It seems that rather than than say he isn’t coming, Mann and his co-horts resorted to the “we never got the invitation” tactic. – Anthony
By Press Release:
CLIMATE CHALLENGE: BRIGHT LIGHTS, BIG CITY … BIGGER DEBATE
It’s time for both sides to make the case: What is happening to our climate and what can we do about it?
On September 23 in the Big Apple – on the same day and in the same city the United Nations will convene its Climate Summit before its General Assembly session – The Heartland Institute will host a debate on what is happening to our climate and what we can do about it. That’s a debate long-delayed, but never more important than now.
We’ve cordially invited some of the country’s most-prominent advocates for taking immediate action on climate change: Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Don Wuebbles, Katharine Hayhoe, Brenda Ekwurzel, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They 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.
If those claims are correct, then it’s time to make the case to the American people – who are skeptical of the scope of the problem and have not been asked their consent to those proposed solutions.
The Heartland Institute will bring three prominent scientists who have often defended their findings and views from the “climate realist” side in public: Patrick Michaels, David Legates, and Willie Soon. Doesn’t the wholesale reordering of our society demand at least a little bit of public debate?
We think so.
This debate will be live-streamed from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. ET at Heartland.org and on YouTube. Tune in so you can make up your mind for yourself.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So a lot of excuses, maths, responses, and another lot of stuff.
But why did the invited other side – not show up ???
– JPP
having now seen this i assure the readers here those 3 on that panel would agree with 95%+ of what i have written here in the past…….claiming humans control the climate via co2 is INSANITY, IF the claimant believes their claim.
No one asserts that humans control the climate. Why construct a strawman and then knock it down as if you were some whizz kid when it is obvious you are an under-educated know nothing?
I am an “under-educated know nothing”, but I think I know more about climate than you do Rob.
– JPP
LOL – your jejune scientifically illiterate comments belie your pompous self arrogance and enhance your inferiority.
LOL – ha ha ha ha ha !
Thanks for the reply !
– JPP
Rob
There is an old saying that when you point a finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at yourself. You clearly demonstrate the validity of that observation.
Tired old worn-out self-projection. Don’t you ever get tired of self-debasing yourself?
Rob, please tell us why Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment failed to show that increased CO2 ppm did not produce an increase in temperature.
Also could you explain why Hoyt Hottel is wrong about the emissivity of CO2 below 33C?
Finally could you tell me why my thermodynamic book does not have the forcing equation shown in the tables when finding the energy required to raise temperature of air or CO2?
Send me your PayPal details and I can bill you for the help you are needing.
So you do not know the answer to any of them.
Probably don’t know who Hottel is.
Probably don’t know which equation to use to figure out how much energy is needed.
While Rob is often demanding that others prove what they say, whenever asked the same, he gets offended and starts whining that someone as important as he believes himself to be shouldn’t have to show his work.
After all, all the scientists who are smart enough to agree with him, agree with him.
(Rob, has been put into the trash bin) SUNMOD
the assertion is that humans are the cause of the recent climate changes too bad you lack the basic sense to grasp to do that REQUIRES control over the climate and call the FACTS a strawman……having read several of your posts now i see nothing to be gained you are a child playing games, i am an adult discussing the actual science.
Then try and conduct yourself like one.
Much better language. You may get there some day if you keep up the good work. BTW: there is a mountain of consilient evidence and a tonne of published peer-reviewed papers on the topic. The human forcing is so overwhelming that modeling attempts have been accurate since the first one over a century ago despite missing many features and subtleties. Here’s a layperson’s summary that may be of some use to you:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BZ38rf7F3al/
OMG
https://donate.heartland.org/event/climate-challenge-the-new-york-city-debate/e248764
The problem with the climate realists side of the equation, is they are trying to debate the climate alarmists, using science talk and politics, the kind of talk that is used at scientific meetings, graphs, numbers etc that are meaningless to the general public. Or they attack people’s politics, which is an attack on the person. They do not speak in general terms the typical dupe comprehends and values.
They need to learn to convey topics that are relevant to the lay person. …. like ….
CO2 and global warming mean more food per acre ( note i said food, not yield … yield is a street sign).
More food per acre means less human suffering.
More food per acre means less land usage so we can give more back to nature
Educate the public that Global warming doesn’t mean hotter days, but less cold nights.
Less cold nights mean we need less energy to heat homes
Less cold nights mean less homeless die of the cold
Less cold nights means longer growing seasons, and more food per acre …. see above.
In attack mode, point out NONE of the predictions of the alarmists have come true.
The Arctic still freezes over and has yet to be ice free as it was in the past.
The polar bears are fine
Coral reefs are doing just fine
Fish are still in the sea and shell fish still have shells
Fewer people are dying of climate related phenom.
So … everything we are telling you HAS come true ….. everything they are telling you hasn’t come true.
So … who do you think is right. … and who do you think is selling you a bill of false goods.
Junk science and a plethora of strawman fallacies, on steroids. Shame on you for the disinformation and fake news!
LOL …. none of it science …. it is factual observation.
None of which you can refute.
You live in a climate fiction dream world and don’t present any evidence or citations for your crap because there are none.
Really ?????
So .. .you have some data showing the arctic is ice free??
… some data showing Polar Bear populations aren’t increasing??
… some data showing shorter growing seasons?? ….
