Watch live: 10th anniversary debate for Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'

Recorded video is available now, just click play. Live stream will be on this page below at 7PM ET/4PM PT

Who says the debate over global warming is over? Not The Heartland Institute. Mark the 10th Anniversary of Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” by watching Heartland’s live-stream of a truly enlightening debate: Heartland Institute Science Director Jay Lehr vs. Colorado State University Professor Scott Denning.

We will have close to 100 packed into Heartland’s Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center and hope you’re among those watching online starting at 6 p.m. CT

Watch here:

When it is live, on Heartland’s YouTube live-stream page, you can ask questions in the chat room.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Trevor
August 31, 2016 2:21 pm

If the issue is Al Gore’s movie there is nothing to debate, it has been proven wrong, if the atmospheric sensitivity to an increase in CO2 there might be a bit of debate.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
September 1, 2016 1:26 am

I would like to know what the subject of the debate is? If it is something like “Was it hopelessly incompetent vs out and out fraud”, that would be illuminating.

August 31, 2016 2:37 pm

It’s definitely worth tuning in … if only to hear Denning defend some of the science in the flim. He’s even going to talk about the polar bears, according to his prep sheet and the clips he will show.

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Jim Lakely (@jlakely)
August 31, 2016 2:46 pm

Polar Bears? Hopefully Susan Crockford will give us some commentary on her site about the remarks – from everything I’ve seen there, the polar bears are fat and happy, and only a severe case of late spring freeze up would change that.

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
August 31, 2016 4:07 pm

If the polar bears are fat and happy then the parents of the baby seals they ate to get that way must be absolutely devastated. What ever happened to Pam Anderson and “Save the Baby Seals” ?

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
August 31, 2016 6:12 pm

I like the concept that there are winners and losers in every snapshot of the environment. If the polar bears are fat, the fish and seals might be having a hard time. If the polar bears are lean, then the seals and fish are fat.
In every news story, it always pays to mentally pan back and include the photographer and journalist into every picture.

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
September 1, 2016 5:32 am

Stephen Rasey says: August 31, 2016 at 6:12 pm
… If the polar bears are fat, the fish and seals might be having a hard time. If the polar bears are lean, then the seals and fish are fat.

That’s wrong most of the time. If the prey are prospering, the predators will prosper. If the prey are in trouble, the predators will soon follow. The classic example is the lynx-snowshoe hare cycle.

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
September 2, 2016 6:49 pm

Not quite commieBob. The Lynx/Hare has been used for decades as the classic example but the idea is founded on nothing. (Even though it is taught in Ecology 101.) And you will find many graphs that show the close relationship.
However Hall 1988 when checking the data found that the Lynx and Hare populations measured were separated by some 1,000 miles. Oddly enough most University lecturers have never heard of this paper.

Reply to  Taylor Pohlman
September 2, 2016 8:05 pm

JohnB says: September 2, 2016 at 6:49 pm

With all due respect, the link I cited is from the Northwest Territories (Canada). The aboriginal population is more than 50% of the total.

About 40 percent of territorial residents over 15 years of age spend time on the land hunting or fishing. link

I trust these people much more than I trust any number of out-of-touch PhDs from the south.
Sorry for the duplication. This post is posted elsewhere because I clicked the wrong thing.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Jim Lakely (@jlakely)
August 31, 2016 3:28 pm

… if only to hear Denning {try to} defend some of the {conjecture some call “science”} in the film…

Fixed. 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:04 pm

“…. if only to hear Denning defend some of the science in the flimflam. Now Fixed Janice 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:07 pm


Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 8:29 pm

Your formulation is more correct than MarloweJ’s, Janice (no offense intended, Marlowe).
There is no valid science in the claim of CO2-induced global warming. The whole gemisch lives on false precision. It’s not much more than pseudo-science.
Denning was never faced with the real issue: the whole claim rests on climate models, and climate models have no predictive (or explanatory) value as regards CO2 emissions.
Denning’s entire argument rested on radiation physics: more heat = more air temperature. This is not at all necessarily correct, because the terrestrial climate has a large number of fast alternative response channels, such as convection/evaporation, cloud condensation, and Willis’ thunderstorms (not an exhaustive list). All of these are very poorly (or not at all) modeled.
I’m sorry to say, because he’s obviously a nice guy and sincere, and sincerely worried, but Denning’s explanations are bereft of careful scientific thought.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 9:41 pm

Thank you, Dr. Frank, for your very kind affirmation. Say, I posted (the same day I commented on the thread about it) a “Tips and Notes” request that Anthony feature on WUWT an article about your “No Certain Doom” lecture exposing the “zero” information provided by and lack of precision of climate models in this video: .
Perhaps, because you are still (still!) trying to get it published, Anthony can’t publish about it here, but, I wanted you to know I tried! I hope we see that video (great lecture!) featured on WUWT before too long.
Hang in there, O Valiant and Long-persevering Warrior for Science Truth,

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 10:59 pm

Thank-you, Janice. May we both live to see the final triumph of truth and freedom. 🙂
And please … call me Pat. 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 2:43 am

…Pat….your video was much more informative and coherent than the above waste of time…Thank you..and thank you Janice the Librarian ! LOL

Pat Frank
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 2, 2016 12:16 pm

Thanks for the kind words, Marcus.

