Climate Crusading Youngsters Erupt After DNC Officials Reject Global Warming Debate

From The Daily Caller

August 22, 2019 4:55 PM ET

  • Climate activists associated with the Sunrise Movement shouted down members of the Democratic National Committee after they rejected a proposal to host a single-issue debate on global warming.

    Several people associated with the group interrupted the DNC meeting, singing the union protest song “Which Side Are You On?” Their protests came after the party voted 17-8 Thursday in San Francisco against a resolution to place climate change as the top issue during the debate format.

    “We deserve a chance at a livable future,” one activist shouted after the vote. “We deserve a climate debate.”


  • The town hall comes after DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in June that the party will not hold a debate on global warming. (RELATED: CNN Invites 9 Democratic Candidates To Climate Town Hall. Here’s The Line-Up)
    Democratic National Commitee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez reacts to the results of the U.S. midterm elections at a Democratic election night rally in Washington, U.S. November 6, 2018. REUTERS/Al Drago
    Democratic National Commitee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez reacts to the results of the U.S. midterm elections at a Democratic election night rally in Washington, U.S. November 6, 2018. REUTERS/Al Drago

    Perez said in a Medium post that month that climate change is just one of several high-priority issues, and that it would be unfair to host a debate revolving around it. The DNC has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

    Symone Sanders, Biden’s senior adviser, was among those who urged the committee to vote down the debate, telling other officials at the conference that it would be “dangerous territory in the middle of a Democratic primary process.” Her comments contrast with those Biden made in June. He told a Greenpeace activist at the time: “I’m all in.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Doug Huffman
August 26, 2019 10:22 am

ALL of this is foretold in the Ancient Athenians’ struggle to maintain their democracy. They failed for enfranchising barbarians without doxastic commitment – skin-in-the-game.

I wonder how Gibs Me Dat! is said in Attic Greek.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Doug Huffman
August 26, 2019 9:22 pm

Dumb down the barbarians, threaten them with hobgoblins. Then when you fail to tilt at windmills you shouldn’t be surprised when the villagers light their torches and grab their pitchforks. They are coming for you ALGORE.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 27, 2019 9:40 am

Well, they should come for him – and Suzuki, DiCaprio, Harry Ford, Soros, Princes Charles and Philip, the lot. If there’s going to be a revolution to make the “1%” pay for their extravagant lifestyles, why on earth would you exclude them? You like plutocrats just fine, as long as they smile nice and pet you on the head for being good little Green Fascists? Toss you some funding money they can write off on their taxes? The hypocrisy of the whole stinking edifice is enough to make a vulture retch.

Stefan Youngs
August 26, 2019 10:36 am

Then problem is these Sunrise Movement people don’t want a real debate.. they want a platform for their one-sided views. They are not at all interested in a genuine debate because in their minds, there is no need to consider contrary views to their own, the issue is ‘settled’.

It’s sad to think of the billions wasted on the education of this groupthink membership.

One can only hope for the return of an education system that informs, of course, but above all, one that empowers with the confidence to question and expose opinions and biases to critical and honest review, and tries its best to rid one of hubris, and replace it with humility in the face of complexity.

Reply to  Stefan Youngs
August 26, 2019 11:37 am

We deserve a climate debate.“.

Take them at their word. Offer them a debate. It’s what they say they want. It’s what climate sceptics have always wanted. Surely the Heartland Institute for example could formally offer them a debate.

BTW what has happened to Will Happer and the Red Team Blue Team thingy? I haven’t heard a dicky bird.

Bryan A
Reply to  Mike Jonas
August 26, 2019 9:26 pm

They don’t want a Climate Change Debate. This could through a huge monkey wrench into their Climate Crusade. They want a Climate Action Debate. They want to know which candidate is most willing to destroy Capitalism in the name of Climate Gaia.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Mike Jonas
August 28, 2019 8:41 am

No! A ‘progressive’s’ idea of debate is them shouting at you until you give up. Or go away. Or finally lose it and punch them out (but less likely for a conservative to do than a liberal).

Esmon Dinucci
Reply to  Stefan Youngs
August 28, 2019 9:36 am

Totally agree

August 26, 2019 10:38 am

DNC officials can read polls, and climate issues are low on the list of concerns.
Only professionals can afford Climate Hysteria.
And splitting the Left vote is a threat to Dem success.
Who knows, but it may even divide all the dead registered Democrats, who consistently vote the ticket.

Reply to  Bob Hoye
August 26, 2019 12:07 pm

Divide the dead registered democrats? Ohh … the horror!

