By Jim Steele
I was interviewed by journalists for a video journalist group, Imperfect Union, who make videos for Facebook Watch. They interview people with opposing views on a wide range of topics. This was their first climate oriented video. They sought a discussion on the possible effects of climate change on California’s wildfires. The journalists were very nice and seemed totally unbiased. I liked that The Imperfect Union tries to create a respectful dialogue between opposing viewpoints, but due to their contract with Facebook, their videos are limited to 6 minutes.
The interviews lasted about 3 hours. Sometimes we were interviewed singly and other times together. They then add a segment where we, with opposing views, are photographed working together for a good cause. So part of our 3 hours was spent at the Peninsula Humane Society that had been supporting their local chapters that were dealing with pets stranded by the Camp Fires. Unfortunately, because the interviews were condensed into 6 minutes of video time many of my arguments didn’t make the final cut. Although I like their intentions to create a respectful dialogue, the time was far too short to be meaningful and the editing subjective. A red team-blue team climate debate, that can similarly and respectfully delve into these issues, but in more detail manner is what the public really needs in order to separate extreme climate catastrophe speculation from more solid scientific investigations .
We were not told who we would be debating until we first met in order to prevent us from doing google searches that might provide “ammunition” during the interview. My opponent was Laura Neish, a member of the SF Bay area’s 350.org, Bill McKibben’s organization that relentlessly pushes the idea of the 97% of the scientists agree. Laura was totally unaware of the scientific literature regards wildfires and many other climate issues. So she continuously pushed 350.org’s advocacy of the mythical talking point that 97% of the scientists and all the scientific organizations agree that human produced CO2 is causing climate change and all observed catastrophes, despite the fact there has never been a survey of scientists regards climate and wildfires.
The Imperfect Union gets 100,000 views or more. So I suggest that it is a good place for people to add comments and improve the discussion with more detailed points that An Imperfect Union’s format could not allow.
View the 6 minute video below.
UPDATE: The original post linked to a video on Facebook, which note everyone could view. The video has been updated with a local copy. – Anthony
She does a lot of virtue signalling, hoping that by getting the word out then someone out there will sacrifice the good life for the weather benefit.
Facebook and their contractor all goodness & light up to the editing stage.
Were the subjects offered the opportunity to review the heavily edited (180 to 6 min) final cut?
Ah no . . .
The Imperfect Union will be perfectly in step with the alarmists in no time.
When the green mafia see this they’ll be straight on the phone to Mark & Co.
It’s a small World at that level.
The Left and other fraudsters call it Climate Change or sometimes just Climate but they really mean ‘Global Warming caused by burning fossil fuels’. Climate has always been changing. Compelling evidence as follows is that CO2 , in spite of being a ghg, has little to no effect on climate.
1. In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level [3].
2. Over the Phanerozoic eon (last 542 million years) there is no correlation between CO2 level and AGT [3].
3. During the last and previous glaciations AGT trend changed directions before CO2 trend [2].
4. Since AGT has been directly and accurately measured world wide (about 1895), AGT has exhibited up and down trends while CO2 trend has been only up. [2]
5. Since 2001, average temperature uptrend calculated by Global Climate Models (GCMs, aka General Circulation Models) which assume CO2 causes AGW is about twice measured. (Section 8 of my blog/analysis)
6. Analysis of CO2 and Temperature data 2002-2008 shows a close correlation between dCO2/dT and lower tropospheric temperature. This demonstrates that CO2 follows temperature and not the reverse. [30]
The references [ ] are given as live links in my blog/analysis (b/a) at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
NASA/RSS has been measuring average global water vapor by satellite and reporting numerical data since 1988. The data is reachable through http://www.remss.com/measurements/atmospheric-water-vapor/tpw-1-deg-product which eventually gets to http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_201810.time_series.txt where the last two digits are the month. When a new month is reported the previous month is deleted.
According to these data, WV trend has been increasing about 1.5% per decade, 8% since 1960. This is about twice that calculated from the increased vapor pressure due to average temperature increase of global surface water. Data since Nov, 2017 have been below the linear trend.
WV is a ghg and its increase has contributed (my estimate about 35% 1909 to 2017) to planet warming as a result of the (misleadingly named) ‘greenhouse effect’. The slight increase in warming is welcome and self-limiting but some infrastructure improvement is probably cost effective to reduce flood damage.
“How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported worldwide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?”
One of the most compelling reasons to reject the global warming hypothesis is that most of the people who support it are neurotic, dogmatic, patronizing, monomaniac, intellectually challenged, overbearing and outright pains in the neck.
Yes, as Feynman famously said “Science is the belief in the neuroticism of your opponents”
Richard Feynman “Things stupid laymen believe” 1985
I think you’re missing the irony, Steven…
Absolutely!
I forgot to add pretentious, querulous, contentious and prone to extended bouts of sophistry and logical fallacies, as is manifest in your reply which is replete with the following:
1. Appeal to authority
2. Bandwagon Fallacy
3. Circular Argument
Besides,the quote by Richard Feynman proves nothing because
1. He is a quantum physicist, and his skill set does not relate to climatology
2. The meaning of his remark has been gravely misinterpreted
3. The remark has been misquoted, fraudulently if not deliberately.
Of course, I can be accused in turn of the ad hominem fallacy, except in the case of global warming, it is an accurate summary of the behavior of its adherents, and this behavior has had a direct effect on the outcome of the debate.
Global warming is a hypothesis only and anyone who treats it as a gospel truth is seriously demented.
I challenge you to prove otherwise.