Reply to  Jim Lakely (@jlakely)
September 1, 2016 2:28 am

Flim? as in ‘flimflam’??
Only Gore had the chutzpah to call an immensely convenient lie, the ‘inconvenient truth’.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 1, 2016 5:44 am

HA, don’t be fergettin that Al Gore learned from his Father, ……. plus he had 8 years of free “understudy” education …….. thanks to two (2) of the most notorious “convenient lie” tellers in recent Political history.

Reply to  Jim Lakely (@jlakely)
September 2, 2016 8:01 pm

JohnB says: September 2, 2016 at 6:49 pm

With all due respect, the link I cited is from the Northwest Territories (Canada). The aboriginal population is more than 50% of the total.

About 40 percent of territorial residents over 15 years of age spend time on the land hunting or fishing. link

I trust these people much more than I trust any number of out-of-touch PhDs from the south.

August 31, 2016 2:50 pm

I want this movie/propaganda OUT of the public school system.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Dejavu
August 31, 2016 7:58 pm

Along with Bill Nye, anti-science guy.

Reply to  Mary Brown
September 1, 2016 9:36 am

I think I would rather it was left in the system and used as an example of how to influence people by telling lies.
A modern example of a snake oil salesman.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 3:23 pm

As far as it being a “debate,” it is like a race between Scott Denning in his running shoes up against Jay Lehr in his Formula 1 (race car) at the Indy 500. The facts are so overwhelmingly on the side of the science realists that it’s no contest. In fact, it is so pitiful, it’s hard to even laugh….. poor guy.
However, this is a GREAT teaching opportunity!
Anyone genuinely interested in learning the facts about human CO2 emissions and climate will see the truth. As far as AGW (or “climate change” or whatever they want to call it),
game over.
So! Tune in at the top of the hour, boys and girls, and watch Jay school Scott!

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:19 pm

Poor (hypocrite). Fixed! 🙂

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 9:49 am

If the race is short enough, a guy in running shoes can easily beat someone in a race car.

Reply to  MarkW
September 4, 2016 7:15 pm

At the start of the Le Mann grand prix, the drivers have to foot race to their cars. So you got running shoes AND a race car for each guy.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 3:25 pm

Suggestion: If you want more people to watch such events — start promoting them more than 24 hours ahead….. (ahem).

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:14 pm

But there is always video tape and the archive.
Just seeing this at 8/31 7:10 MDT.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
August 31, 2016 6:24 pm

Video tape? What’s that?

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
August 31, 2016 6:47 pm

Videotape? Is that better than a View-Master?
P.S. Watched 30 minutes of the video (Live!) but I cannot hear it. I was watching for the supporting graphics they showed to see where the debate was going. I’ll get a lot out of comments.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 1, 2016 6:12 am

SMC: More important, where can one get a video tape machine? I understand they went the way of the dinosaurs—extinct.

Reply to  Stephen Rasey
September 1, 2016 9:50 am

I actually saw a VCR/DVD combination machine at Wal-Mart a few weeks ago.
I was tempted to take a picture of it.

Jeff Hayes
August 31, 2016 3:39 pm

I’m going to watch, but if it runs over the “Stratosphere Lounge” at 9 I’m switching.

Jeff Hayes
August 31, 2016 3:56 pm

For anyone who tunes in early, they are re-running last week’s cynicism/snark edition with the “mirror universe” Bill Whittle. ie; screaming lib, before the live episode later.

August 31, 2016 4:09 pm

Interesting, Demming’s 3 “S”s of Climate Change, and neither one is the word “Science”.

Reply to  JohnWho
August 31, 2016 4:10 pm

Typo – “Denning”, not “Demming”.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:11 pm

Re: Denning opening statement
“movie is pop culture” — heh
“Not really my go to source…” (lol)
Not so much concerned about accuracy (oh, brother) of movie
Simple — stupid! Equating heat-in-heat-out thermodynamics science to AGW’s conjecture about the climate of the EARTH and human CO2.
Serious — Oooh, boy, we have to do something about….. what? Never proved any problem exists (from human CO2 emissions)
Solvable — Completely unsupported nonsense. There is no KNOWN technology to substitute for fossil fuels. None.
Gread: D+

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:16 pm

1. Typo (real time is hard, you guys!): “Grade” (D+, yes D+!)
2. Lehr opening:
CO2 is plant food. No historically significant warming at all. PPM’s of CO2 are much higher even just in that theater. In short: CO2 is good and there is NO evidence proving human CO2 emissions cause climate to change. Computer simulations are worthless.
Grade (so far): A- (a bit tighter presentation would make it an A)
**break — Gotta go outside with the dog, now

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:36 pm

Lehr re: polar bears — GREAT command of the facts
For THIS “debate” — He should have FIRST addressed directly what Gore alleged in the movie and quickly refuted that directly, THEN give a mini-dissertation about polar bears.
So, Lehr is wonderfully informed, but, needs help with a “jury-persuading” orderly (for winning an argument before a jury) presentation.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:37 pm

Denning re: polar bears — very weak attempt to undermine Lehr by (cleverly disguising it as talking about himself) saying “I (really WE, thus, HE) am not an expert on polar bears”
PBs = “A side issue” (and thus D. sidestepped the issue)

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:43 pm

Polar Bears hunt on the ice because seals raise their pups there. Take away the ice and the seals will have to stay on land. If you care about polar bears warm things up, so the polar bears can out-run the seal pups on land. (sarc mode off)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
August 31, 2016 4:48 pm

Good point!

Reply to  Jeff Hayes
September 1, 2016 12:28 am

Exactly. They would adapt.

