‘Climate debate of the decade’ video released

WUWT readers likely recall that the Pay Per View video event went horribly wrong from a technical standpoint and was essentially unwatchable online. This new recording, which was not online, was professionally done, and is completely watchable and intelligible. It also features full screen slides. Video follows.

From the publisher:

On June 12, 2018 renowned experts, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. David Titley, Dr. Patrick Moore and Dr. Judith Curry met in Charleston, West Virginia to discuss climate change from varying perspectives. The panelists were asked to address two specific questions: To what extent is the use of fossil fuels affecting climate change? What can and should be done to offset those effects? This event was presented by Spilman Thomas & Battle, a full-service, super-regional law firm serving local, regional, national and international businesses. ©️2018 Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

+ 100,000 Anthony…Tanx !


Okay, but is there a term that means the opposite of pay per view like maybe view per (offered) pay?


The ex green peace fellow wins by far best presentation ever beats Mann ect hands down


[SNIP – libelous statement with no basis in fact -mod]


I was there. How can it be libelous to state a fact about how the audience received Moore?

Apologies for stating what we can see on the video.

[you say his presentation was “full of errors” but don’t say what they are so they can be examined as to whether they are truth, or just your opinion -mod]

Clyde Spencer

One would think that it would be relatively easy to pick two or three of the most egregious ‘lies’ and present them with citations as to why they were purposefully wrong. Is that asking too much? After all, you were there!


How can it be libelous to state a fact about how the audience received Moore?

My impression was that he got a more positive response than the other debaters, given that the overall audience response was pretty darn tepid.

Can you give me a time stamp or two so I can find what you’re talking about?

Clyde Spencer

I’d have to agree that the audience response was less enthusiastic to Moore, at the conclusion of his presentation, than to the others. However, he was the minority position and did a very good job of presenting it. Considering that the accepted paradigm is the opposite position, I can imagine that the audience wasn’t happy to hear things that violated their belief system. Not unlike trying to be polite to someone who tells you your baby is ugly.

Gunga Din

This could be fun.
What did Alley say about how the audience received Dr. Moore?

1. Everyone that cheered him is related to the Koch Brothers?
2. Everyone that cheered him got one of those “gas cards” from Big Oil?
3. Everyone that cheered him were really cheering for Mann? (His supporters are a bit
4. Everyone that cheered him didn’t know Ally was there?
5. Everyone that cheered him …. ?

Mod, if you wish to participate in the comment thread, why don’t you do so under a real name, instead of using the anonymous coward handle “mod?”

(Left it here for the mod you unfairly attacked. Now you stop attacking Mods, get back on topic) MOD


Then they wouldn’t be a “Moderator”, they would be a “Commentator”…D’OH !

Gunga Din

Of course, only the “mod” on duty knows just what Alley said that merited the “snip”.
(The fact that we were told the at all puts WUWT above other sites where a comment just disappears with no none knowing a comment was ever there.)
For a WUWT mod to use “libelous statement”?
Either the original comment was more than just how the crowd responded to Dr. Moore or the mod-on-duty made a bad call.
I suspect that the former is the truth. YOU are the one who introduced the crowd’s response in YOUR defense.
I trust the mods.
(When I’ve been “snipped”, even if I didn’t agree, I understood why.)


How doe we up-rate the Mod’s comments?
+100 Mod!

Hocus Locus

libelous statement with no basis in fact -mod

Bush was an inside job.

Clyde Spencer

I would agree that he was the most polished speaker.


Despite the ’30 year old graph’ curve ball (implying pages2k superiority) and snipe.

Bruce Cobb

I just can’t stand listening to LiarMann and his continuous stream of lies.

This is great! Thanks, Anthony!


I skimmed through to the end of each speaker looking for applause and audience reaction. It was pretty bleah. What pictures there were of the audience showed them looking less than totally engaged.

The only debater who seemed to get any reaction was Patrick Moore who did manage to get a few chuckles.

My impression is that most people are pretty darn fed up with climate change. I don’t think the debate changed many minds.

In the recent Munk Debate they took an audience poll at the beginning of the debate and at the end. The winner was the team who changed the most minds. That kind of thing might have been helpful for this debate.

Technically, the video was very well done.

Dr. Mann is a convincing speaker, but, unfortunately, much of what he speaks just is not true, and he uses what I call “scare pictures” to illustrate his talk.

Dr. Curry is very focused on facts, and offers much needed perspective, with NO “scare pictures”.

Dr. Titley is a very polished speaker, who engages the audience with eye contact, but he too uses “scare pictures”, and he appeals to emotions in a subtle, manipulative way.

Dr. Moore is, by far, the most engaging speaker of the group, keeping eye contact with the audience the whole time, using great graphics without “scare pictures”, and speaking with convincing passion, like a motivational speaker who could command a loyal following.

