Heartland Institute to Host Times Square Debate During UN Climate Summit

Prominent Scientists Who Claim Human Activity Is Causing a Climate Crisis Invited to Debate Scientists Who Are ‘Climate Realists’. Event Moderated by Legendary Journalist John Stossel in Times Square will live-stream on YouTube from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday, September 23

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL – On September 23, the day the United Nations holds its Climate Summit in New York City during its upcoming General Assembly session, The Heartland Institute has challenged prominent scientists to explain their hypothesis of a human-caused climate crisis in a debate with skeptical scientists moderated by John Stossel.

The event will be live-streamed from the Manhattan Ballroom at the Marriott Marquis in Times square.

Space in the venue is limited, but media can apply for access by contacting Heartland Institute Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or call/text 312-731-9364.

Go to the live-stream link on YouTube here.

Heartland has invited to the debate several scientists who are often quoted in media reports about their grave concerns about the current state and future of the climate: Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Don Wuebbles, Katherine Hayhoe, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. [NOTE: Trenberth and Ekwurzel politely declined, but peers have also received invitations from Heartland.]

Those on the “realist” side of the debate will be Patrick Michaels, David Legates, and Willie Soon – all prominent scientists who have often defended their findings and views in public.

WHAT: Climate Challenge: Bright Lights, Big City … Bigger Debate

WHEN: Monday, September 23, 2019 from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

WHERE: New York Marriott Marquis, 1535 Broadway, New York, NY 10036

LINK TO THE LIVE-STREAM: https://youtu.be/faQssBpFvmo

The Heartland Institute is known globally as the leading think tank promoting scientists who are skeptical of a human-caused climate crisis. Visit the website for its 13 Interntional Conferences on Climate Change at this link, and review the volumes of the Climate Change Reconsidered series by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, published by Heartland, at this link.

“Scientific knowledge and public understanding of important issues benefit from more information, discussion, and debate, not less,” said James Taylor, director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute. “I hope and expect this event will advance scientific knowledge by facilitating more cooperative and productive discussions among expert scientists regarding an asserted climate crisis hypothesis.”

“It is long past time that we have a real debate from people on both sides of this issue about what is happening to our climate,” said Heartland Institute Director of Communications Jim Lakely. “This debate has never been more important than now, especially considering the views and plans put forth by the Democratic candidates for president.

“Every one of them, and the United Nations, blame human activity for global warming, insist it will be catastrophic to life on Earth, and demand big changes to the way Americans live, work, eat, travel, and build,” Lakely added. “Doesn’t the wholesale reordering of our society demand at least a little bit of public debate? We think so.” 

The Heartland Institute is a 35-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. For more information, visit our website or call 312/377-4000.

116 thoughts on “Heartland Institute to Host Times Square Debate During UN Climate Summit

  1. Should be fun to watch, but I doubt anything productive will come of it. On one side you have the Climate Liars, aka Gang Green, and on the other, the Climate Realists, the ones telling the truth. Never the twain shall meet.

    • Here’s a funny story – on September the 23rd 2019 they gave a climate debate but nobody showed up …on the alarmist side of the debate. Oops and the Crisis Clock keeps on ticking…

      • This will be a big no show.

        They should invite all prominent alarmists , so that we have a full list of those who refuse to discuss the issue they are pretending is the biggest problem ever facing human kind and the planet.

        However, calling one side of the debate “realists” is pretty stupid PR. It’s basically saying “we are right and you are wrong” before you even start, not “let’s have an open debate”.

        • Its even funnier that they invited AOC.

          its even funnier that they pick a date and time when 1 side is ready before even checking with the other side

          HEY, Willie Soon. I challenge you to come to Beijing Sept 18th to debate me!

          If you dont show I win!!

          frickin clowns

          • I’m not sure how much preparation these “leading” climate alarmists need. In any case, no matter how much time you gave them to “bone up” on the subject in which they purport to be experts, I highly doubt anyone would actually show….despite this being such an existential crisis.