Reply to  Jeff Hayes
September 1, 2016 4:53 am

I do not see where there is any sarcasm; It is just common sense.

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
September 1, 2016 11:08 am

OB- I should have said ‘out-run those cute and cuddly baby seals on land.’
Nature does not care who wins the struggle for continued existence, only we do, and the greens seem to be especially fickle with their affections. Once they cared more for the baby seals, now for the bears that eat them. Of course the greens will say that there should be a balance, but “balance” is a human concept, and in terms of evolution a temporary condition. Nowadays any mention of polar bears reminds me of an old Glenn Beck skit about the annual holiday adds showing polar bears and penguins sharing sodas- it went something like this:
Glenn- I just love those adds where they show the polar bears and the penguins getting along together. Why can’t we be like that?
Stu- Actually Glenn, polar bears and penguins never meet. Polar bears are from the north pole and penguins are from the south pole.
Glenn- That’s a shame, they would probably like each other.
Stu- Actually Glenn, the bears would probably eat the penguins.
Glenn- (surprised) Really? They would eat the penguins?
Stu- Yes Glenn. But as I said they would never meet, except maybe in a zoo by accident.
Glenn- Well if they don’t eat penguins what do they eat?
Stu- Mostly seals.
Glenn- (shocked) They EAT seals?!?
Stu- Yes, but they prefer baby seals. They’re easier to catch.
Glenn- (aghast) They EAT baby seals, those cute and cuddly BABY SEALS?!?
Stu- Yes Glenn.
Glenn- You mean all this time we’ve been clubbing the wrong baby animals?!?!!

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:43 pm

Re: Gore’s disgusting propaganda (equating fighting AGW to human rights)
Denning: AGW is a “problem.”
Then, he equates funding military and highway construction to funding the solution to a non-problem.
Hey, dummy, we HAVE cell phone tech — we do not have viable wind or solar tech.
Grade: F
Lehr: A weak (though accurate point — but there are more powerful refutations) point, that wind/solar, etc. have made no significant reduction in human CO2 emissions.
The KEY is: human CO2 emissions are irrelevant and saying otherwise is speculation and that is all.
All the doomsday scenarios have not come true.
Grade: C

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:31 pm

I apologize for the “dummy.” Just frustrated with his half-truths and nonsensical assertions (and clearly attempting to double-down on Algore (but with a new-and-improved version)).

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:23 pm

Let the dummy apologize for himself! Lol!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:28 pm

John H. — lol. Yes, indeed! 🙂 (and thanks for the fix re: “poor little…”)

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:47 pm

Re: Kilimanjaro glacier sublimation
Lehr: Temp. has been and is still below freezing — BAM!
Grade: A
Denning: Every mountain range in the world — STILL does not support his case. Snowpack in CO is his only data to link his unsupported UNSUPPORTED assertion that human CO2 (“physics” makes it happen — oh, brother) caused it.
Grade: F

Richard Keen
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:37 pm

Jay missed an opportunity when he said Kili’s glaciers were 11,000 years old, and have been shrinking for hundreds/thousands of years. 11,000 years ago was AFTER the ice age, near the interglacial max, which means those glaciers (ice caps, really) are a product of a wetter (and warmer!) climate. The shrinkage occurs when the climate is cooler & drier, as seems to have happened in the Indian Ocean basin some timee ago. The most rapid ice loss up there was over a hundred years ago, and in the past decade the ice cap seems to have stabilized at a level compatible with the current climate.
Jay’s counter about deforestation is supported by some, but doesn’t quite jive with the history of the ice. But Jay & I are both sure it’s not due to global warming!
BTW, Gore’s photos compared mostly seasonal snow, not ice. So one photo was taken at the end of the rain/snow season, the other during the dry. It’s a common ruse for Kilimanjaro abusers, and Gavin used two photos like that – one taken right after a snow storm, the other during the dry – in his GW book, “Picturing the Warming” or something like that. But Gavin’s an even bigger liar than Gore.
Hey, I have photos of my backyard in Colorado taken just six months apart that really show rapid global warming!!

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:49 pm

Denning: “Heat in = heat out.” If he says that again — grrrr. JUNK science.
Denning sounds an awful lot like that strange man, Larry Kummer of the Fabius Max thing

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:46 pm

Is this the Janice Moore hour around here, or what?

Janice Moore
Reply to  goldminor
August 31, 2016 6:18 pm

I’m sorry, goldminor. I was having so much fun that (once again) I forgot. Not many people posting, so, I figured it wouldn’t matter. Will try to refrain in the future.

Reply to  goldminor
August 31, 2016 10:25 pm

That was humor Janice.

Janice Moore
Reply to  goldminor
September 1, 2016 6:32 am

Oh. (oops)

Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 4:52 pm

Denning speaks in generalities and relies on anecdotal evidence. He’s a Professor of Atmospheric Science, but his main argument seems to rely on GDP forecasts one hundred years from now made by economists using the same type of faulty computer models used in Climate Science. He also claims that Summer is warmer than Winter as proof of Global Warming.
No wonder these guys never want to discuss\debate the issue.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 5:32 pm


Richard Keen
Reply to  Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 6:46 pm

… He also claims that Summer is warmer than Winter as proof of Global Warming.
And that Miami is warmer than Minneapolis also explains global warming.
Even though Miami vs. Minneapolis and Summer vs. Winter have no connection to CO2.