I”m not going to do your work for you …. google CO2 plant fertilizer … hell … for that matter enter it in the search function here at WUWT!!! … Global Greening.
(Oh .. what the hell … for the intellectually challenged on this site)
Crop YIELDS
Yeildshttps://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields
Longer Growing Season
https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/growing-seasons-changing-climate
Climate related deaths
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/27/inverse-hockey-stick-climate-related-death-risk-for-an-individuals-down-99-since-1920/
See … look how easy that is!!!!
[PRUNED]
I don’t see any links to science – what happened? Since when was such rapid greening a good thing? It is one of the predictions of AGW theory that you numbskulls disdain. Your crop yields are no evidence as you have no baseline and C₄ crops have little to no reaction to additional CO₂ fertilizer. There is a marked decrease in yields and protein under field trials to elevated CO₂ in all plant types for a plethora of reasons that elude your grasp.
Ya don’t read to well do ya.
I said factual observation.
We don’t need any science. Lord knows your side don’t have any. We need whiney little girls from Sweden, and triggered college students to go out and preach the word … just like yall!!! What we need is a propaganda campaign that will resonate with the numb and the dumb.
BTW … “data” is part of science … may not be the whole thing, but it is the integral part that counts.
The guy you support goes to great lengths to declare that he doesn’t have to support any of his claims.
If the left didn’t have double standards, they would have no standards at all.
Rob really does believe that linking to propaganda sites is doing science.
Fully agree on this and TonyL’s comments and I’ve said the same many times before.
Our side needs some spokesfolks who are telegenic as well as being well-grounded in the science. And we need them to get the key points across without all the rambling and caveats. We can be pretty darned sure about the integrity of the geological record as well as written/recorded history and we KNOW that it’s been significantly warmer (and cooler) over sustained periods in the past couple of thousand years……so why not just say that?
The most prominent alarmists will never, ever, be caught in a debate, because “caught” is what they will be.
The reason? They’ve each made one or several predictions that have seen the “sell-by” date expire and none of them have happened.
They can’t debate as long as all anyone debating them has to do is cite their own words of upcoming catastrophe that was to have already occurred, but didn’t. There’s simply no defense against such an attack. So you’ll never see them engage in an honest open debate. Never.
Rod, …let’s not call it debate …. let’s call it discussion.
In the scientific perspective, discussion is what leads to questions, new points of interest, new challenges to the line of thought. Without challenging questions, a scientist is robbed of the opportunity to further buttress their hypothesis.
For some reason, the alarmists don’t want to have discussion. I get it, you made a prediction, and it didn’t happen Exactly as you thought. So what? That’s just creates more opportunity to discuss. It’s this refusal to discuss, and to take others points of view respectfully that has led to suspicions that the alarmists aren’t all above board. All this denier crap, science is settled, … and refusal to discuss.
NONE of this discussion should happen in the public space. A discussion on hurricanes has no place on the Today Show, or Foxnews, or any other place where lay people with no understanding will become confused. Hurricanes happen …. nuff said. So do tornados, droughts, floods, cold days hot days, windy days ….. there is no reason to raise alarm in the public that these things are influenced by fossil fuels …. unless you are using science for an alternative agenda. This is especially true if there are discussion points left on the table. Nobody is allowed to just proclaim they right in the absence of sufficient proof
the simple fact that nobody from the warmista cult would even show up is PROOF they know they cant debate the FACTS, to any thinking person…….
facts = the greenhouse effect is an insulating situation and NO insulator has ever ADDED HEAT to any system or location…….insulators only slow the movement of the energy they NEVER “trap” any of that energy.
The warmists regard failure to attend as “proof” of everything they claim. In reality, it shows they have no actual credible evidence- none. In some ways, it is difficult to argue against non-existent evidence because there is nothing to argue against. It is pretty well always the case when a formal debate is called-the warmists do not show up. When they do, as things get “hot”-ie they are being destroyed on the pseudoscience and even the emotional blackmail is failing, they up stumps , claims of offence and walk out in an indignant huff, nose in the air. We have seen it.
It was a disappointment that none of them showed up, but it was absolutely no surprise whatsoever. The only one that could have been stupid enough to show up would have been AOC. The social justice warriors would have compared AOC being demolished by the bully-boy real scientists to the way Donald Trump ignored brainwashed puppet, Greta Thunberg . For Donald, it was totally the correct thing to do- since when is a brainwashed, mentally disturbed (by the scaremongering stories) that does not even bother to turn up to school on par with the President of the United States? What right does she have to tell the President what to do and what to think? The height of arrogance. More revealing is the UN fawning over the brainwashed, mentally disturbed truant puppet. By their reaction, they would gladly see the child high priestess becoming the Secretary-General, becoming defacto ruler of the planet.
Please explain, what is the story behind the totally opposite reactions?????
I watched the entire program. It seems that most people see through the sham when multiple people are invited and none of them show up to present “the science.” There’s a reason that climate catastrophe is at or near the bottom of concerns for the average person. Something I really enjoy is aerial photos of low lying pacific islands around WWII or before and comparing them to modern aerial or satellite photographs. Almost without fail, you can’t see a bit of difference in sea levels from then to now. The climate in the last 100+ years is actually becoming better. Because it’s cyclical, I’m enjoying it now while I can.