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:
Seldom have I been more entertained, this should be distributed widely particularly to students.
Wow, Moreno is a machine gun of information. Cook isn’t getting a word in.
beware this could be a ploy ie cooks past record
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.
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
Debate? Doesn’t sound like a debate.
John Cook said Marc Morano gave him “a bit of an info dump”!
Does he not know Marc?
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.
Enjoyed the interview, but not at all a “debate”, was it? Cook was just asking questions.
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.
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
That was my immediate impression too. What a contrast in confidence!
I thought that too. One looks like a scientist and the other could have come from The Godfather.
“I thought that too. One looks like a scientist and the other could have come from The Godfather.”
Which one of them was which? 🙂
Umm, they’re not standing next to each other. That’s two images pasted together.
You are so right. Cook’s right arm is too straight & different resolutions. Could one be a cardboard cutout ?
Another case for Sherriff Joe ?
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.
Max,
What “cover”? Morano has always been a skeptic. You know: as in ‘scientific skeptic’. You’re aware that a skeptical scientist is the only honest kind of scientist, right?
And then there’s the neo-Nazi, John Cook:
(That’s Cook’s own get-up. He did the pic, not anyone hostile to him.)
Yeah, all that’s true, what you’ve posted, db, but what’s the point of the pic?
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.
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.
I’m not all that familiar with NAZI SS uniforms, but is that a UN olive branch on his lapels? And are those penguins on his hat?
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.
I stumbled on the hat symbol, I’m pretty sure it the silhouette of the two Emperor Penguins that show up on the banner page of his web site.
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.
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.
Its seems that they have become pals that’s what it sounds like. Maybe Cook himself is having second thoughts…
Mark gets so excited when he gets the freedom to talk. I enjoy his positive attitude, and on-point arguments, whatever the motivation.
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.
“You mean the FAKE 97%” …….the line Mark Steyn used
seaice1:
You say
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
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.
@ur momisugly 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%,
Here is the second one I mentioned, Chaam.
http://www.odlt.org/dcd/docs/soon_bal_climate_res_paper.pdf
Go ahead and read it, then tell me whether it has value. Since it’s peer reviewed, you surely will do so.
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:
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!
Drat — I transposed the digits, sorry. I meant:
Doran did not count them among the skeptics when calculating his “97%.”
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.
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.
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.
Very true!, but Cook was certainly respectful.
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.
Don’t bet on cook doing anything other than what he has been paid to do and has happily done:
BS
Cook just doesn’t look a sharp as he does wearing the SS uniform.
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.
Not much of a debate. A long monologue by Morano.
Pretty well-Cook is mining
Marc for unfair edits!
+1 ..some of the above commenters seem very naive..Cook has a reputation, I wouldn’t trust him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly.
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.
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.
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.
Morano is not a scientist, and Cook was interviewing Morano…not the other way around.
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
We have to decide whether we are going to use facts, truth & objective argument or psychobable & spin. What way are you going?
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is deciding what shoes to wear”
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.
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.
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.
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!
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