Cameron J.
Reply to  Richard Keen
September 1, 2016 2:01 am

I saw this for the first time today – I know, pretty slow on the uptake – but I think this is what Denning was trying to say;

Reply to  Richard Keen
September 1, 2016 3:04 am

…And he also keeps claiming that ALL his beliefs are based on Humans using 10 X the fossil fuels in the next 100 years than we have in the last 100 years ! Not Physically possible…

Mary Brown
Reply to  Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 8:04 pm

Imagine a GDP forecast made in 1916 for now. Or a CO2 emissions forecast.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:55 pm

Closing statements:
Denning: “20th century” (we’re in the 21st, buddy) tech solutions — free market solutions — doesn’t he realize that this NEGATES his point??? There is no non-fossil fuel related tech to replace it. Wind/solar are only possible due to NON-free market, tax/rate surcharge “solutions.” Their “final solution,” eh, okay, okay, I take that back. Heh.
Grade: F (used term “free market” completely incorrectly — he obviously has been sitting at home every night playing video games and not doing his homework or studying for any exams this quarter).
Lehr: GREAT facts (again) — a better written/ordered argument would help (a lot). Love his enthusiasm, but, a bit too “pound the pulpit” — more measured would be better and more likely to help a science truth seeker to listen to his words.
Grade: A- (content great — form and speaking style/manner needs a bit of improvement….)

Richard Keen
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:41 pm

Denning: “20th century” (we’re in the 21st, buddy) tech solutions …
Denning’s right; we do have a 20th century solution for fossil fuels.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Keen
August 31, 2016 6:45 pm


Reply to  Richard Keen
August 31, 2016 8:34 pm

We do have a great solution for fossil fuels- more fossil fuels. Is there a problem?

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 4:56 pm

Lehr re: robots: Good point.

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:15 pm

And, as a bonus, robots don’t exhale CO2!

Reply to  JohnWho
September 1, 2016 9:55 am

But the plants that provide the electricity for them do.

Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 5:01 pm

Denning: “Heat causes Global Warming”
Ya think? LOL

Reply to  Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 5:08 pm

And less heat causes cooling.
Can’t argue with that, either.

Reply to  Reg Nelson
September 1, 2016 3:13 am

Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 at 5:01 pm
Denning: “Heat causes Global Warming”
….That was the point in time that I stopped watching the video…
If only stupidly hurt, we would not have half the problems that we do in society….

David L. Hagen
August 31, 2016 5:06 pm

Jay Lehr mis-stated the history of Hubbert’s predictions. Hubbert modeled global conventional crude oil which actually maxed out in 2005. See An Updated Version of the “Peak Oil” Story Gail Tverberg Our Finite World.
See World Liquids by Typecomment image
What Hubbert and Pickens got right about oil and what’s next.
Compare Hubbert’s accurate prediction of US production with actual production peaking in 1970

Jeff Hayes
August 31, 2016 5:08 pm

Every absorbtion spectrum of the atmosphere (there are dozens on the web) show the 15 micron band of lwir almost totally blocked by GHGs in the atmosphere. Doubling co2 would be like adding a second opaque window shade to a window. Will the room get any darker?

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
September 1, 2016 6:19 am

Another good analogy is this: If you are cold in bed and put on a blanket, it makes you a lot warmer, but if you put on another blanket it only makes you slightly warmer, and a third blanket does virtually nothing. In the case of the Earth we already have two blankets on, H2O and CO2. Adding a additional CO2 blanket (doubling from 270ppm) will have little effect, maybe not even with the precision we are able to measure it.

Reply to  Jeff Hayes
September 1, 2016 10:00 am

There are places on the planet that have very little H2O in the atmosphere.
The polar regions and deserts.
Polar regions: Few to no people live there. Are so far below freezing that a few degrees of warming won’t cause anything to melt. A few degrees of warming will also decrease the north south temperature gradient that drives most weather systems, meaning weather will become less violetn.
Deserts: Once again very few people live there, so if they get a little bit warming nobody will be harmed. They are already well above the freezing point for most of the year, so no ice to melt, even if there was enough water to form ice in the first place.
Then there are the well documented positive impacts of more CO2.

Jeff Hayes
Reply to  Jeff Hayes
September 1, 2016 10:28 am

Paul- I disagree with the use of the blanket analogy. In your example the blanket is functioning as an insulator, and not as a barrier, per se. As everyone knows a well insulated house is easier to heat or cool, and if you leave the furnace or AC on the house gets warmer or colder than you want, because of the insulation effect. This is exactly the mistaken argument the greens make. I think it is better to make the point that the atmosphere is effectively opaque to infrared light already, and so already absorbing all the energy available. In other words a second black-out shade on a window won’t make a room any darker. You cannot make an opaque material (even a gas) more opaque by adding any amount of material to it. Please don’t use any analogy involving insulation effects- it is confusing and, more to the point, not what is happening.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:10 pm

Denning is STILL (what a one-note willy) banging the pseudo-free-market (for non-existent tech) drum.

Richard Keen
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:51 pm

Denning is a registered Democrat, according to published voter lists. But maybe he’s one of those free market Dems, like Hillary.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 6:23 am

Not that technology really matters in this case anyway. There is no known or even imagined technology based on currently understood physical laws which will turn the negative EROI of windmills and solar power positive. So even if we can find a way to make them economically viable, they will still be non-viable from an energy return perspective.

