity, etc. But unless you pin them down and make them explain their own criteria as a scientist, you can’t engage them in an effective way.

    • Absolutely agreed. Climate sensitivity is the warmers Achilles heel. Attached at the hip to “global warming potential”. Try and find a straight answer to the question, what is the “global warming potential” of co2?
      It’s an undefined property. What’s worse warmers use it as if it were a real property, describing other substances as having a multiple of the global warming potential of co2.

      • The ‘global warming potential’ of CO2 is based on physics. It’s been discussed here often.
        This chart makes it clear that adding more CO2 to the current ≈400 ppm will not cause any measurable global warming:
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clip_image0062.jpg
        Even if CO2 was doubled, the warming caused by that additional trace gas would be too small to notice. Just extrapolate from the graph, from 400 ppm to 800 ppm. How much warming would result?

      • [Reply: ‘Chaam Jamal’ is a sockpuppet. Also posts under the name ‘Richard Molineux’ and others (K. Pittman, etc.) As usual, his sad life writing comments has been completely wasted, as they are now deleted. –mod]

  57. The video will be published after much cutting and pasting and distributed widely through the warmist network. As per 97% the audio will be John’s [inserted] questions and analysis ., while all remaining audio response from Marc will be lost in the 3% fraudulent transcript.

  58. Fascinating to see Cookie’s people come on here in support of him.
    Very informative to see them build their positions on the flawed (and already debunked) 97% consensus. The rigidity of their thinking is a great clue to why they’re losing the argument. They simply repeat their Creed over and over again…louder and loude…as though that will succeed in getting their message across when years of propaganda and millions on PR have failed to do so.
    Quite touching really.

  59. I just posted this at Clmate Etc.:

    Here’s the shortest counterpoint to “97% of climate scientists believe …”:
    “AND THEY’VE BEEN 97% WRONG!!”

  60. Cook represents the problem with the whole climate change cause. The whole process has been flooded with one sided studies and opinions, it’s hard to convince people the apparent minority view is right. It’s not by accident they keep repeating ad nauseam this 97% number, effectively delegitimizing descent. The real honest objective science, along with honest journalism, have been intentionally drowned out by this tsunami of created disinformation, and all this paid for at public expense.

    • For the moderator who is confused by my post; it is a reply to the post immediately above. That may give you a clue. I did press the ‘reply’ button when posting, so assumed it would relate to the post.
      (The above post is by someone who has linked to an extremely unamusing site, and particularly a video supposedly parodying ‘deniers’). Hence my retort.

Comments are closed.