Dr. Moore simply ruled the podium and, thus, ruled the discussion. Well done, Dr. Moore.

My above comment was based on watching the first hour of the video, which was the main presentation.

I went back to watch the question and answer session, only to see that the sound quality diminished substantially. The producers fudged on the sound there really bad — the sound is hollow, like the people speaking are in a large cave. What happened to the sound there? — it’s terrible! The first hour is crisp, clear, full, and then the question and answer portion goes to sound hell. I did not watch any further, because I cannot deal with the horrible sound quality of this portion.

Also, to call this a “debate” is a misnomer. It is a consortium of opposing views — at least, the first hour is.


The difference is probably that, during the question segment, they are trying to pick up audio from the audience.

Nick Preservati

The sound difference is because they were speaking through hand held microphones instead of at the podium, which was wired into the recording equipment. The Q&A was not wired intotjerecording equipment but instead picked up by external microphones.

Honest liberty

[snip – libelous statement abut Mann -mod] He is a disgusting human and and even worse professional.
Listening to him lie is sickening. Where was the debate? I wanted to see Moore put him on blast for lying about the data and cherry picking

Honest liberty

It isn’t libel if accurate. He hid the decline, engaged in scientific fraud that was foundational in all of these murderous policies that disproportionately affect the poor and middle class, so yes, he is a liar as we all know And yes he is disgusting for being the primary agent in pushing this agenda. How is that libel? It’s a fair appraisal of who this person is.
Would you not call an accessory to murder a disgusting human?
I think it is quite accurate but I accept your disagreement, this is your site

Greg Cavanagh

An accessory to murder simply has knowledge of the murder after the fact. He’s probably very afraid because he’s within the close circle of friends of the murderer. That puts him in a very difficult position. It’s not his fault he got there.

No, I wouldn’t call an accessory to murder a disgusting human.

Mann on the other hand took up the challenge to remove the historical ups and downs of world temperatures, becoming an awarded hero in the process. He’s painted himself into a corner, but he seems to be unaware of his situation.

Honest liberty

So then he is a Co-conspirator; even worse

Greg Cavanagh

You really don’t like humans do you.

honest liberty

Greg, I am clearly missing something from your post. Is there sarcasm involved?

I would think that reading through my distaste for a man who was a pillar of this CAGW hoax (which has been shown and admitted to decimate the poor) would clearly demonstrate I despise him because of his character, not the untold masses who are being harmed by such policies.

Here is a look at the amazing Greenland smb melt currently underway over the last 23 days.

comment image

Who knows how low this will go.

Taylor Pohlman

You forgot the /sarc tag. BTW, this is the second year in a row with significantly above average SMB, and (roughly) average melt. Overall Arctic ice volume is above average this year as well. Will be interesting to see the attempts to explain this away, particularly if, as I suspect, sea ice extent and volume is also higher this September. Stay tined, could be a popcorn-saturated summer.

Taylor Pohlman

That would be ‘tuned’, not ‘tined’


A pity. After reading your first post I fetched my pitchfork and began sharpening and polishing in anticipation of some real action. Also, alas, I don’t have a tuning fork.

What will be interesting to see is the effect that this change is going to have on the upcoming NH winter. I think that Europe is going to get hit hard this winter, my prediction from 4 years ago. What I find fascinating is the changes coming together to bring this about. I save daily pics to have a handy library to study how all of this is coming together as change sets in.


Overall Arctic ice volume is above average this year as well.

Say what! As far as I can tell from the sea ice page the ice extent is about two standard deviations below the satellite era average. We can, however, say that it is doing better than it has been in the last few years.

Based on the 60 year cycle we may be into a cooling phase. Arctic sea ice may be through decreasing and may have started increasing but it is really too early to say that with any confidence.

Steven Fraser

Extent and volume are different metrics for sea ice.


That’s true as far as it goes. When I look at the temperature record, I don’t see the kind of temperatures that would create a lot of extra ice.

Unless someone can provide some plausible numbers, I’m going to be skeptical that ice volume is anywhere near the long term average.

Kind of. It turns out that most of the ice volume numbers which the climate alarmists cite are not actually ice volume measurements. They’re just guesses, based loosely on ice extent.

Arctic sea ice EXTENT peaked in 1979, but there were NO Arctic sea ice VOLUME measurements before 2003. There was nothing from which to estimate ice thickness except an occasional submarine transit.

Yet climate activists very frequently show graphs of Arctic sea ice volume which go all the way back to 1979.

So, what are they graphing?

It’s not measurement data, it’s PIOMAS output. PIOMAS is a computer model. Its primary input is sea ice extent. Its output is SIMULATED sea ice volume, supposedly derived from sea ice extent — a derivation which is not actually possible.