          • Shark jumping Moshpup thinks climate experts need time to prepare for a debate! LOL

            If one is telling the truth, no preparation is needed. So apparently those that Moshpup considers experts, plan to lie.

            Frickin frauds.

          • Yeah, it’s a real hoot, Mosher.

            I thought the science was settled after 40 yrs of money, personnel & resources building up the warmist industrial-complex. After all that time, effort, money & documentation in the sycophantic media, you’re saying they need more TIME to bring their arguments?!? Yeah, that is indeed a hoot! If the science is as settled as they say, the evidence should long ago be written/documented countless times and be readily available at a moments notice. It should be a breeze to defend their positions.

          • Sorry for my ignorance, but wasn’t Mann given 8 years to prepare – i.e to present is data? It seems it doesn’t matter how long time the get to prepare it is still not long enough…

        • If they call themselves “realists” that is fair.

          Calling a “skeptic” a “denier” is wrong.

          Saying the science is settled is reprehensible.

      • You have clearly remembered, “the time for debate is over!” Can’t remember who said it first, Al Gorebul or somebody, that’s the fastest & easiest way to shut down debate & discussion on anything! The National Socialists in 1930s Germany knew that, under guidance from their Goracle, Joseph Goebels, the true “grandfather” of propaganda!

    • If you expect a single climate alarmist “scientist” to take part you are living in cloud cuckoo land !

      • Climate “science” and scientific rigour is an oxymoron. CS doesnt seem to survive public scientific scrutiny ……

      • They need chairs on the dais with cardboard cutouts of the missing CACA-spewers. Actors can read their words, to which the realists can then respond.

        Peter Dinklage could portray Mann, but then he’d be cast into Hollywood Outer Darkness, despite his record of relentless PCism.

        • John Tillman:

          You suggest,
          “They need chairs on the dais with cardboard cutouts of the missing CACA-spewers.”

          I like the idea but not with “cardboard cutouts”.
          I think each chair should be labelled with the name of its intended occupier and an item on each chair should represent its missing occupant.

          Obviously, Michael Mann should be represented by the traditional tub of lard.
          I suggest the following items for the other people but would welcome better suggestions.
          Kevin Trenberth – a broken pencil
          Don Wuebbles – a piece of blackboard chalk
          Katherine Hayhoe – a red megaphone
          Brenda Ekwurzel – a yellow megaphone,
          Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – a toutou


          • No, no – Mikey Mann should be represented by a Pinocchio doll (with a LONG nose, of course) holding a broken hockey stick – LOL.

          • “Obviously, Michael Mann should be represented by the traditional tub of lard.
            I suggest the following items for the other people but would welcome better suggestions.
            Kevin Trenberth – a broken pencil
            Don Wuebbles – a piece of blackboard chalk
            Katherine Hayhoe – a red megaphone
            Brenda Ekwurzel – a yellow megaphone,
            Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – a toutou”
            It’s this kind of sneering childish comment that highlights why no one scientist in their right mind would bother to turn up to a stacked debate like this. This is a publicity stunt, nothing more.

          • Simon,

            Don’t be silly. These people have repeatedly refused to accept invitations to explain their ‘science’ because they know real scientists have all the evidence on our side.

            If they had a case they would relish opportunities to demolish those who dispute their claims, but they run away from every request for them to confront their critics; for example, see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938&linkbox=true&position=18

            It is time for gentle ridicule of these pseudoscientists when they refuse to confront their critics.


      • why would they?

        look the “debate” in science happens in journals and at conferences.
        One like Nic lewis is invited to.

        That’s the playing field. That’s the thunderdome.

        Heartland is doing the equivalent of showing up at the tennis court
        and inviting the New england patriots to come and play golf.

        FFS ,Pat frank, for all his failings and mistakes, at least had the brains to submit his work on the correct field of play.

    • I doubt there will be anything to watch in the first place.
      Climate change “scientists” are famous for refusing to participate in any form of debate with those who don’t already agree with them.

    • One good thing could come out of it if someone were to ask John S. to explain exactly what happens when a beachfront home is destroyed. He has personal knowledge on the subject.

  2. “[NOTE: Trenberth and Ekwurzel politely declined, but peers have also received invitations from Heartland.]”

    Of course they’re cowards. If they have any scientific chops whatsoever, they must know that what the IPCC passes off as science couldn’t be more wrong.

    • The travesty of the missing heat scientist won’t show up – why am I not surprised? I doubt if their peers will roll up either. This is their opportunity to put sceptical scientists in their place. Wait for the weasel words.

        • David,

          I see your banal comments all the time. You say want a free debate, but I’m quite sure that you, like so many of those who accept that the IPCC can transcend the laws pf physics, can’t handle an objective debate. To wit, here’s a science question that will make you head explode if you try and answer objectively. If you can stick to the science and avoid prejudicial epithets, I’m sure the moderators will let your comments through.

          How can the climate tell the next W/m^2 from the average W/m^2, so that on a Joule by Joule basis, the next W/m^2 can be about 3 of more times as powerful at warming the surface than the average W/m^2?

          If you say it’s not, then you’ve already lost the debate, as there can be no doubt that the 4.4 W/m^2 required to manifest the 0.8C temperature claimed by the IPCC to arise from only 1 W/m^2 is nearly 3 times larger than the 1.62 W/m^2 contributed by the average W/m^2 of solar forcing. Where all this extra power supposed to come from, does it just magically appear out of thin air?

          You can try and claim it’s the feedback, but that’s as wrong as claiming that there’s no issue. Feedback can’t tell the difference between W/m^2 either. The only way to explain what the IPCC passes off as science is magic and I don’t believe that magic can override the laws of physics. Magic works by slight of hand and climate science as summarized by the IPCC demonstrates this property over and over in every document they’ve ever produced.

          • I at least will explain how this could happen, while noting that this example is not how it does happen, for reasons which will be obvious.

            The first N many watts increases the energy in the gas surrounding the object. Once the gas has enough energy, it turns into plasma, which has an entirely different thermal conductivity. In this way, the effect of the first N many watts will be different than the next Z many watts, as the conductivity of the original medium has changed.

            I’m fact, this will always occur at any phase change crossover, with the most obvious example being boiling water – one water reaches the boiling point it will no longer (practically) rise in temperature, it will instead dump that energy into a phase change.

            Of course that’s not how our atmosphere works, if it’s how some atmosphere could work, under different circumstances, so that the first N watts has one effect, while the second N watts has an entirely different effect.

          • Under this scenario, all W/m^2 suddenly have an increased effect, not just the next one. In fact, this is where the 3.7 W/m^2 or so of forcing said to arise from doubling CO2 comes from. It’s not actual forcing, but EQUIVALENT forcing, where the actual forcing remaining constant, while each W/m^2 of actual forcing has a slightly larger effect, so that the net effect from doubling CO2 while keeping actual forcing constant is EQUIVALENT to 3.7 W/m^2 more solar forcing while keeping CO2 concentrations constant.

            This idea of equivalence is widespread in how climate science is defined and is equally valid relative to the modeling planet’s bulk behavior as an EQUIVALENT gray body.

        • True. Real reporters can question without bias, while still retaining personal biases. Objectivity might not be possible, but it should be the goal.

          I actually enjoy being open and playing devil’s advocate against positions I favor. I might even learn something and change my mind.

          Nah. Whom am I trying to kid?

          No, really.

      • Loved his show where he admitted that his coastal home being repeatedly re-built with Federal Flood Insurance money was a guilt trip–so he sold and moved. I think it was in Virginia so now the two hurricanes being predicted for next week and conceivably that same property and others are likely at risk as landfall is being predicted. FEMA and the taxpayers will again be on the hook for the problems and money. Will we ever restrict the rebuilds? Will we ever pass sensible zoning setback restrictions and stiffer building codes? Insurance only pays for replacement costs– upgrades to minimize future extreme weather events should be covered by riders.

    • I would much rather see the debaters question each other, where the moderator acts more like a referee than a quarterback. This would make good TV for a presidential debate as well … The Dem debates are a real snooze fest of softball questions and posturing by the moderators.

      • They might as well turn these Dem Debacles into Red Carpet events. After all, they are one softball question away from “Love your outfit. Who is the designer?”

        Get in on all the juicy gossip with Ryan Seacrest running the debates: “Did you see the way Joe Biden was EYEING you? Looked to me like he was seeing red.” Or “Who do you favor for the “Best Secretary of State Oscar?”

        Washington DC has acquired the name “Hollywood for Ugly People” for good reason.

    • I’d be happy to step in to represent the IPCC’s science. I know it quite well. I don’t agree with it and I can’t defend it, but then again, their version of the science is indefensible to begin with.

  3. Speaking of Climate meetings, wasn’t the Swedish Meatball on her way to one in South America? Where is she right now? Last I heard a weeks ago she was still at sea on her way to NYC.
    Maybe she should be invited if not already left NYC on her Climate pillaging ..er.. pilgrimage?

    • Saint Greta first has to wow the peanut gallery in NYC before she can take her high-carbon show on the road to Santiago de Chile. Even if she travels by burro, the beast’s fodder will have been grown with the aid of fossil fuels and derivatives thereof.

      • That’s a great image – Greta on a burro. I wonder if she will ever be cognizant enough to realize that a modern world just won’t exist relying on sailboats and burros.

        • At 16, it’s not surprising that she can only “think” in absolutes.

          But her sanctity would be enhanced by entering Santiago on a donkey, emulating Our Lord’s entrance into Jerusalem. She of course won’t be crucified by lionized.

          Then, how to get back to Sweden?

          • Easy. Drug her and secretly fly her back on a private jet. Then circulate pictures of her flying back on a white swan. Climate Jonestown would believe it.

          • Goats also produce methane.

            Four legs bad! Two legs bad!

            Eight legs good! Six legs good! No legs better!

  4. We need more of these debates, and the more people who know about it the better it is… Make as much noise about it as possible, advertise it on the radio, and tell the newspapers about it, the truth will ease the pain and anxiety of so many people who have have constant lies thrown in there faces about how the world is going to end… Somebody please send trump a twitter message, he will love it…

  5. C02 as the climate control knob has gone from being a hoax, to a scam, to a fraud and is now a full blown scandal. 2020 should be the end of it. Don’t expect any individual to show up and defend it. The IPCC, as a major international governmental organization, can get by with it’s scandal, but not individual members (IMHO).

  6. Great catch, Anthony. John Stossel moderating and Willie Soon letting them have it (the others are more “polite”), what’s not to like. Small problem, the CAGW crowd knows they will be bringing a water pistol to a gunfight, and they won’t show up. Just to be sure I will tune in, with ample beer and popcorn to see me through.

  7. There will be no discussion between Sceptics and Alarmists for Stossel to moderate on September 23. Alarmists will never provide a platform for debate (via failure to participate). Potential Alarmist participants and the Democrat Party Ministry of Propaganda (i.e. the Mainstream Media) will just ignore it.

    No Alarmist of note shows up = no debate…again.

    What I’d like to see Stossel and/or Heritage do is finance and stage the infiltration of some climate departments in Academia across the country or at NOAA or NASA …get a few grad students (posing as eager, flaming activists) internships or other positions within those departments and get recordings of the “inside activity” of those “science” departments. Stage interactions that show what happens to those who don’t toe the line on CAGW.

    • Is subterfuge even necessary? The alarmists are doing a good job of making themselves look foolish. Alarmist science is prima facia wrong, the proposed remedies wouldn’t work even if the need could be justified, the political proponents of climate alarmism went off the deep end a long time ago and the climate-gate emails have all the evidence. What’s needed is to elevate the benign scientific truth above the constant drone of alarmism.