Reply to  Paul Penrose
September 1, 2016 10:01 am

To most leftists there is full blown communism, and everything else is a form of free-market.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:13 pm

D: If you take some CO2 and shine IR light through it, it warms up, therefore….. “We know for sure” … (some true statements and then… –>) then, ker-blang — fail:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED. (head slap)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:14 pm

i.e., D. said the temp has gone up but failed to note that it has not gone up for nearly 20 years, now.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 8:10 pm

That because it has. Warming trend line 1996 to 2016 is +0.23 deg using WTI data. That’s 1.2 deg per century
Since 2006 release of Gore’s movie, WTI is up 0.28 deg

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 9:46 pm

The trend line from 1998 – 2016, except for a short-lived spike (La Nina is on the way) is, to any statistically significant degree — 0. 18 years is “nearly 20” in my book.

Richard Keen
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 11:05 pm

WTF is WTI ???
The only real global temperatures, the RSS and MSU satellite readings, haven’t warmed a lick in most college students’ lifetimes.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 6:31 am

That’s just false precision. The error bars for any temperature measurement, except possibly the satellites, are much larger than that. And no, you can’t use the law of large numbers to improve precision by averaging the readings of a bunch of different types of (uncalibrated) instruments. The errors are almost certainly not uniform.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 7:57 am

Richard Keen… Everybody cherry picks their favorite temp data set. NASA ignores their own sat data and instead pushes GISS, which is the hottest and most manipulated data.
Skeptics insist on satellite data. I’m sure if it was the warmest, they would disown it.
That’s why I reference WTI… but it needs a new name. GCTI … Global Consensus Temperature Index. If you use that, then it is a 50-50 weighting of satellite and near-surface temps.
The GCTI is more robust and removes some (most?) of the observation argument from the debate. Everybody has to meet in the middle.
No matter which temperature series you use, there has been a continued warming trend….
20 years… total temp change
Hadcrut +.28
GISS +.37
RSS +.12
UAH +.13
10 years…
Hadcrut +.28
GISS +.29
RSS +.23
UAH +.26
Clearly, the warming has slowed from the 1978-2002 period… but it’s is very hard to argue that there has been “no warming”. Also, the agreement among series in the last ten years suggests that it is getting harder to “cook the books” with temperature observations. There are too many eyes on it.
Our statistical model expects a substantial drop in the next year and lower temperatures for the next 5 years. So, in 2021, I suspect we will be back to a legitimate argument that there has been “no significant warming” since 1998
One other note… weather and climate models are initialized every hour. Data is error checked and smoothed to get the best possible starting point for model runs. A global 2m Temp field is generated. This has been done for a long time with no concern about the hourly global climate record that it leaves behind. Interestingly enough, the last 20 years have shown a DROP of .04 deg in global 2m Temps. That is a very interesting finding and I would love to hear people more knowledgeable than me discuss the usefulness and implications of this data series.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 10:04 am

Paul, it’s not just a problem with the temperature readings. It’s also a problem with there not being enough readings to begin with. Even if every weather station was accurate to .001C. The problem with spacial distribution would mean error bars of at a minimum, several degrees on the average temperature.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 10:05 am

“I’m sure if it was the warmest, they would disown it.”
I love the way alarmists assume everyone else is as corrupt as they are.

Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 3:19 pm

Do you know what make RSS and MSU really different from all the warmist’s temperature records? RSS and MSU don’t need to be ‘adjusted’ every single year to make the past look cooler then the present.
I’d say I’ll start trusting Warmist data when they stop fiddling with it, but nope, sorry. I stopped trusting the Climate Faithful for good about the time Peter Gleick forged the Heartland memo, got caught in less then a week, and all the true believers just brushed it off. Fake but accurate has become the rallying cry of the Left every time they get caught in their lies. It’s how they are trained to think. Noble Cause Corruption, assuming you see their grab for absolute power and wealth as ‘Noble’.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:17 pm

D: “house of cards” scare tactic — detracts from his agreement that human ingenuity can solve our problems, but, at least a very tepid lukewarm nod to that particular fact. Baby steps…. (oh, boy, in about 5 years, maybe D will be ten yards farther along the road to truth….. come on, little D, you can do it….. ccccccooooommmmme on…..)

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:19 pm

And COCA COLA gets some screen time (lol) — yay! 🙂
Coke is it! heh

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:22 pm

For PETE’S SAKE, Denning — your pleading and pleading for “think hard” for free market solutions is like pleading and pleading for scientists and engineers in 1750 to JUST THINK HARD AND WE CAN GET TO THE MOON. There are solutions!!!!! Don’t give up.
(not to mention, that D’s solutions are completely UN-necessary)

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:24 pm

D. Re: 1930’s — drought is from cooling not heat. Completely speculating. Pitiful. And it was not only hot in the “dust bowl” regions.

Margaret Smith
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 5:47 am

“Janice Moore
D. Re: 1930’s — drought is from cooling not heat. Completely speculating. Pitiful. And it was not only hot in the “dust bowl” regions.”
I was astonished at the assertion that the 1930s was a regional thing and caused the Dust Bowl (not according to the history I learned), as here in the UK at this time temperatures of 70F+ in Feb. were recorded.
I would have liked to have heard some better answers with more scientific points made. It was all a little too ‘friendly’ for me.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 5:25 pm

Okay, I can hear Wundersamer thundering down the hallway. Sorry I talked so much. It was fun, though!
🙂 Bye!

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:14 pm

Excellent liveblogging, and thanks.