Calling Michael Mann with pigtails to come out from under a rock and his wood in hand to keep the tree ring circus going!

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  eyesonu
August 26, 2019 4:36 pm

“Wood in hand” is a perfect summary of everything his research amounts to. Sorry, couldn’t resist. 😀

Reply to  Michael H Anderson
August 26, 2019 7:41 pm


Reply to  Bob Hoye
August 26, 2019 12:47 pm

Yep, the political operatives of the Democrats are no doubt aware of the UN’s global survey of important quality of life issues, and know that climate change rates bottom of the pile.

Richard Meyer
Reply to  Bob Hoye
August 27, 2019 1:25 pm

I believe there are three critical issues for the U.S. and the world in 2020. 1) flip the Senate to Democrat 2) replace Trump 3) climate change. Climate change must be approached like we approached WWII. Doing this will expand jobs, improve infrastructure, advance tech, enable expanded Social Security, pay for universal healthcare, improve education.

Reply to  Richard Meyer
August 27, 2019 3:44 pm

Richard, you forgot the /sarc suffix again 🙂

August 26, 2019 10:41 am

“Climate activists associated with the Sunrise Movement shouted down members of the Democratic National Committee after they rejected a proposal to host a single-issue debate on global warming.”

What? They didn’t like being ignored??? Oh, those bad, bad kids!!!!

Is there a disturbance in The Farce? Is it possible that the very things they rely on to spread Their Word (instant communications, e.g.) are working against them now?

John Bell
August 26, 2019 10:43 am

After the protest they all got in their cars and drove home.

August 26, 2019 10:47 am

Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself.

Dr. Bob
August 26, 2019 10:47 am

With this subject so easily proven wrong, and the solutions so disrupting, I can see why the DNC has walked away from this topic. But I hope the candidates continue their bickering as that leads to disunity which is just fine with me.

Bruce Cobb
August 26, 2019 10:49 am

A big Trump win next year is looking more and more certain. Now, where’d I put the popcorn?

August 26, 2019 10:52 am

Spoiled children never get better whilst you keep indulging them. And fanatics often cannot be reasoned with.

Steve case
August 26, 2019 10:52 am

The Democrats will debate methods to best deal with “The Climte Crisis” and nothing else. And they will then say, “See we’ve had the debate you’ Been whining about now shut up”

August 26, 2019 11:00 am

The only thing I agree with the Sunrise Movement about is that the Democratic candidates should have this debate. It will provide all sorts of ammunition that will only help Trump in 2020 which is why Biden’s advisors consider it ‘dangerous territory’.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 26, 2019 11:33 am

Yes, we definitely want the Democrats to have a climate change debate.

We all know they can’t make a plausible case for it. It will be interesting watching them try. No doubt, appeals to authority will be flying all over the place.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 26, 2019 3:43 pm

No one will try to make a case for it. It will be a race to see who can spend other people’s money the fastest on greenwash schemes.

August 26, 2019 11:12 am

“Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez reacts to the results of the U.S. midterm elections at a Democratic election night rally in Washington, U.S. November 6, 2018”

How is it that all these guys look like Lenin? Perez, Mann, Schmidt, etc.

Maybe they are Lenin clones.

Lenin’s real name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov. Lenin died in 1924 and was succeeded by Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin, who seized control and ruled as an absolute dictator until his death in 1953. Stalin was, in a word, difficult – he caused the death of millions of his own people – even more than Lenin.

One question for all these Lenin clones: Why do you think a socialist dictatorship will be different this time?

Joel O'Bryan
August 26, 2019 12:16 pm

I’ve noted multiple times on multiple blogs how similar in appearance Tom Perez is to Vladimir Lenin.
Can’t be a coincidence. Perez chooses his appearance with the facial hair resemblance to Lenin, along with his angry-faced, confrontational rhetorical style to inspire his proletariat.

August 26, 2019 9:37 pm

“Why do you think a socialist dictatorship will be different this time?”

Is that a trick question because the answer is obvious? Lefty’s always see themselves as the Fearless Leader dispensing socialist Utopia with the next Great Leap Forward. A restless lot but they’re all lousy at statistics and probability of course and why they believe they’ve got their hand on the global thermostat lately. They’ve got their hand on something alright but it’s rather embarrassing for normal folk to witness.

Reply to  observa
August 27, 2019 6:24 am

Hi observa,

Re: “Why do you think a socialist dictatorship will be different this time?”

I wrote this sentence because leftists all “think it will be different this time”, but it will not. A ruthless dictator will seize, power, just like Stalin, Hitler and Mao did, and the killing will start again… and if a Neo-Malthusian “Club of Rome” green extremist takes control, the ~~200 million needless deaths caused by these great killers of the 20th Century will be dwarfed by the billions killed by the greens.

