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.
D. Re: 1930’s — drought is from cooling not heat. Completely speculating. Pitiful. And it was not only hot in the “dust bowl” regions.
“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.
Okay, I can hear Wundersamer thundering down the hallway. Sorry I talked so much. It was fun, though!
🙂 Bye!
Excellent liveblogging, and thanks.
================
kim! Coming from one of the wittiest here — thank you, so much!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Excellent !
Will we be able to see/view this debate? I was listening to Mark Levin instead – sorry. Hope I can view it later…
Here is the youtube account for Heartland. Check there in a day or so. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzp8QlVd_hDLfK1LMLDu3dQ
Mark Levin is great!
You CAN view it later at the same link as above. But here it is again: https://youtu.be/WlASubg7rGE
Mucho Gracies!
Or is it Muchas Gracias – no spell check for Espanol…
Climateurs of the world, unite!
They did, and they are called the IPCC.
Just FYI, a 2007 WUWT thread about “An Inconvenient Truth”
Detailed Comments by Bob Edelman
Here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/04/detailed-comments-on-an-inconvenient-truth/
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.
Cool. Thanks for the support! #(:))
The play by play was a hoot Janice.
david(mhoffer)! Thank you! I’m glad to see that you are feeling better (well enough to comment, here fairly regularly, now, I mean).
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.
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.
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.
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.
I watched, but it was difficult because Denning’s panic was plainly visible. Painfully so.
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.”
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. https://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temperature-record
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.
Link:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
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!
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?
…Wow, that was a pathetic video/debate….I support “The Heartland Institute”, but that was just too hard to watch….
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. 🙂
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
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!
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.
Why do we need a “solution” to a NON-PROBLEM???
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”.
Hmmmm, where did my post go?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=1h2m8s
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.
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.
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.