Janice Moore
Reply to  kim
August 31, 2016 6:19 pm

kim! Coming from one of the wittiest here — thank you, so much!

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 7:08 pm

Janice. Thank you. I posted above that I was unable to hear the live stream (long story) and was depending on comments. You came through. Thanks again.

Janice Moore
Reply to  H.R.
August 31, 2016 7:53 pm

Aw, H.R.. Thank you. I missed quite a bit, ….. on the other hand….. Denning repeated himself a LOT. Sorry you couldn’t hear it. Bummer. And yet, H.R., consider yourself fortunate: I nearly quit watching, the sound of Algore’s voice in those movie clips was nauseating.

Philip Schaeffer
August 31, 2016 5:48 pm

I would have liked to hear a more thorough answer to the “how does the free market deal with the externalized cost of pollution” question, beyond saying “we don’t think global warming is actually a problem”… well, OK, but what is the answer for pollution that you do think is a problem? If it’s cheaper to pollute more, then businesses that do will have a competitive advantage over business who pollute less. How does that get solved without some form of outside pressure?

Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 5:57 pm

Lefty Logic:
Increased CO2 in a lab (an isolated, controlled environment) is indisputable proof of Global Warming for the entire planet (an uncontrolled, multi-variable, chaotic environment)
However, increased CO2 in a Greenhouse (an isolated controlled environment) does not prove the benefits of CO2 for the entire planet (an uncontrolled multi-variable chaotic environment).
Okay, gotcha.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Reg Nelson
August 31, 2016 8:12 pm

Excellent !

August 31, 2016 5:59 pm

Will we be able to see/view this debate? I was listening to Mark Levin instead – sorry. Hope I can view it later…

Janice Moore
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 31, 2016 6:21 pm

Here is the youtube account for Heartland. Check there in a day or so.
Mark Levin is great!

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 31, 2016 6:30 pm

You CAN view it later at the same link as above. But here it is again:

Reply to  Jim Lakely (@jlakely)
August 31, 2016 7:23 pm

Mucho Gracies!

Reply to  Jim Lakely (@jlakely)
August 31, 2016 7:26 pm

Or is it Muchas Gracias – no spell check for Espanol…

August 31, 2016 6:14 pm

Climateurs of the world, unite!

Reply to  tegirinenashi
September 8, 2016 12:33 pm

They did, and they are called the IPCC.

Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 6:44 pm

Just FYI, a 2007 WUWT thread about “An Inconvenient Truth”
Detailed Comments by Bob Edelman

August 31, 2016 7:17 pm

Great fun, Janice.
Like watching a ball game and the sportscasters giving all the background on the players and all the sports trivia and statistics.
Well Done.

Janice Moore
Reply to  TonyL
August 31, 2016 7:56 pm

Cool. Thanks for the support! #(:))

Reply to  Janice Moore
August 31, 2016 9:52 pm

The play by play was a hoot Janice.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 1, 2016 6:36 am

david(mhoffer)! Thank you! I’m glad to see that you are feeling better (well enough to comment, here fairly regularly, now, I mean).

Jeff Hayes
August 31, 2016 8:49 pm

I wish Dr. Lehr had explained the “saturation” effect of absorbed LWIR, and how more of any GHGs means very little now, and less and less as more is added. I think it was a mistake to let Denning’s answer stand in the Q+A.

Brian Bach
August 31, 2016 10:04 pm

Not to make too fine of a point, but if we have used up 10%, then in the future, we can only use nine times the amount already combusted not ten.

Just some guy
August 31, 2016 10:41 pm

Meh. 45 minutes in, both “debaters” are too nice. They aren’t responding to each other directly, just giving little talks between Al’s propaganda movie.

Robert of Texas
September 1, 2016 12:07 am

Did I hear Jay say that the dinosaurs were walking the earth 550 million years ago? I don’t think so. Maybe 250 million, but not 550. Argh, get your facts straight. Typical dinosaurs roamed the Earth starting in the Triassic, but mostly beyond.
Also, Infrared absorption: 3% x 4% does not equal 12/1000ths of 1%. Its 12/100ths of 1%.
Dr. Scott’s comments were so wishy-washy as to be worthless of criticism. The gentleman may be a nice person, but his understanding of the science behind anthropogenic global warming is very low. He is presenting talking points, not science.
Al Gore… LOL… He still makes me laugh. He doesn’t even understand what he is talking about, let alone any science behind it.
Only watched 30 minutes… This was not so much a debate as a presentation of mostly facts versus mostly belief. Kind of like two subjects, science versus philosophy.
Nothing new here, so on to other things.

September 1, 2016 12:26 am

I watched, but it was difficult because Denning’s panic was plainly visible. Painfully so.