If you think I am exaggerating, that is their stated objective – read this – “in their own words”:

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive,
selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society
“Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia
“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb
“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
– Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind
“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Dudley Horscroft
August 26, 2019 11:25 am

“Her comments contrast with those Biden made in June. He told a Greenpeace activist at the time: “I’m all in.”

Don’t know about the USA, but in English, “I’m all in” has the same meaning as “I am stuffed” or perhaps “I can’t help, I have no energy left.”

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 26, 2019 12:17 pm

Different over here in the States, Dudley. In gambling, particularly poker, it means you bet everything all at once. You take all your chips, put them in the pot and you are “all in.”

We use “All done in” for exhausted. Good of you to ask, though. You probably weren’t the only one puzzled by Biden’s remark. It helps to be bi-lingual in English around here ;o)

Reply to  H.R.
August 26, 2019 2:53 pm

Why would you put your French fries in a pot? Wouldn’t you take them out of the pot when they are done?

Reply to  Scissor
August 26, 2019 5:35 pm


Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
August 26, 2019 12:42 pm

‘All in’ is more related to the bet in Texas Hold’em Poker, where that bet is all your chips.

Tom Abbott
August 26, 2019 11:30 am

From the article: “Symone Sanders, Biden’s senior adviser, was among those who urged the committee to vote down the debate, telling other officials at the conference that it would be “dangerous territory in the middle of a Democratic primary process.”

Yes, this would be dangerous territory for Biden. I’m afraid Joe is experiencing some problems with keeping basic facts straight, and a climate change debate would probably stretch him beyond his limits.

As the old saying goes: You gotta know when to hold ’em, and know when to fold ’em. Joe apparently hasn’t realized it is time to fold them. I think that realization will be coming soon.

Joel O'Bryan
August 26, 2019 11:38 am

There is no getting around the features embedded in the Democrat’s “climate change” policies.

From the most mild of Democrat’s policies:
– (Electricity that everyone uses) Monthly electricity bills for the middle class double under the pressure of much higher Renewable scam integration into the grids.
– (Heating energy choices for consumers) Natural gas prices up 3X to eliminate the competitive disadvantage that renewable wind and solar currently face with natural gas CCGT. Thus winter heating bills so high that people are forced to electric heat in a trap of a bad choice over a worsening choice.
– (Liquid fuels used in transportation) –> Gas pump prices in $6-$9/gallon range, comparable to Europe and some places in Canada (BC). Commercial airline tickets also double or triple in response (resulting in multiple airline bankruptcies)

To the more extreme Democratic policies like those of Bernie that really would destroy domestic petroleum and gas production:
– (liquid fuels in transportation) gas pump prices in $10-$15 range. Only the richest could afford ICE vehicles, and private jet travel. Even commercial airlines would become so expensive the entire air transportation industry would shrink by > 90%. Boeing and all the suppliers and most smaller Regional jet makers, Embraer, Bombardier, Cessna, Beechcraft, etc. would go bankrupt.

– Electricity prices in the US would likely go above $0.50 / Kwhso that the Renewable energy investors (Green Slime) could get even richer on the backs of the middle class. This would gut the middle class in terms of affluence and lifestyle of recreation and travel by leaving it with so little disposable income, that the US would be reduced to a 2 class society.

The very rich largely would be unaffected as their energy costs are today a small fraction of their disposable income. This is not a bug, it is a feature of the Green energy revolution. Destruction of Western capitalism and any middle class affluence in living standards and lifestyles.

I sincerely hope the Democrats buckle to the pressure from their radical Green (Marxist) wing and put all their Climate Change policies on full display for the American voters to understand their implications.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 26, 2019 1:00 pm

Well said Joel – all essentially correct. It will be the socialist-programmed end of our prosperity.

The even bigger issue is total control of the population by a leftist elite which, once elected, will retain power by whatever means necessary, including brutal repression of dissent.

That is the history of leftist dictatorships, which have now grown to control over half the people of the world. They promise gullible imbeciles lots of free stuff, get elected, and then hold on to power – the end of democracy.

The history of socialist dictatorships is well-known – destroy the economy and retain power by force. That is the future of our countries if the socialists succeed in their covert schemes – the climate scam is just a false front for their true objectives.

August 26, 2019 11:39 am

All it will take is for one question to get answered by a hopeful candidate with them going well over the top, including what they’re going to do for climate change. That will trigger the rest of the loons into outre climate change pronouncements.