PIOMAS 1979-2002 is absolute garbage. Most politely: it’s a WAG (Wild-Ass Guess).
comment image

Texans sing about it:

Dr Moore’s presentation is very well done, and a powerful counter argument to Dr Mann’s weak opening statement, imo.

Bruce Cobb

I thought Dr. Curry did the best job presenting the Skeptic/Climate Realist side. Her arguments are very well-reasoned. Moore tends to be all over the place, and trips up frequently, though I like him.

Honest liberty

Well, my appreciation was for Mr. Moore because he provided quite significant accepted data to substantiate his claim. It appeared to me that Ms. Curry was less particular, but really drove home the uncertainty. It would have served both of them to collaborate on presentations so they overlapped, and one of them should have highlighted Mann’s bullying tactics and fraud, especially taking exception to the term “contrarian”, which was clearly used to poison the well.
They should have requested he explain what he meant by hiding the decline

william matlack

If prior to watching this video I was asked who of the four participents I thought was most likely to take to guffawing and arm waving Iwould have said Mann and Iwould have been correct.

The thing with Moore that sets him apart, in my view, is his eye contact with the audience, whereas Dr. Curry seems more laid back in demeanor and in eye contact, as she looks down most of the time (like Dr. Mann), as she reads her presentation.

Moore performs his presentation, whereas Curry reads her presentation. The reason Moore “tripped up” occasionally was precisely because he was trying NOT to JUST read the words, but to SPEAK the words with connection, which is a keeping-your-place sort of thing and a sign of maybe improvising your words off script.

Don’t get me wrong, Curry is subtly expressive in her own way (it’s not like she monotonically reads her words — she reads them like a conversation might sound, and so she does a good read), but Moore seems more rehearsed for an audience — he projects out and engages viewers, like he is used to being a public speaker. Curry did not have the same risk of “tripping up”, because she read EXACTLY what she wrote, I suspect.

Titley also has good audience connection with his eye contact and projection outward. He also seems like a more seasoned public speaker than Mann or Curry.

Surprisingly, Mann lacks eye contact and engagement. One might think that, as much as he is in the public eyes, he would be more adept at the eye-contact thing. He, like Curry was looking down most of the time. And he too gave a good read.

Dr. Mann and Dr. Curry might both benefit from some public-speaking coaching, … not that I am any sort of master, … but I HAVE done my share of stage performing, and so I am tuned to good performers.

The public speaking contest was between Titley and Moore. The fact contest was between Mann and Curry. I think Titley and Moore had more audience appeal, and so any minds that were comforted or changed would have been done so by either of these two.


I thought Moore overdid the eye contact a bit – occasionally it was unnerving?


Bruce Cobb

Anyway, for those keeping score, that’s
Skeptics: 1
Alarmists: 0

Alan Tomalty

1) Michael Mann’s answer to the 1st question about why not sequester carbon from the coal plants ; was that if you require this, then you doom coal even more( he said there is a war against coal which is true) because coal is having a hard time competing on price with natural gas. This answer was absurd. The reason is that Michael Mann wants every coal plant to be shut down. So in fact he was arguing the skeptic position.

2) David Titley’s answer to the 3rd question was absurd. The question was on extreme weather events. He said that there are more droughts and more flooding. The flooding is not caused by sea levels rising uncontrollably which everyone agrees on. Therefore by Titley’s logic the flooding must be caused by climate change. Since flooding and droughts are exact opposites. how does increasing CO2 cause opposite results? Not to mention that no extreme weather event database in the world shows any more extreme weather events than there ever were. In another part of Titley’s answer he says that the only way that the climate models can show any temperature rise is because of CO2. He says that the climate models have no other explanation for it. He neglects to mention that the climate models have code directly programmed into them that creates temperature flux increases that correspond to CO2 increases.

3) Mann’s answer to the 5th question was extremely disingenuous. He refused to admit any fraud in the hockey stick graph. Don’t forget that Wegman’s committee investigation concluded that Mann did not even understand basic statistical tests such as coefficient of determination. Also Mann dissed the whole paleoclimate science by saying that any data further back than 30000 years was useless.

4) Titley’s answer to the 7th question was ridiculous on his 2 main points. The question was on sea level rise. His 1st point was that sea level would rise 25-30 feet in 200 years. The past sea level rise has shown no acceleration especially in the last 70 years. As shown by tidal gauges it has been 1.8 mm/year and by satellites 3 mm per year. So Titley said it won’t happen overnight, but his figures show it would have to accelerate to 37mm per year on the lower end and 45 mm per year on the high end. He gives no explanation as to why the 12-15 multiple of acceleration. His 2nd point was that there would be 500 million climate refugees because of sea level rise. If the seas did rise 30 feet, the refugees would move inland and would have no reason to emigrate. Except for Holland and some South Sea islands, every country in the world has elevations that are much higher tha 30 feet. So his prediction of mass emigration exodus because of sea level rise is preposterous.