Ian Cooper
September 1, 2016 2:03 am

I took the brief opportunity I have had to watch this completely. I didn’t know of either of the protagonists beforehand. At the end I admire both of them. I have been an observer of this whole affair for 30 years when the idea of a human influence on climate change was first mooted by a local scientist who it turned out was heavily involved in the promulgation of the CAGW hypothesis from the start.
I learned many things from the discourse between two gentleman who disagreed with each other. I was disappointed with Dr Dennings resort to a repeated mantra about a 100 times increase of Co2 output. To me this flew in the obvious face of the eventual argument by Dr Lehr that we wouldn’t need to burn fossil fuel to extinction by the basic tenet of, “We didn’t go from the stone-age to the steel-age because we ran outta stone!”
I general I found Dr Denning somewhat negative about our prospects compared to Dr Lehr who I have an affinity with because he is an optimist.
I totally disagree with Dr Dennings assertion that that the heat wave that hit the US in the 1930’s was a regional affair that contained the ‘Dust Bowl’ as an isolated event. The ‘Hottest’ two summers on record in my part of New Zealand both occurred in the 1930’s and haven’t been bettered in my 59 years. My father who at 84 was around then was 2.5 & 5.5 years old during the austral summers of 1934-5 & 1937-8 and so doesn’t personally equate them to being any hotter than the their rivals of 1974-75 & 1998-99. All of these austral “hot” summers were La Nina’s. He, my father, knew those years as hot summers but because we are talking about tenths of a degree who can knowingly say that such & such a summer was hotter than another. The truth is the average maxima of the hottest summers is diminishing. In the mean time the average maxima of the winters is also increasing. This brings about a lifting of the ‘Mean,’ the favourite of the climatologists (they just don’t like extremes do they?).’
A credit to both of them in the way they handled themselves.
I part with my favourite comment by Dr Jay, “The future is always brighter than the past.”

Reply to  Ian Cooper
September 1, 2016 3:53 am

What is your data source for the hottest 2 summers on record occurring in 34/34 and 37/38? This data indicates a somewhat hot year in 38, but not an all time high, and nothing in 34/35.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Chris
September 1, 2016 11:17 am

Chris September 1, 2016 at 3:53 am
Your link is the fudged temperature data set:
“NIWA’s official graph (done originally by Dr Jim Salinger, who features also in the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia) shows considerable warming, which they give as 0.92°C per century, saying this is consistent with global warming over the 20th century. But the actual temperature readings taken from the thermometers show an almost flat trend for 150 years.
These figures all come from NIWA. So, why are they so different from each other? Because NIWA has adjusted the earliest temperature readings downwards by up to 1.3°C, which has the effect of introducing a false warming as the graph then “climbs” to the present day. It’s a disgrace. So far, neither Dr Salinger nor NIWA has revealed why they did this,” said Mr Treadgold.

Ian Cooper
Reply to  Chris
September 1, 2016 8:54 pm

Hi Chris, the Long Term Data for the Turitea site near Massey University, Palmerston North supplied these days by NIWA. I get the daily readings from there as well. When I say ‘summer’ I’m really talking about the ‘hot season’, Nov 1st to April 30th. I don’t subscribe to the Met Service seasons, i.e. summer being Dec-Jan-Feb, especially when March is hotter than December! I am also talking about T-Max Means, rather than the Mean Means, if you know what I mean!

September 1, 2016 2:12 am

Is it possible to have either a full copy or (better still) edited highlights available after the event, Anthony, as 7pm ET is midnight UK time?

September 1, 2016 2:31 am

…Wow, that was a pathetic video/debate….I support “The Heartland Institute”, but that was just too hard to watch….

September 1, 2016 2:39 am

Economics is my thing.
I think Dennings figures about the economics should renewables be substituted are far out.
The only way to get off carbon fuels is to find a “green” solution that is better – cheaper and easier to use than oil or gas.
This would truely be a smart solution
Anything that needs taxpayers money is, in my opinion, a dumb solution!
Unless a truely smart solution, as I describe above, occurs, subsidies not with standing, the economy is going to take a BIG hit if our relance on fossil fuels is forcibly taken from us on the pretext that the current “smart” solutions are better.
If tax payers money is used and the resulting real cost is greater than current energy, expect to see a downturn worse than the great depression.
By the way, in spite of the hype about sea level rise, in my neck of the woods, sea level is rising steadily at about 1,7mm per year As it has been doing since records began
The acceleration needed to meet Al Gores predictions hasnt actually begun yet. 🙂
PS The first debate on global warming I have seen since Lord Monckton and the Australian Press Association of about 5 byears ago. Great stuff!

Reply to  rogerthesurf
September 1, 2016 3:29 am

The acceleration needed to meet Al Gores predictions hasnt actually begun yet. 🙂
As it turns out, Fasullo et al says they’re going to find it pretty soon now:
Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?
That and the Jason 3 satellite launched last January almost guarantee that they will “correct” the data to show the holy grail of acceleration they’ve been wringing their hands about finding for the last 20 years.

Reply to  rogerthesurf
September 1, 2016 6:05 am

Why do we need a “solution” to a NON-PROBLEM???

Reply to  rogerthesurf
September 1, 2016 7:08 am

I was thinking the same thing Goldrider asks. I do believe we will somewhat “get off carbon fuels” when we find a “better – cheaper and easier to use” alternative simply because that makes good economic sense. The drive to save money simply appeals to more people than the drive to “save the world”.

September 1, 2016 3:30 am

Hmmmm, where did my post go?

September 1, 2016 4:53 am

I just watched the whole thing on the link at the top of this page and was most impressed by Dr Lehr’s persuasive manner and also his clear and straight-to-the-point arguments.
I did not learn anything I didn’t know before, from my years of following this argument. BUT – I was given great heart in realising that I could have kept up, had I been involved in this debate myself. I mention that because I don’t get to discuss or debate the issue of climate change/global warming with anybody except my wife and my occasional foray onto an online comments section.
A debate which involved Lord Monckton OTOH, would be a completely different matter! With his quick wit and highly complex, technical and mathematical responses (all done with seemingly instant recall) would floor me completely. (lol)

Reply to  Luc Ozade (@Luc_Ozade)
September 1, 2016 5:04 am

Like many others on here, I’m sure, I felt that I could have easily quashed Dr Denning’s arguments – nearly as well as did Dr Lehr.

September 1, 2016 5:12 am

One thing that is apparent is that there seems to be a complete disconnect between geology and climate science. Nowhere in the geologic record have CO2 caused catastrophic global warming.

Reply to  CO2isLife
September 1, 2016 5:59 am

Surely this is one of the great big red flags in climate science.
Assuming reconstructions of previous eras are something like accurate then we know CO2 has been much higher in the geological past than it is now, yet there was NO runaway warming….which means there was NO positive feedback and NO amplification, either. If not then, it cannot be so now. At a stroke the runway warming theory is falsified.

Bruce Cobb
September 1, 2016 7:18 am

Denning’s arguments were; Seriously wrong, Simple-minded, and Science-free. Seriously, are we sure Heartland didn’t hire him? He did a great job for the Skeptic’s side!

September 1, 2016 7:43 am

I’ve said a million times the Documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming was way ahead of its time. This type of debate, including some of the exact examples and analogies were in this documentary 6 years ago. Most ironic Dr Demming is featured in this clip. I included Eisenhower’s farwell in this clip as well as Demmings comments to highlight how he doesn’t practice what he preaches. This documentary does a far better job addressing the Mt Kilimanjaro fraud.

September 1, 2016 7:49 am

Dr Demming appears to be completely ignorant of the physics of IR and CO2, as well as the geologic record. It is truly shocking to see how poorly they can defend their “science.” His concept of economics is laughable, and if any of this green nonsense actually worked, why do you need government subsidies? The examples he gave in his defense were “public goods,” or goods and services that won’t be provided by the free markets, ie roads, sewers, etc etc. If any of this garbage were truly comercially viable, why isn’t Sierra Club manufacturing them? Why is he asking a Free Market Think Tank for answers and not Al Gore and Google? Google tried and failed. Al Gore no longer invests in the speculative green nonsense.

September 1, 2016 8:23 am

Almost an hour in and a few thoughts:
1) Scott is merely repeating talking points off cue cards, the other side should have a better rep. if they want me to consider.
2) Jay better correct his $3/barrel prediction to $3/gal. I respect his ability to present with few notes but it also leads to gaffes like this.
3) If Jay is really as respectful of the sun’s power, he should mix in some sunscreen.

September 1, 2016 8:29 am

Deming makes a grave mistake when he states “the question is whether we should burn the other 90 %”. We have used almost half of the oil we can use without using a huge fraction of the economy to get more oil. Gas and coal aren’t as “worn out”, but they’ll also be running out. Thus the whole aim of Deming’s exercise is to reduce imaginary emissions the world will never have.

September 1, 2016 9:02 am

There should be an Academy Award for Mendacity.

Travis Casey
September 1, 2016 11:10 am
Reply to  Travis Casey
September 1, 2016 12:42 pm

Compare that wonderful introduction and encouragement of intellectual curiosity and exploration to the left’s trigger warnings and safe space. It clearly details the difference between left and right regarding the scientific process.

Travis Casey
September 1, 2016 11:12 am

And my personal favorite debate.

Reply to  Travis Casey
September 1, 2016 6:23 pm

These alarmists have defined an outcome where there is zero chance that it will be avoided. There is nothing man will do that will ever stop the growth of CO2, even if the industrial world reaches there goals, the pre-industrial nations will continue to produce more and more CO2. Bottom line, if CO2 is truly the cause and will result in run away global warming, then we are already dead. The one woman claimed we only had 10 years to act. Nothing will happen in 10 years, so according to these experts we have already killed our earth. In 10 years we will likely be laughing at these experts that are so blind to the truth.

Reply to  Travis Casey
September 1, 2016 7:01 pm

That video was made in 2007. We are already near their 10 year tipping point. Also, here are the results of the models those experts appeared so confident in back in 2007. They simply believe in a failed model, and their models prove it.comment image

September 1, 2016 10:43 pm

The global warming fear industry reply’s on taxpayer subsidies . Either grants and loan guarantees for uneconomic businesses or new taxes to keep the poor and middle income earners in line.
Governments with a no limit and non repayable credit card are the fuel . Take that away and global warming is solved . The Democrats promise welfare roles to energy sector workers and fuel poverty deaths to those that will not be able to pay their energy bills .
As they have recently demonstrated with their “when did they know ” witch hunt the tables are turned on the perpetrators of one of the largest scams in history . It might as well start with AG’s signing onto their Common Interest Cover Thy Ass Agreement . Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition discouraging the waste of $Billions that will do virtually nothing to control the earth temperature to within 2 degrees . So they can’t say they didn’t know .

Marlo Lewis
September 2, 2016 9:15 am

The Competitive Enterprise Institute posted the first book-length critique of An Inconvenient Truth back in March 2007. It’s available here: Still useful IMHO.

September 2, 2016 8:32 pm

It’s more worthwhile watching The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy than An Inconvenient Truth. Both are science fiction but one is much more entertaining. Considering Douglas Adams’ film grossed over $100 million while Al Gore’s film less than $50 million, it appears that people find the Vogon’s destruction of the Earth more appealing than catastrophic global warming
Global warming will destroy Earth! Time to sing the dolphin song “So long and thanks for all the fish”

Verified by MonsterInsights