The real reason DNC doesn’t was to host a debate on climate change, is that they know these loons will squawk themselves dizzy trying have the most extreme solutions. And bye bye 2020 election. Not that they have a chance anyway.

Mark Broderick
August 26, 2019 11:49 am

Now, imagine if you will, that the winner of the dumbocratic nomination tries to bring up “Climate Change” in a head to head debate with President Trump ? ….ROTFLMAO..

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 26, 2019 4:35 pm

I see where Trump declined to meet with the rest of the G7 on climate change. The G7 left an empty seat an the table as a symbolic jesture. Trump also said somthing about not trading American prosperity for windmills. He said the windmills aren’t working out very well.

I also see where Trump sold the corn that China refused to buy, to Japan. Trump takes care of American farmers.

And it doesn’t sound like Trump has changed his mind about CAGW. I mean, that’s a pretty strong statement when Trump won’t even sit down with the G7 on climate change.

Terry Harvey
August 26, 2019 12:06 pm

It sounds as if “the kids” are up for a repeat of the Children’s Crusade. And that turned out well…..

James Clarke
August 26, 2019 12:08 pm

“We deserve a chance at a livable future,”

Funny…that is the same thing they are shouting in Venezuela.

Joel Snider
August 26, 2019 12:09 pm

I don’t what these children are having their tantrum over – every single one of these candidates will unload upon us the most radical climate change agenda imaginable – they just want everyone to shut up about it until they can get into the office.

Seeing as the Democrat platform is so constantly about misrepresenting what they’re actually about, they actually have their most rabid supporters protesting.

John Sandhofner
August 26, 2019 12:32 pm

The DNC and other lefties have created this monster with all their alarmism. Now they are trying to cover it up since they know it will not play well with the general public. We can only hope it divides the DemocRATs permanently.

J Mac
August 26, 2019 12:50 pm

Golly… Where is supernero Jay Inslee when ya need him???
The Klimate Krusading Kids need to know…..

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  J Mac
August 26, 2019 1:12 pm

Inslee withdrew and is out of the running.
Same with Moulton, Hickenlooper. Also it will not be long before Montana Gov Bullock pulls out. They didn’t get near enough campaign donations to support the needed on-going campaign spending to stay visible to Democrats in the primary states.

The other 3rd tier Dumbocrat that is a Climate Crusader:
Tom “Stinky” Steyer is using his personal fortune to finance his campaign. He will use his eventual withdrawal and throwing of support behind to who emerges as the clear winner in the primary race to the needed delegate count. That throwing of support behind (and huge cash donations that use little known campaign finance loopholes to infuse his influence) will come at a price.

The price of Stinky’s $$$campaign and organization network support will be fealty to his renewable energy climate scam on the middle class. Stinky really doesn’t want to be President and all the personal problems it brings. But he wants to “own” whoever is the President.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 26, 2019 6:06 pm

This is a topic that deserves its own main article posting. Title: “How Steyer is palnning to evade FEC spending limits to the DNC for the 2020 election cycle.” I’ll write it up if you agree to post it if it meets your approval guidelines. (and I’ll even promise to stop calling Steyer “Stinky”:) )

This FEC table:
shows the “loophole” that Tom Steyer is going to use to avoid individual contribution limits to the DNC and to any “additional Party Committees” tp send an unlimited amount of money to for the 2020 election cycle.

Once he withdraws from the race, he can send all his campaign’s unspent funds to the DNC, without limit. And all that money is mostly all his own donations.

Note: An “Individual contribution” to the National Party Committee is limited to $35,500/year to the DNC and to $106,500* per account, per year. But it is “unlimited” if it comes from a withdrawn candidate’s “Candidate Committee.”

But by putting all his unused campaign cash (which was mostly his onw money anyway), he can make an unlimited donation to the DNC and any of its registered Party Committees. Thus Stinky has been limited in years past to $35,500/year to the DNC, like during Hillary’s bid in 2016.

Now with his declared candidacy, he can infuse many millions of dollars into his campaign committee account, report that balance to the FEC, then once he withdraws from the race, he can send those unlimited Million$$ to the DNC. That is a huge carrot for the eventual DNC Presidential candidate to tow the line he wants on “Green” energy.

Corrupt de Lion
August 26, 2019 1:45 pm

I must put them in touch with the Synod of the Church of England which is disinvesting its pension fund from fossil fuels – a really silly piece of pointless virtue signalling by an idealistic but grossly ignorant bunch of prelates who should be pressing for sub Saharan African electricity.

August 26, 2019 1:51 pm

It’s not a crusade. It’s an adventure!