      Stossel should find a well known skeptic who can lay out a precise, technical case for why the IPCC’s ‘science’ is so wrong. Let the debate happen after the fact. It should be targeted to scientists in other fields and provide context as to why so many other scientists are skeptical of the claims made by the self serving consensus fabricated around IPCC reports. The idea would be to build critical mass around the real scientific truth and move it away from what the IPCC requires that truth to be.

    • One debate? It should have been, and be, debated constantly considering the supposed “consequences” and the enormous price-tag involved. The climastrologists are always cowardly hiding behind their bought-and-paid-for “journals”.

  8. The travesty of the missing heat scientist won’t show up – why am I not surprised? I doubt if their peers will roll up either. This is their opportunity to put sceptical scientists in their place. Wait for the weasel words.

  9. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.

    • The central problem of the entrenched leftist federal bureaucracy (deep state) is that few of the employees in the executive branch need to respond to orders from the President.

      Just getting Agency directors that the president wants is extremely difficult if there is any opposition. And the mid and lower level bureaucrats just carry on acting as legislators, adjudicators and executioners in this totally Anti-Constirutional system.

      Liberals don’t need to worry too much about stupid voters…their willing minions working without executive overview continue administering injustice as they see fit without the executive direction the Constitution says the President should wield..

      The conservatives in the legislative branch have cowardly provided the executive agencies free reign to ignore the elected President…it takes the heat off them from making any tough decisions.

      The Constitution will be tested on this frontal assault in Trump’s second (and third) term in the “6 to 3” SCOTUS.

      • Unfortunately NASA Administrator Bridenstine has recanted his former CACA skepticism. Not surprising, since he has no scientific background.

        But Trump could order him to order Gavin to debate. Same goes for Kevin at NOAA, whose interim administrator is acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere Neil Jacobs, full time Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction at the US Department of Commerce.

        Any of these officials who objects to the orders is free to resign.

        • Unfortunately NASA (and other agencies) appoint politically-correct administrators nowadays instead of those w/the proper education and experience. I see the exact same thing on the appointments to the Board of Directors in major public-owned companies.

          • Rumor has it that Bridenstine and several other Trump appointees have been encouraged to “reconsider their previous positions on AGW unless they would like to wake up and find a figurative “horsehead” in their bed. Death threats to your family can have a chilling effect.

  10. Mann and Hayhoe will never debate a heavyweight like Willie Soon. Soon will destroy their arguments one by one. Ocasio Cortez does not belong in a debate.

  11. If Mann turns up, please constrain his self-introduction to 15 minutes or less. If that’s possible..

    • She’s had time learn what a garbage disposal is to dispose of waste.
      Just explain to her that, if she shows up, she has a chance to dispose of the waste!
      (Afterward, maybe she’ll figure out which was which.)

  12. If he does show, Mann will be armed with his fake Nobel, his hockey schtick, and a humungoid chip on his shoulder.

  13. A noble gesture.
    But what will Stossel do if only one side shows?

    I’m afraid a real debate, the kind pushed by Koonin and Happer,
    won’t occur unless it’s demanded by those bankrolling the climate machine.
    With Happer’s departure from the WH, that now appears unlikely before 2020.

  14. It’s a win win for the heart land institute if anyone does turn up the debate will be recorded and we will see what excuses they wriggle with, no one turns up, what does that say for the “science is settled brigade” they cant demonstrate, argue there own science, let’s see if they have the strength of there own convictions,or courage of ones convictions.

  15. Jack Dale
    The APS Climate Workshop link is excellent and well worth the 1hr or so read [don’t let the 573 pages scare you; the pages are short].
    Its from 2014 with all the graphs and no ad hominem attacks. Its likely the closest thing to a rational ‘debate’ we will ever see. And IMO (very limited!) the science they discuss now 5 years later is still pertinent (attribution, forcings, hiatus, model uncertainties/tuning etc).
    Moderated by Koonin, who at the end (~p570), summarizes his thoughts and his new appreciation for the uncertainties in climate science (he & other APS attendees were surprised at some of the data presented).

    • yes, but skeptics don’t want a rational debate. They want , Cameras, a moderator.
      Zingers!, gotcha questions, fake charts nobody can ever get the data for, appeals
      to the crowd, you know like presidential debates.
      No data, no citations, no way to check and verify what ANY of the contestants say.
      they want the opposite of science. They want Theatre.

      • “yes, but alarmists don’t want a rational debate. They want , Cameras, a moderator.
        Zingers!, gotcha questions, fake charts nobody can ever get the data for, appeals
        to the crowd, you know like presidential debates.
        No data, no citations, no way to check and verify what ANY of the contestants say.
        they want the opposite of science. They want Theatre.”

        There, fixed it for ya. Talk about classic projection!

      • Thanks for lettting us know what we want Steven. We must be living on different planets. All this time, until you told me, this atmospheric scientist was thinking his 37 years of analyzing empirical data and observing the global atmosphere mattered the most.

      • It really is funny to watch Moshpup psychologically project! LOL

        No data? No problem for the alarmists, just fake it til you make it. Keep changing the data to fit the hypothesis. Perfect!

        Then the alarmists take their fake data and make fake charts (See: Hockeystick Graph)

        Moshpup is a bad joke.

      • Common Steve it’s the alarmists who stand by there own mountain of data that the questions will be aimed at, no skeptic needs to play at false charts ,the questions will be aimed at what the alarmists believe in, there data and narrative, and for the record there should be cameras and a moderator.its not a show as you seem to think,

          • Easterbrook is a geologist and based his graph on the Greenland ice core
            data, the same as Richard Alley did in his 2004 Scientific American article (which is listed as a reference in Easterbrook’s GLOBAL WARMING: ARE WE HEADING FOR GLOBAL CATASTROPHY IN THE COMING CENTURY? paper). Just by looking at the plot, it’s pretty obvious that the horizontal reference line you choose is arbitrary and depends on where you choose to start and end…and that line has nothing to do with how current temps relate to historic temps…there is no controversy that historic temps (climate optimum) were as warm or warmer than today’s temps. That’s what your graph shows. That’s what the ice core record shows.

            Richard Alley’s 2004 SciAm paper:http://www.chicagocleanpower.org/alley.pdf
            There are lots of web resources which cover the Greenland Ice Core projects, if you can’t find one, I’ll help you.

            If you want to argue about something, how about the validity of averaging noisy spaghetti graphs (noisy temporally and in amplitude) and then appending (or overlaying as Dr. Mann prefers to put it) contemporary instrumental records. How you can justify that, I do not know.

          • I may have studied Richard Alley more than you think.

            What Richard Alley has to say to those who misrepresent his data:

            So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.


          • The material down eastbrook used was not fake,the original author seems a little peeved his material was used in this way,never the less there is no fake graph, is don eastbrook invited to the heartland institute debate,if not, I see your comment as absolutely worthless Mr dale

          • Richard Alley is welcome to express his opinion, and his bias, which he does often. He appears to believe in the failed hypothesis, likely mainly because it pays so well and guarantees job security. His arguments are self serving, and they ignore the fatal flaws of his Gaian religion. He is not mature enough to accept that others can find different interpretations of the data, those interpretations clearly make him feel threatened and afraid, instead of intrigued and curious. As a defense mechanism, he makes up silly straw man arguments that people like you lap up gleefully. He proclaims it is “stupid” to interpret the data in such a way that describes a cooling pattern, because only a fool would turn away the money offered to those who preach loudly about the fire and brimstone scenarios of their failed models.

            Science only advances when all points of view are heard, and when all sacred cows are slaughtered. The fact that the alarmo-grantologists refuse to put their precious hypothesis to any real tests proves that it is all about faith, and fear.

          • You are absolutely right. After Galileo built his telescope he called the priests to see the moon and the planets and they refused stating that they don’t need to look since they know they are not there. This is why the alarmists will not debate. They will stir the media’s “inquisition” and internet uneducated trols against the skeptical scientists instead of engaging in a debate that that they fear to loose.

  16. Can’t wait to see the video of this conference! Of course, there will be no Alarmists present, but we can always enjoy hearing a presentation by Stossel, Dr. Soon, et. al. Wish that Dr. Patrick Moore could participate as well.

    Maybe St. Greta and AOC could do a rebuttal! That would be a level of intelligence that you seldom see; outside of a Petri dish! I worked as a bartender to support myself in college, so I think I know how AOC got her degree.

  17. I just wish things would get settled one way or the other, I’d hate to cut down the trees that currently shade my roof and yard (southern exposure). They seem to work really well keeping the heat away in summer, while letting the sun in during the winter (Chicago 41.98 degrees north). I’ve really got no problem with my current electric bill of ~$60.00 a month. The tree clearing and install would probably cost ~15-20K, less incentives.
    Money I could never re-coop in my lifetime, but my guilt (if I had any) might be assuaged,
    It might raise employment, but when is the last time anyone talked about a lack of jobs ?

  18. A shorter version of this was tried before. John Stossel hosted that one, too.

    Climate Scientist ALARMIST JUNK PSEUDO-SCIENTIST Gavin Schmidt runs in fear from a debate with Dr. Roy Spencer on LIVE TV!

    • Schmidt DID NOT RUN IN FEAR. He outlined the conditions on which he would appear. Stossel tried to change those conditions.

      Spencer is government funded. All of his research money comes from DOE, NASA and NOAA.

          • No need for anyone to read his tiny warped mind, his body language spoke volumes. Stuttering, fidgeting, sweating and stammering. If he is unable to defend “settled science” when in the presence of a “denier”, he is a mental midget, and a coward.

      • Ha, ha, ha, just watch the video and tell everybody which part isn’t RUNNING AWAY…TWICE. Maybe to you he was leading a Monty Python BATTLE CHARGE! Even his demeanor is cowardly and sniveling. He barely made eye contact with Stossel. He AGREED to APPEAR on the show KNOWING that he would face Dr. Spencer and that the purpose for having BOTH of them on AT THE SAME TIME was to DEBATE and then he CHICKENED OUT. If he didn’t want to abide by those conditions, he should have stayed in his RABBIT HOLE and not come on the program and wasted everyone’s time and made a FOOL of himself. Dr. Spencer was willing to meet any terms and showed complete confidence the entire time he was on the show as he deconstructed the laughable lies of the left laudably.

  19. I wish I could participate in this exercise – maybe I could bring up my ranking from a measly 250 or something on the Nature Climate Denier list (sorry Moderator – that’s their term, not mine).

    My boss, Energy Secretary Rick Perry is right up there near the top. But I’d say that I am far more skeptical of AGW than he is.

    Seriously, I hope that the takeaway from the discussion from the folks on my side is – There is nothing about CO2 in the air to worry about. Absolutely nothing at all, and there are so many more important things in the world to devote time and attention to.

  20. All the people Heartland has invited need to be contestants on “Alone”. Some of the people work for the federal government and are part of the Trump Administration they should be reminded of this. They should also be furloughed to the “Alone” show to show us how to live a low-CO2 footprint.

    I would consider it a PSA of concern citizens and federal workers.

  21. Great idea but no way anybody from one side shows up. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose for one thing. Their side is way ahead using effective propaganda and well designed one way/sided communication tools. Bill Nye might be your only chance because he seems the most likely to shoot himself in the foot by going outside what the others know is. Winning strategy.

    But even he must be aware that he really doesn’t know anything about authentic climate science and would fail catastrophically if forced to explain the science behind his hundreds of scary sound bites.

    • In response to Richard S. Courtney.

      My computer connection is intermittent, and with delay in posting, I often don’t know if it took.

  22. Chicken. They hide behind articles and peer reviews among themselves but they wouldn’t debate unless they can twitch the data or intimidate opponents . Alarmists, not alarmists, they should be called what they are, liars in the pockets of the social engineered globalist agenda.

  23. Should there be a failure by alarmists to appear, prepare a multi-media presentation of alarmist arguments including video, tweets, headlines, quotes, etc. that the skeptical scientists can address.

Comments are closed.