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:
“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.mp3 is an outdated audio format, part of MPEG-1 and MPEG-2, which remains popular primarily because of a large number of legacy recordings, devices and software that don’t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.
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.
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.
I went ahead and turned it into an mp4 video and uploaded it to YouTube. The advantage to having it on YouTube is that if you play it from within Chrome or Firefox you can click on the Settings (“gear”) button to boost the playback speed. At 1.5x speed you’ll save 18 minutes of your precious time.
https://youtu.be/k9BzMK_77Lc
Or, since Marc already talks pretty fast, you might prefer to play it at 1.25x speed, in 45 minutes (instead of 54 minutes at normal speed).
I was just going to comment that I’m not sure I could understand Marc if he talked any faster! LOL
Interrupting, fist pounding and yelling didn’t help Morano’s credibility. Cook came off as the rational one which we know isn’t true.
Lindzen holds the hearer’s attention despite, or because of, his ponderous delivery.
Says you….lol 🙂
OK, Marc, I agree with ya…but…
…cool it. Just take it down a notch, kay?
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
“A tiger cannot change its spots.”
–Al Gore
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. 🙂
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.
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) ?
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.
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.
msbehavin’,
Nice comment.
That’s really all you need to know about John Cook in one little comment.
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.
Cook must have some ulterior motive.
His university have started a course for 1 or 2 semesters on how to refute deniers.
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???
Doran, Anderegg, Powell, and …
And all use Slippery stats !!!
See also Lying with Statistics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7LNAnax2og – 2 mins – Excellent.
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.
Excellent job Marc. He gave you and open field and you ran for TD after TD. Can’t wait to see your new movie.
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
John Cook Hear Led Zep for the first time!
Just what a retard like Cook needs after the COP21 debauchery party. Ha ha 😉
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.
Rather read it than watch it. Please, link to transcript.
Thanks, Tommy Boy.
Since when is a model a form of evidence. Surely it is a means of analysing the evidence, but is not evidence itself.
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.
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.
Wasn’t it just 74 agreeing out of 79 qualifying to ?
That’s no doubt largely why Cook felt moved to fortify this contrivance of a ‘consensus’ with bigger numbers.
No, the figs are – 75/77 = 97.4%
more @ur momisugly
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/
Indeed. Thankyou. 75 it was out of 77 responding to the specific question but two qualifiers had already said no in responding to the previous questions so in effect 75 out of 79, just a 95% contrivance.
What a great resource we have in Watts.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/10/an-oopsie-in-the-doranzimmerman-97-consensus-claim/
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.
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
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.