You also forgot “credulous to the point of idiocy” and “prone to doglike obedience to state authority.”
And that’s only a start.
Dodgy, at best.
Dialogues that get edited to six minutes?
That is censorship in action.
Editing choices decided by the editor’s personal opinion regarding what wll play well on Facebook.
Nor are “fair” dialogues maintained by a third party ever “fair”.
Even if they somehow keep the dialogue under “Roberts Rules of Order”, or “The Queensbury Rules”, conditions such as you describe where you are paired against someone professing religion, leaves monitors/mediators unable to truly steer a central course.
All too often, mediators tend to follow a guideline that all discussions are successful when they meet in the middle. A belief that allows discussions between extremes, e.g. Churchill and Hitler, to be considered successful if Hitler only kills 5.5 million civilians.
Science should be held to scientific principles, practice, evidentiary proof, replication and independent verification.
Win/win discussions belong in the circular file.
An additional riposte to the claim that all the world’s scientific societies endorse alarmism are:
1) Their reports were made (I assume) by committees of self-selected volunteers who were (I assume) 97% greenies who are too-ready to assume that any human impact on Nature has bad, indeed catastrophic, consequences.
2) Their reports do not all necessarily come to an alarmist conclusion.
3) A few scientific societies have not endorsed the consensus (Russia and an Austrailian geological society that was unable to agree on an update to its prior alarmst report).
4) The procedure by which some scientific societies have come to an alarmist conclusion is disgraceful (e.g., the APS and the AGU), as a result of top-down pressure by greenie officials.
I wonder if the debunking of the Global Warming Petition Project by Ron here was cribbed from an alarmist site? Because here’s what I have on the signatories:
“Of 31,486 scientists who have signed, 3,804 are trained in atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences; 935 in computer and mathematical methods; 5,812 in physics and aerospace sciences, and 4,821 in chemistry.”
Please provide corrections with citations if this is incorrect. Thanks! Also wonder whatever came of the Senate hearings conducted with ~700 scientists including several IPCC expert reviewers, does anyone know? Sample quotations from my files:
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.” – Vincent Gray.
“Most leading geologists throughout the world know that the IPCC’s view of Earth processes are implausible if not impossible.” – Tom Segalstad.
Etc etc…
Remaining 16,114 scientists are not trained?
No, they’re still scientists obviously, they just aren’t trained in those particular disciplines – the ones that are of particular relevance to the subject under discussion.
Speaking of which, hope someone can advise me of the outcome of the Senate hearings. there are (or at least were) Utube videos of segments, some quite long, but wondering why and how the whole thing was clearly relegated to the round file.
More “97% Consensus” nonsense. I’m not surprised coming from 350.org.
Fire is a natural phenomenon here in Australia some seeds will not germinate until burnt. Every square centimetre of Plant Earth has been on fire in the past and will be on fire in the future. Forest management: try burning it twice.
I hesitate to enter into this conversation, as it is clear that any amount of discussion is not going to change anyone’s mind here. The name-calling in this stream is plenty of evidence of unreasonableness and incivility. Nevertheless, as CIO for 350 Bay Area, here’s my 2 cents:
First, 350 Bay Area is not part of 350.org. We are a community group that we formed that is inspired, and, on occasion, supported by 350.org.
Second, on the Imperfect Union piece: We feel the video did not well represent the conversation that took place. It was more a corporate fluff piece to show that people who disagree can have a civil conversation in person, countering the vileness found on Facebook. It was not journalism, as evidenced by the agreement between Laura and Jim, that was not shown, that we should get off of fossil fuels.
On the issue, since this discussion centers on scientific consensus, I’ll offer two rebuttals to the challenges to the ~97% finding:
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause#.XBFMwmhKhXk and
https://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm
Also, not addressed here is the overwhelming confirmation by scientific societies of AGW. This list of almost 200 societies ( http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html ) includes highly respected organization. What is the equivalent list denying AGW? Dissing the IPCC also disregards the substantial qualifications of its worldwide participants.
I agree that consensus among scientists does not equal truth. Scientific “truth” is always the “best guess” as based on evidence. There is significant evidence that the IPCC projections have understated AGW: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm
I’ll make a point about risk. Whether or not you agree that AGW is happening, ask the question, what if you are wrong? If AGW is not happening, and we pursue an aggressive reduction of fossil fuels – what is the downside? Answer: Clean energy, less pollution, perhaps at a greater cost – though the trend is unmistakably for renewable energy to become cheaper than fossil fuels -already cheaper than coal and now challenging natural gas, esp. when huge subsidies for fossil fuels are taken out. And if AGW is happening, the downside is a hot, ruined planet for millennia to come.
Finally, I’ll make a point of about delay. With the feedback loops and tipping points that earth’s climate has (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/aug/15/humans-are-pushing-the-earth-closer-to-a-climate-cliff) delay is the problem. IMHO McKibben’s point is well taken: winning slowly is the same as losing. A runaway climate is like a hill that gets steeper and steeper, turning into a cliff. This is un-terraforming 101. Concern about the climate used to be bipartisan. The profit-driven doubt funded by Exxon (most likely, illegally), Koch, etc. – and embraced by Republicans following Bush’s flip – has delayed the transition to clean energy, making it much more expensive and difficult. Further delay in putting on the brakes will make it impossible to turn back, if we we haven’t passed the point of no return already.
Like I said, I do not expect to change the mind of anyone here. But I wanted to register a rebuttal, and again emphasize that Jim and Laura did agree that getting off of fossil fuels is needed.