5) In his closing address, Dr. Mann again brought up the lie about extreme weather events and recommended the web site Skeptical Science.com. That site is based on one lie after another.

6) In his closing address, Dr. Titley again brought up the comment that society can move to other forms of energy that would be cheaper. He neglected to say what they would be.


Titley’s “other forms of energy:” unicorn farts and lunar collectors.


Seems Pages2K is the new ‘hockey stick’ shield.,.. and thus requires more probing, analysis and critique as appropriate. Mann seems to think this one ‘group effort’ of 80+ ‘scientists’ is the ‘re-newed consensus’ leadership team overcoming the climategate hocker stick elucidation.


Where did the admiral find the chart he shows at 37min38sec? It is completely out of sync with any of the other charts of the same info I have seen. The one shown in the article by Dr.Christy and McKitrick (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/03/the-hansen-forecasts-30-years-later/) is completely different.


Thanks for posting this! I really wanted to see it!

Mann managed to be less obnoxious than normal, Titley came off as a goofball to me, I thought Curry was the adult in the room but she isn’t a dynamic speaker, Moore was a nice counter to Mann. His presentation was probably too shocking for the brainwashed to accept.

Hopefully more will check out Climate ect than SKS. It’s amazing to me how many PHD scientists think SKS has valid arguments. I’ve had discussions with many, pointing out how they are deceiving readers with misdirection and omissions of important facts. Scary how empirical measurements and citations to peer reviewed papers as evidence of their malfeasance fails to sway supposed scientists. The lay public has no chance in seeing through SKS propaganda.

Ian Macdonald

The thing that Michael Mann omitted is that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is logarithmic, and that is the main reason why further increases have only small effects on temperature. The effect becomes near-flatline at around 40ppm, and we have ten times that amount.

Doesn’t require a screenful of mindboggling maths either, the calculation is relatively simple.

Nigel in Santa Barbara

Watched the whole thing. The arguments by Mann and Titley were not convincing at all. It was just more posturing and trumpet blowing that catastrophe is around the corner. More of the same tired claims.
Moore and Curry had more objective data on their side with pretty convincing points that CO2 is helping us. Climate change is real, but the small changes so far in CO2 (compared to what it’s been in the past) seem to be beneficial.

honest liberty

while it was not convincing to us because we know better, the authority and firmness of their speech works on the simple minded. :/


I tried to listen impartially (it’s not really possible), as if I’d never heard of these people, and my prize for presentation would go to Titley, for content it would have to be Curry. Mann would come out bottom on both, too many headlines and too much self-promotion. Moore tried to fit too much in, the graphs were too information-dense for this setting. Mann and Titley tried to rubbish Moore by verbal and by body language but he was lucky enough to have the last word and made a good response. They did not attack Curry in the same way except in the general statement that all the ‘contrarian’ arguments had been exploded ( just go to the right website). Curry comes over as hesitant which doesn’t help but it is obviously difficult to talk about uncertainty with the same level of confidence that is used to preach the ‘consensus’.
I thought the debate was useful in setting out the different arguments: whether it changed anyone’s mind I doubt.


The problem with “doing something” is that the said actions are then used as proof that there actually was a dragon and that the dragon was actually slain, just like the Montreal Protocol banning Freon is credited for “closing” the ozone hole without proof of causality.


Mann likes to use the term “business as usual” in describing anthropogenic climate drivers; rcp8.5. Evrytime he opens his mouth rcp8.5 comes out. He is an avatar of the rcp8.5 media fear campaign which has cost us a diagusting amount of time and money that could have met a better fate.


Having listened to Mike Mann I cannot believe how much Confirmation Bias he exudes!


M. Mann has no arguments. For many years now he claims his political correct propaganda fews, he becomes more and more boring. What was the second guy from Pen State? A comedian? Thx. for J Curry for her objective fews about real climatology!

R Dennis

Thanks for posting this presentation. It truly was a gift to see and hear this discussion after paying $10 and struggling with the unintelligible live feed.

The Mann and Titley argument seems to come down to, We have the Founding Fathers of CO2 impact, we have the observations, and we know recent warming is unprecedented, so take us on scientific plausibility and faith and believe us. And besides, all of our friends agree with us.

The Curry position seems to be, not so fast. The science is simply not settled and there is much to learn. Plus, there are reasonable ways to address the problem, should it turn out that there is a problem. (She said more than just this, but I am simplifying)

The Moore position is virtually the opposite of the Mann and Titley position, and it has a bit of the same taint of dogmatism that characterizes the alarmist position. Still Moore presented evidence and provides listeners the opportunity to evaluate that evidence. I’m not sure Mann and Titley were as compelling.

Great discussion. We need more of these, and it would be nice if the format allowed the scientists to question each other. That might be too inflammatory at this time though.