Bryan A
Reply to  n.n
August 26, 2019 9:30 pm

It’s the end of Capitalism and the onset of Crapitalism

Wiliam Haas
August 26, 2019 2:27 pm

What the DNC really needs is a candidate who will argue that there is no climate crisis, AGW in a conjecture that is based on only partial science and is really science fiction. The climate change that we have been experiencing is quite small and is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. In terms of protecting ourselves from the ravages of extreme weather events, we are far better off doing what we can to improve the economy so that we can afford to invest more into infrastructure that can protect us from the ravages of extreme weather events that will continue to happen no matter what we do.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
August 26, 2019 6:04 pm

It’s a crisis no matter how you slice it. The DNC needs a candidate who can articulate the right one. The current crop of candidates are all deluded into believing that the crisis is impending catastrophic warming due to CO2 emissions, cow farts and fairy dust. A more legitimate crisis is that the IPCC has replaced the scientific method with conformance to a political narrative (the fairy dust) as the true arbiter of what is and what is not science. Accepting and acting on the IPCC’s wildly flawed conclusions will precipitate another crisis as the worlds economy collapses while the climate remains the same, which is the only related existential threat we face.

August 26, 2019 5:21 pm

Co2 followed by warming

Reply to  CRson
August 27, 2019 7:49 am


Morning followed by warming.
Longer days followed by warming.
Evening followed by cooling.
Shorter days followed by cooling.

Can you see the pattern?

If there was a debate, the fIrst question should be “Show of hand, how many think that CO2 is the most important driver of the surface temperature?”

After all of the fools enthusiastically raise their hand and gleefully high five each other, the second question should be “Show of hands, how many think that the Sun is the most important driver of the surface temperature?

At this point, their heads will explode and the debate will be over …

Marz Marleau
August 26, 2019 6:22 pm

The “debate” they want is the debate on what the candidates plan to do about global warming. Shall we nationalize all energy, declare martial law, or start rounding up any voices that oppose the frightened mob, or inflict all of the above.

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
August 26, 2019 7:00 pm

No Climate Change debate?

What happened to the “Green New Deal?”

Sort of says the Deal is a lemon with the voters.

Craig from Oz
August 26, 2019 8:01 pm

I feel we have been treating the Climate Youth the wrong way.

They claim constantly that THEY want a future world to live in, so therefore it is only logical that THEY start investing in it.

Now since the answer to everything is clearly ‘More Government’, we should pass laws that 10% of all youth pre-tax income is removed and placed in a Climate Fund. We would state this ‘Fund’ for all under 18s and every year increase the age bracket by one. Tis only fair.

Remember you only truly appreciate something if you work for it yourself. Inheriting anything, including a future, doesn’t give you the personal investment that makes it truly special. This is why there is absolutely no point in the current ‘adult’ generation putting their money into the future. The youth, for their own good, must not be allowed to simply inherit, they must buy it themselves.

Tax the Youth. Their Future depends on it!

michael hart
August 26, 2019 8:17 pm

I guess ‘the end of the world as we know it’ isn’t quite such a pressing matter as they usually claim, huh?

August 27, 2019 12:01 am

Hm. Climate Debates.
Well, there was the debate between Professor Will Happer (winner) against Professor David Karoly between 2016/18 reported here from passim).
Then there was the debate between Dr. Gary Idso ( winner) and Jeffrey Bennett held at the Manhattan Soho Forum earlier this year, also reported here.
And then there was the Global Warming debate held in New York on March 14,2007 between Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott against Gavin Schmidt, Richard Somerville, and Brenda Ekwurzel.
This last debate was previewed by Gavin on on 12 March 2007, and I haven’t got the outcome.
Does anyone have a reference to this last one and the result?
It was unpopular with alarmists as it gave “oxygen” to “denialists”.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Herbert
August 28, 2019 7:09 am

last debate was previewed by Gavin on on 12 March 2007, and I haven’t got the outcome:

August 27, 2019 2:23 am

I agree that making the Democratic delegates debate CC would be a good thing, lets hear all of their solutions to this approaching problem.

Another natter , Trump should cut all US money from going to the UN
while they permit the IPCC to so blatantly lie about CC.


August 28, 2019 9:02 pm

Biden may be ‘”all in ” . but he just doesn’t know what for . Was it Arizona or New York ?
Remember he says he isn’t ” nuts ” . Well that is certainly obvious isn’t it .
At least the nuke codes would be safe under this sharp minded senior .
This is the best out of over 60 million Democrat voters ?
Hillary couldn’t stand up but her brain seemed engaged .

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights