Climate alarmists hide from debate, Stossel sets it straight

“The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change!” says Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Really? 12 years?

John Stossel recently moderated a debate held by The Heartland Institute. Well, not a debate … because climate alarmists who were invited didn’t show.

“Please … let’s have a discussion!” begs astrophysicist Willie Soon. Stossel says the panel convincingly debunked four myths. One is the new claim: “we only have 12 years to act.”

Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”

Climatology Professor David Legates adds, “In twelve years it’ll be 12 more years.” The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees, humans can adjust. We already have. People in Holland did. Holland is a low-lying country. Much of it is below sea-level. So many years ago, the Dutch built dikes to prevent flooding. Michaels says, “Are you telling me that the people in Miami are so dumb that they’re just going to sit there and drown?” “You acknowledge though the water is rising?” asks Stossel. Legates interjects, “Yes, the water has been rising for approximately 20,000 years.”

Another myth they bust: government action today will save us. “The Obama’s administration’s model projects that the amount of global warming that would be saved [by the US] going to ZERO emissions tomorrow … would be 14 hundredths of a degree Celsius,” says Michaels. It wouldn’t stop global warming but: “You’ll sure have an impoverished dark country.” he continues. “Global warming is why hurricanes are getting worse” and the idea that “carbon dioxide is a pollutant that just does harm” are two other myths the scientists debunk. Stossel concludes by asking, “Are they right?

It’s hard to believe they are when so many serious people are so worried. I wish there were a real debate! Why won’t the other side debate?”

Advertisements

159 thoughts on “Climate alarmists hide from debate, Stossel sets it straight

  1. the main reason life expectancy doubled is because we have far FEWER deaths before age 1 now than we did in 1900…….if 100 people are born and 50 of them die before age 1 and the rest live to be 100 the total life expectancy for those 100 births is only 50….and clearly science has played a huge role in solving that early death problem.

    • Yes, decreased infant mortality is the main contributor to longer average life spans, but so too are improvements in survival for older children and adults. This includes not just surgery, public health and medicinal drugs, such as antibiotics and vaccines. Even the children of the wealthy, royalty and presidents died of bacterial and viral infections such as measles, smallpox, diphtheria, etc before the late 20th century.

    • Actually we can all thank affordable, plentiful energy. Without it, science would not have progressed nearly as much as it has in the last 150 years. But probably the biggest impact has been modern sanitation systems and refrigeration, both of which would not be possible on a mass scale without lots of power (provided by plentiful fossil fuels). Every miracle of our modern world depends on energy – and lots of it. It is the bedrock of our civilization and any attack on it is a threat to our very existence.

      • I can assure you that in my parents generation it was a rarity for anyone to live to 90 years of age. Today it is common. As the past President of a non-profit nursing home and assisted living facility, I have a unique perspective. In fact we have more centenarians than those living to 90 fifty years ago.

        • Thank you, Stuart. I have done some genealogy research, including 1900 census. I found a Denver”convalescent” home in those records. Every individual in it was in their 60’s, none younger–or older.

          • Every individual in it was in their 60’s, none younger–or older.

            Surprise, surprise, ….. now you know why the Democrats originally set the SS Retirement age at 65.

          • Samuel – that was always the point.

            People died before their bodies gave out and they couldn’t work anymore, so what do you do with the relative handful of people who live past that (disproportionately women, since if she didn’t die in childbirth she had a much higher chance of living longer)?

            You create a social safety net – for people who are alive beyond expectations when they’re unable to care for themselves, and since they pay into it while working it’s not a sudden unexpected burden on society.

            What was never expected was that it would become a retirement savings program as it is now – it was always intended as a final catch to prevent poor grandmothers from starving on the street.

        • Using gloves is good, but AFTER putting them on, use a anti-bacterial hand wash. This is because one hand touches the outer of a glove when putting them on. Also those handbags are DANGEROUS carriers. Women take them into the toilet and place them on the floor – later they end up on the kitchen counter and even on the wheeled table in front of hospitalized patients. Cellphones are also filthy carriers, don’t use them when handling food.

          • And belts.

            Most people who wear belts, do them up after defecation but before washing their hands. With most clothing, they get washed eventually. But who ever washes belts (apart from perhaps fabric ones)?

            Food for thought.

      • Yup. Clean water in the right place at the right time is an energy problem in most cases. If it’s a water problem, you need to move.

    • Bill Taylor,
      Yes that improved child mortality came from vastly improve sanitary conditions, widely available safe drinking water, and an abundance of safe food from improved food production, storage, and distribution.
      An abundance of cheap energy ensures that these basics are cheap and easily maintained.

    • “Life expectancy around the world has increased steadily for nearly 200 years.

      During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, an increase in life expectancy was driven mainly by improvements in sanitation, housing, and education, causing a steady decline in early and mid-life mortality, which was chiefly due to infections. This trend continued with the development of vaccines and then antibiotics. By the latter half of the twentieth century, there was little room for further reduction in early and mid-life mortality. The continuing increase is due almost entirely to a new phenomenon: the decline in late-life mortality.” link

    • The best illustration of this is how in 1924 US President Calvin Coolidge’s son played tennis without socks, got a blister on his foot, and died of the ensuing infection.

      The world without antibiotics is almost inconceivable to people who never lived there.

      What new inventions will we never see if we give up cheap power? Organ growth factories? Transplantation of every part of the body for effective immortality, even if how you look changes over the decades? And that’s even setting aside things like teleportation via quantum tunneling – which we can do in the lab right now, with comedic amounts of money. But what would Coolidge have paid for penicillin a century ago?

    • Because they have their fingers in their ears and are shouting “Na na na na na na, we can”t hear you”

    • “Why won’t the other side debate?”

      Simple: it’s too easy to counter their arguments by pointing out that the increase in oxygen if carbon is removed completely (impossible!) WILL result in the extinction of all animal life on Earth except for bugs. And therefore, saying that carbon is at fault, when it creates a balance that makes the planet livable means that these people have a death wish.

      That’s in the fossil record, and yes, dragonflies can increase their size exponentially in an oxygen-rich atmosphere in their first generation. This experiment has already been done by Hoomans.

      • Sara

        The other side says they won’t debate because that would be too much like yielding legitimacy to illegitimate fossil fuel funded activist groups and to illegitimate fossil fuel funded debates hosted by known deniers of THE SCIENCE.

          • No sarcasm required. Simply go back to school learn basic scientific biology, go for a walk across the country during all 4 seasons then come back and tell me all about your theories on climate change. Which by the way is a oxymoron. Learn CO2, Water Vapour cycle, cloud formation, Ocean carbonation and photosynthesis. Then how the Sun and the earth determine what your weather will be in the future, and how we cant predict any of it, no matter how smart you think you are. Except it, reducing carbon has nothing to do with so called climate change and climate will always change and always will and always has.

        • On that. Would love to actually meet someone who’s fossil fuel funded. Been looking now for a while, so far no one. Just about all of us here are regularly accused of being such. Really would mind a back dated cheque covering the 10 years back to climate gate.

    • No actually it is because suppression of debate is a key plank in the marxist strategy. This with the end justifying whatever means that may be required, devoid of any matters of ethics.

      • “No actually it is because suppression of debate is a key plank in the marxist strategy.”

        Try: it’s a key plank in the people-who-are-wrong-and-they-know-it strategy. There are cave paintings that depict incorrect cowards avoiding debate long, long before the birth of Karl Marx.

    • ” Why won’t the other side debate?”

      As always, history can answer this question:

      2013: Stossel Event averted

      o Dr Gavin Schmidt is praised for running away from a critic on national television, preserving the dignity of science.
      o Early reports suggest the scientist to whose scientific arguments Schmidt narrowly escaped being exposed may have been a science avoider.
      o Colleagues agree that if not for Schmidt’s quick fleeing, there could have been a full-blown “climate debate”—the theoretical state in which (scientists fear) it might look as if there were two viable “sides.”

      https://youtu.be/V96k4BO2sBw

    • ” Why won’t the other side debate?”

      This climate-believalist site puts the standard rationalization in its canonical form, but you’ll hear the same excuse from just about any alarmist:
      __________________

      Just by turning up the denihilists win. They don’t even need to win (though they usually do); all they need to do is debate you, because by debating you, they create the illusion of debate.

      Which is just what their side wants the public to think: that there are somehow two ‘sides’ to this thing. That’s why the worst thing our side can do is to play into this myth.

      When you’re invited to debate—and if you work in the climate space, you will be invited at some point—simply decline with a courteous alibi like,

      “Thank you, but debating denihilists is like faeco-Roman wrestling with pigs: you’d win, and I’d end up covered in ignominy.”

      • It might also give the impression that sceptics are scientists, or indeed, rational thinkers, and that idea could be dangerous to the consensus.

        • Indeed!

          A debate also threatens to let the public in on the secret that “the consensus” is such a broad, vaguely-defined church, it actually includes most skeptics.

    • True they don’t and they must know it because it has been known for years now that it was around 2-3C warmer than now, early in the interglacial period and even warmer in the Eemian interglacial, yet the world benefited from it.

      Nature

      Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core

      Abstract

      Efforts to extract a Greenland ice core with a complete record of the Eemian interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) have until now been unsuccessful. The response of the Greenland ice sheet to the warmer-than-present climate of the Eemian has thus remained unclear. Here we present the new North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (‘NEEM’) ice core and show only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian. We reconstructed the Eemian record from folded ice using globally homogeneous parameters known from dated Greenland and Antarctic ice-core records. On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present. Extensive surface melt occurred at the NEEM site during the Eemian, a phenomenon witnessed when melt layers formed again at NEEM during the exceptional heat of July 2012. With additional warming, surface melt might become more common in the future.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11789

      bolding mine

      ===================

      DR. Michaels understood the absurdity in his statement:

      Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, says, “It’s warmed up around one degree Celsius since 1900, and life expectancy DOUBLED … yet [if] that temperature ticks up another half a degree … the entire system crashes? That’s the most absurd belief.”

      He is right, the absurdity still flies over many warmists, who are well programmed to be ignorant.

  2. There is a debate. Alphabet/Google offers a Wikipedia-hosted “global warming” context for the Stossel video. Ostensibly as a goodwill measure to normalize correct… consensus thinking.

    • YouTube actually appends its link to Wikipedia on AGW to all videos on the topic, warmist or contrarian.

  3. “The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees, humans can adjust”

    Addendum for more clarity:

    The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees, humans can adjust their A/C thermostats.

    • That comment misunderstands purpose and function of a thermostat. If the temperature changes outside there is no need to change anything. The thermostat sets the indoor temperature. The equipment performs the work needed to hold the temperature in the range set (it is always a range).

      If it was five degrees warmer in winter there would be less work needed, obviously.

      • It may be logical to flip this on its head.

        At the end of the last ice age, human activity is found in Siberia and Alaska.

        Mammoth were hunted for their pelts and meat. The pelts were a perfect roofing material for huts.

        Adaptation at its roots.

      • It would still be dependent on your windows and insulation. Heat load vs Insulation is a factor in overall A/C performance.

  4. People want a mild and benign climate and they are willing to elect politicians who promise them one.

    The problem is not the promise, it is the delivery. Creating a managed climate has only been achieved on a very small local scale, like a living room or a community hall. In a few places the climate been managed on a scale as large stadia. That’s it. The proposals sound bombastic.

    Driving from Mbabane to Piggs Peak this evening was very difficult and indicates the complexity of trying to manage wind, lightning, thick fog and torrential rain. As far as adjusting the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes, it is going to have little effect on the powerful weather events in Eswatini.

    So what is there to debate? Claims that the average temperature will rise few degrees and cause misery are baseless, in my view. Other than increasing the already prodigious output of this sub-tropical country, the only negative effect will be that cost of tropical fruit will drop as the trees can be planted over a greater percentage of the land. The output of marijuana, an important cash crop, will increase in the cool northern mountains and more rain will only help increase the yield. More growth means more income and better homes with better roofs.

    Claims this is “bad for the economy” will greeted with skepticism. Proposals to lower the temperature, reduce rainfall, increase the need for irrigation and shorten the growing season will be greeted with derision. Guaranteed. Poor people don’t like stupid ideas.

    • Minor correction.

      If you include continuous conditioned spaces the largest I know of is much larger than any stadium, and can readily hold millions of people engaged in gaming. I’m of course describing Las Vegas, which has underground links between many of its casinos so that patrons may walk from gaming table to gaming table without ever seeing the night sky (or the fact that they’ve played far longer than planned). Several of these also connect to very large shopping malls, making it readily practical to live in Las Vegas and never step outside.

  5. “The 3 scientists argue that even if the planet warms by 5 degrees, humans can adjust”.

    Applying the theoretic effect of 1C per doubling of CO2 concentration, at the current rate of increase +5C will be reached ~5,000 CE.
    Even in the unlikely event carbon-based fuels are still used chances are that the next deep glaciation will be upon the poor souls around at that time.

    • Chris Hanley,
      But I thought the newly UN-IPCC blessed climate models™ (CMIP6) insists that 5°C warming is so much easier to achieve.
      And we all know that these religious scientific icons are never wrong.

      🙂

  6. Hey, completely OT and I am sorry about that, but there was a story that a lot of people have been commenting on for the past few months, that seems like it may have some news in the coming days.
    A tropical storm has just been named north of the Lesser Antilles [TROPICAL STORM SEBASTIEN (AL20)], and the predicted path is north and then northeast over the coming days, with some strengthening likely.
    The storm particulars:

    “At 1800 UTC, 19 November 2019, TROPICAL STORM SEBASTIEN (AL20) was located in the North Atlantic basin at 20.4°N and 59.4°W. The current intensity was 40 kt and the center was moving at 7 kt at a bearing of 320 degrees. The minimum central pressure was 1006 mb.”

    http://hurricanes.ral.ucar.edu/realtime/plots/northatlantic/2019/al202019/

    La Vagabond, the 46 foot sailboat that is heading to Spain w/ Greta aboard is currently due north of the storm, on an intersecting path:
    “Last Updated 19 Nov 2019, 21:54 (GMT)
    34º 13.729n 60º 33.563w 5.4 kts 91.8°”

    https://sailing-lavagabonde.com/

    This just one of the better reasons why advocating sailing over flying is so incredibly insane.
    There is no such this as sailing safely across an ocean in a sailboat.
    Flying, on the other hand, is know to be the safest way to travel ever invented…safer that walking across the street or driving to get some milk from the nearby store.
    I am wondering what they plan to do…just keep going and hope for the best, or take some action to change course and make sure they are not sailing into the path of a possible hurricane in mid-ocean?

    • Winds and current limit their options, unless they’re willing to crank up the evil fossil-fueled motor monster.

      • No, that would be much worse, they’d be better off slowing or sailing in circles for about 24 hours before continuing eastwards in a lower sea state behind it.

        Did some calcs, if all goes well and they maintain their speed it will take them about 18 to 19 days to get to Spain’s south east coast, following a great-circle path from current location, then a day or so to drive to Madrid (week by donkey).

        She should be in Madrid by about 10th of Dec, so still arrives for the end of the proceedings.

    • They are pretty far away and ahead of that storm. Hopefully, they stay that way.

      La Vagabond used to be 48′ long.

      • The storm is due south of their location, and forecast to move north and west, although exact path is of course not completely certain.
        But besides wind there may be high seas to contend with, even if they do not get hit directly.
        The point is, they do not have the ability to wait and see for very long and then be certain of being able to avoid seas and winds from the storm.
        There also appears to be a strong cold front approaching them from behind.
        Every story of a ship lost in a storm had some point in time prior, that there was plenty of time to turn around, the storm deviated from the expected path, sped up, slowed down, strengthened, or something, and then at some point they were in big trouble in a storm in the middle of the ocean.
        Granted, this is not a powerful hurricane and is unlikely to be one, but they are not on a large ship either, but a small sailboat with limited fuel and power.
        This trip was hastily planned and seems to be very ill advised, for the time of year and the craft making the journey.

        • Whatever they choose to do, they are going to encounter high seas kicked up by the storm. The ocean swells from such a tempest will travel hundreds of miles out in all directions. Rough sailing not matter which way they turn.

        • Mild disagreement, a 46 foot catamaran is a very comfortable size to sail the Atlantic, and shouldn’t have any issues with that storm (agreed on your point of sudden changes, of course).

          Doing it on a 23 foot boat is pretty common. The real question is: how well outfitted are they? That boat isn’t set up for long crossings with passengers, so do they have the facilities when the weather gets rough?

  7. I have experienced this refusal to debate at a personal level. My daughters mother in law and her husband join us for holiday get togethers and family occasions as one would expect. Mother in law is a chemist by profession she graduated and taught at high school prior to taking on the role of school inspector after a number of active teaching years. She is clearly a bright lady and forthright. She comes from Yorkshire and takes no nonsense from anyone. She refuses to engage in debate re climate change with me, because according to her, I know too many facts and have too many numbers to hand for her to argue against. She claims I am wrong of course, because that is the position of academia here in the UK. She is a professionally trained graduate chemist. She refuses to engage in debate, simply because she accepts she would lose the argument based on the facts!!
    Now when you have that level of dedication to the establishment i.e. her pension depends on staying on side, you just know it is not the science they worry about, it is their salary and pension pot that keeps them in line.

    • And yet, you are still related.

      She knows where you stand, and you know where she stands. If this were a court case, she has pled ‘nolo contendere’ – no contest.

      Move beyond it, for the sake of your daughter’s family relationship.

        • Rod I am in the same boat with college aged son 🙁

          And he is a computer engineering student….darn those young brains

          • Any real computer scientist heard about the IT models iterating on double or float types… and the catastrophic results it induces.
            It should be enough to insinuate some doubt about hellish climate predictions.
            Maybe your son did not yet study this particular point (and worse of all, never will! It os possible in a Web IT context…).

          • I’d bet that he just hasn’t been exposed to the math, which is what ultimately changed my mind (note: after I had a masters in computer science, when I was working in healthcare predictive modeling).

            Much of the US educational system is based on “your teachers know more than you and are always right (this applies to every other country I’m familiar with too, but ymmv). Only when kids start doing real research on their own, when there’s no professor to ask how to solve it, do they really start to think about things. When your name is on patents for new discoveries, or you have formula named after you, that’s how you know you can actually think.

            But people only think about topics they choose to – most people, even very intelligent people, won’t actually engage their brains, they’ll just use their recall functions to pull up facts without trying to piece them together. So your son is likely just regurgitating what he’s been taught, without trying to understand it himself.

            Compounding that is the problem in understanding the models themselves, and figuring out what parts are based on hard measurements, which parts are derived relations from hard experiments, which are guesses about known unknowns, and even after you’ve done all that you still have to decide whether the measurements actually mean what they’re purported to mean (ex: tree rings as proxies for temperature – because the models may be right but the tree ring to temperature converter is junk, and it would just be garbage in, garbage out).

            Even when you understand how to decide to trust the scientists making these claims you’ll still have to overcome an annoying (but probably critical to our advancement as a species) trait – modern humans inherently trust authority. Others have tried their own analysis on why that is, but I’ll repeat one I found convincing enough to use: in the evolutionary environment whoever believed their elders when they said “don’t touch the snake” were the ones who lived, and those who questioned tended to die, so whatever genes select for “believe elders” are the ones that propagated.

    • I would love to screw with such peoples’ minds. “Extraordinary. I have never seen such faith, even among the religious.”

        • “Yet to be empirically established” What nonsense. This is why they use the D word for people like you. Tell me one scientist working in the field who disagrees with the statement “CO2 has been a factor in the increase in temperature seen in the last 100 years.”

          • Simon November 19, 2019 at 8:06 pm
            Do you understand the difference between “a factor” and “THE factor”?

          • Rod Evans created a very small amount of frictional heat when he moved his mouse to type his comment.

            Tell me one scientist working in the field who disagrees with the statement, “Heat created by the movement of Rod’s mouse has been a factor in the increase in temperature seen in the last 100 years.”

            Your statement and my statement are both literally true. Context and weighting also matter.

          • Why is it so difficult to grasp that the issue is not WHETHER CO2 causes warming, but how much? Climate sensitivity is by far the most important issue in the scientific debate, but somehow alarmists don’t think it’s worth mentioning.

          • Why is it so difficult to grasp that the issue is not WHETHER CO2 causes warming, but how much? Climate sensitivity is by far the most important issue in the scientific debate, but somehow alarmists don’t think it’s worth mentioning.”
            Really???? More nonsense. read the IPCC reports. All the climate sensitivity you want in there. Although I agree with your first sentence.

          • Hmmm. . . straight to the ad-homs eh? Tell me how again how scientist’s opinions constitute empirical proof. . . you can look up the meaning of the word ’empirical’ if you like. (also ‘Aristotle’ and ‘logical fallacy’)

          • You think the ‘D word’ isn’t ad-hom? Really? Actually, I’m agnostic on the matter, so you/they should be calling me the ‘A word’. However, I do think it highly unlikely that the ‘A’ in AGW is very large – whatever ‘they’ might claim – and that the ‘C’ in CAGW is somewhere between extremely unlikely and ludicrous . . . Have a nice day.

          • Simon, it has been established beyond doubt that CO2 follows temperature increases, many years later. The ice cores suggest pretty well that the time lag is close to eight hundred years. Try some history and science and you will find the truth.

            Strange as it may seem to you both Australia and the American continent are CO2 sinks.

          • ChrisDinBristol
            what else do you call someone who denies the rather obvious reality that CO2 does cause warming? Anyway, you are changing the subject. Almost no one now doesn’t acknowledge that CO2 is a significant driver in the warming of the planet. It really is just a question of how much warming will we get and how much damage will it do, that the discussion should be around. Those who still argue CO2 is not a driver are really wasting everyone’s time, or showing their ignorance.

          • Simon,
            Tell me one scientist working in the field who disagrees with the following statements:

            Water vapor has been a factor in the increase in temperature seen in the last 100 years.

            The sun has been a factor in the increase in temperature seen in the last 100 years.

            The “Little Ice Age” ending has been a factor in the increase in temperature seen in the last 100 years.

          • *Sigh* Here we go again . . . That CO2 causes warming is NOT an ‘obvious reality’, it is a ‘widely held belief’ . . . yet to be empirically established.

            And the claim that ‘almost no one now doesn’t acknowledge that CO2 is a significant driver in the warming of the planet’ is not only untrue, it is appalling English. Unless ‘significant’ can also mean ‘not very much really’ (or unless you don’t understand English).

            As for showing ignorance, you just did so in great style, as I have noticed you so often do. Why are you people always so arrogant, condescending and unpleasant?

            And FYI, I did believe in your stuff – with some passion – for more than 25 years. I was writing songs about it in the 1980s for Dog’s sake, when most of XL weren’t even twinkles in the eyes. But then I found information that didn’t fit the narrative, so I looked further. What I have discovered has appalled me. I could never have imagined the abuse of science that has been committed in support of this fairytale, the constant cherry-picking, rewriting of history, refusal to consider ANY other possibility even if tentatively supported by data, and the inflated, morally masturbating arrogance of those who think they know enough about how our NATURAL climate system works to draw the conclusions and make the pronouncements that they (and you) do.

            And the attitudes, words and behaviours of those on ‘your side’ of this non-debate are enough to tell me who the good guys really are. In my investigations I have sought ‘red flags’ that might give alert that something is wrong, and that is one. One of many. Why do they/you, when challenged, immediately resort to appeals to authority or majority, snide comments or barely-concealed aggression?

            I would also mention that I have learned more about science, scientific method and scientific integrity here (and a few other sites) than ever I have before. So thank you, denizens of WUWT, for reawakening my logical mind.

            To ignore these things and the many pearls that visitors here leave for us, however, is, quite literally, ignorant.

            Like I say, have a nice day. They are NOT going out of fashion.

          • Oh, and I did mention that I am agnostic on the matter of does it/doesn’t it, I am not ‘denying’ it. So it seems you can’t read as well as not being able to write.

            See, I can do it too.

            But only when insulted by clowns.

          • ChrisDinBristol
            “As for showing ignorance, you just did so in great style, as I have noticed you so often do. Why are you people always so arrogant, condescending and unpleasant?”
            That is the single funniest thing I have seen all week (apart from seeing Trump write his note to himself today with a sharpie, then read it 10 times). Telling someone they are “arrogant, condescending and unpleasant” in such and arrogant, condescending and unpleasant way. Time for a mirror I think.

          • Ha! So it seems that you are not only unable to read or comprehend other people’s posts, you can’t even read or comprehend your own:

            Regarding the ‘D word’ you said: “what else do you call someone who denies the rather obvious reality that CO2 does cause warming?”
            There is no excuse for using or implying the ‘D word’, with its connotations of Holocaust ‘D-ing’ or deity ‘D-ing’, under any circumstance. Perhaps you should say what you really mean – the word is ‘heretic’.

            Then you said: “those who still argue CO2 is not a driver are really wasting everyone’s time, or showing their ignorance”.
            Not at all “arrogant, condescending and unpleasant” there then.

            So I reacted in kind, and you richly deserved every word. “Time for a mirror”? You failed to notice that I was being one.

            Ha!

          • Simon, try to keep up:

            “This doesn’t mean that CO_2 is not a greenhouse gas — quite the opposite. It does mean that there is very, very little variation in its functioning as a greenhouse gas”

            quote by RGB. Do you claim you are smarter than a physics professor? Let me make this simple for you. Very little functioning is equivalent to very little warming.

          • ChrisDinBristol
            Soooo back to my original point. Do you agree or not that we are well past the point of debating whether we are warming and it is mostly us and that really we should be concerned how much will come and how much damage will it cause?

          • Simon

            *CO2 is EFFECT of the increase in temperature seen in the last 100 years.*

            That statement is true, and empirically established. And if you disagree, YOU are science denier.

          • OK, I’ll bite, one more time.

            No.

            No-one is ‘debating’ whether we have warmed or not. However, by how much is a topic worthy of debate. My guess is that the combined effects of UHI and curiously convenient ‘adjustments’ have increased this quantity significantly.
            However, an ongoing debate about the science would be (and would have been) a good thing, but is (and has been) constantly avoided by ‘your side’. Which, I rather think, was the point of this post in the first place.
            And to claim that we are ‘well past debating’ is not only bad science, it is anti-science*, particularly since:

            1) That it is “mostly (caused by) us” is conjecture. I have seen no convincing evidence whatsoever that it is true. If I had done then I might think differently.
            I have, however, seen and heard many scientists treating this as if it is an unassailable truth, so that it has become a fundamental assumption underlying all current ‘green’ policies and virtually all public discourse. It also inhibits investigation into other possible climatic factors, what with the science being settled and it being well past debate and all. This is not only bad science, but anti-science*.

            2) No, I really am not concerned about what warming will come, because I have seen no evidence that I should be.
            I am, however, very concerned about scientists and official bodies constantly cherry-picking and otherwise twisting data to make it look as if such evidence exists.

            In my view the warming this century will likely not be large – hey, it might even cool. (Since the best way of forecasting the future is to listen to what climate scientists predict and assume the opposite. Oh yes, and the Sun. And the PDO. And the AMO. And clouds. And CO2 lagging temperatures rather than leading them. And it having been warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years. And . . . well you probably get the idea).
            In any case, to repeatedly sound strident warnings of coming doom, thus scaring the wits out of – and inspiring resentment in – at least one generation of children, based on a bunch of computer models that don’t work isn’t just bad science, it is anti-science*.

            3) Future damage from “climate change” is also conjecture. This conjecture is based on weather events becoming more severe. For which there is no evidence. It is also based on dramatic accelaration in sea-level rise. For which there is no evidence.
            Computer model outputs are NOT evidence.
            There will, of course, be damaging weather events, as there always has been.

            The policies being currently followed, however, in order to ‘fix’ this evidence-free conjectural “problem” will inevitably lead to economic disaster – austerity on steroids forever, unreliable and expensive energy provision, stringent loss of freedoms and mobility, and misery and premature death for millions of real people. And, inevitably again, it is the old, the sick, the weak and the poor who will suffer first and most.
            It will also cause (is causing) great harm to the environment, about which I do happen to care, rather a lot.
            No models are needed for this – absent some groundbreaking new technologies it is a logical progression.
            These policies are not based on science. They are based on anti-science*. And they are completely nuts.
            So No, No and thrice No to your question.
            And if said question was a perverse attempt to paint me as a “science D*n*er” because I disagree with the so-called (and anti-scientific) “concensus”, bad luck.
            I am an “Anti-science D*n*er”.

            (* Insert the words ‘junk’, ‘Pseudo-‘ or ‘pathological’ as required. Some other words are also applicable)

            OK. That’s my troll-baiting done for the day. I know you won’t read – or rather comprehend – this, as you clearly didn’t read/comprehend my other replies, but I do feel better now, thanks.

          • Simon, the IPCC disagrees with that statement, which is meaningless btw. The “consensus” is that only the warming after 1950 could have a connection to CO2 emissions.

            Also, of course, without defining either the warming amount or the percentage attributed to human ghg emissions, the statement is meaningless.

          • ChrisDinBristol
            Well there you go, so you think it is all anti science and the models don’t tell us anything and the temps are all mischievously adjusted anyway. It must be so easy for you dismiss facts using your criteria.
            There are so many falsehoods in what you just wrote I don’t know where to start. But ok lets go with this one first..
            “And it having been warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years.” Complete and utter bonkers nonsense. A Trump truth. Throw out a fact and hope no one checks it. Where is your data to prove that silly statement?

            And if you think CO2 has little to do with the warming I wonder how you explain this graph….?
            chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf

          • Simon
            That non-link didn’t work, I’m afraid, so I can’t comment on it directly. However, when I subsequently googled your reference I got this :
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/20/climate-modelers-cant-predict-future-so-now-concentrate-on-the-past/ , so you could try that.

            This post is now several days old and all have moved on, leaving this resembling two blokes left fighting in a pub long after everyone’s lost interest and gone home, but (for the last time) I cannot let the utter tosh you wrote pass without comment. So:

            1) I did not suggest that it was ALL anti-science, merely showing several instances where it was. There are many others. So characterising the ‘Climate Change Movement’ as unscientific to the point of anti-science (and worse, though to utter the baleful word usually leads to moderation or litigation) seems to me totally apposite. Just my opinion, of course, but your total disregard of the points I made seems to me to be following the same pattern.

            2) I did not say that models “don’t tell us anything”, merely that the output of models are NOT evidence and NOT data. When the models show real skill in predictions at a LOCAL/REGIONAL level on SEVERAL climatic variables (max/min temperatures, rainfall amounts & distribution, pressures & storm systems etc) then they may be truly useful. Comparing “Global Average Temperature Anomaly” hindcasts alone in a model that has many tunable parameters (particularly clouds, aerosols, ocean currents & heat distribution etc) is surely curve-fitting. And circular reasoning particularly since:

            3) I did NOT say the adjustments to the temperature data were “mischievous.” However, that they are continually and continuously adjusted is a known fact – every month hundreds of past data records are change by the various adjustment and homogenisation algorithms. This is NOT ok as far as I’m concerned. At the very least the public should be made aware that it is happening. Furthermore, even with their ridiculously optimistic +/- 0.1degC margins of error, many of the ‘hottest Tuesday in June while there’s a test match on’ gleefully announced by the likes of NOAA and NASA differ from previous ‘hottest Tuesdays in June while there’s a test match on’ by hundredths of a degree. The uncertainly limits mean ‘we cannot measure this with enough certainty to be more accurate than that’, so differences of hundredths of a degree are a statistical tie, as in ‘we cannot tell between one and another’. Such pronouncements are, therefore, bad science (and worse, though to utter the baleful word usually leads to moderation or litigation) .

            4) The net effect of these continual adjustments and successive new ‘versions’ of the datasets using ‘new techniques’ (and different source data) has been to:
            a) dramatically reduce the temperatures during the warm period 1915-1945
            b) remove the cooling of the 1945-1975 period. (I’m old enough to have been around during the ‘global cooling’ scare of the ’70’s. NOAA’s claim that it didn’t exist (or was misreported) is Orwellian).
            c) remove the ‘pause’ 1995/6-2014/5. (The Karl paper doing this choosing to adjust modern buoy records based on ship-intake records, thus ensuring a future warming trend as the former grow in number and the latter diminish. This paper was rushed through peer review in 6 weeks, coincidentally appearing just in time for the Paris conference.)
            Thus three periods where data seriously undermined the case for “CO2 running the climate’ – some 80 years in total, were (somewhat conveniently) ‘disappeared’, and replaced by “improved data” that looks a bit more like the models said they should have done.
            And this doesn’t make you at all suspicious? Really?

            5) Temperature reconstructions of the Holocene have been widely available (and widely ignored) for decades. It’s one of the reasons Hubert Lamb set up CRU in the fiirst place, and if here were still here with us I’m sure he’d agree with me.
            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/clip_image0024.jpg

            Many other proxy studies confirm the Greenland data. Few (other than similarly “hide the decline”-based papers since the late 1990s that tack the instrumental record on to proxy ones) support Marcott et al.

            Until the CO2 scare started in the ’80s it was generally accepted by all in the paleo-climatic field that the Holocene Optimum (around 4000 years), Minoan, Roman and Medieval optima (1000-1500 in total) years, and much of the intervening variations were all warmer than now. It is based on proxy data and so contains a fair amount of uncertainty, so I should have said “probably warmer than now for most of the last 10000 years”. But it was, as I say, generally accepted – which proves nothing, of course, but I thought you guys were big on “consensus”.

            Since MBH98 and Pages2K’s history mangling has only stretched back 2000 years so far I assume this is largely still the case, and since 1000 (and more)-year-old tree-stumps/tree lines and Viking settlements are still emerging from permafrost and since the Vikings farmed coastal Greenland (including some hardy crops) and since grapes for winemaking were grown in NE England using medieval methods, I would say the Medieval opimum was likely warmer than today, and that MBH98 and Pages2K might just be steaming piles of man-cow-poo.

            So a ‘Trump Truth’? What has Trump to do with our discussion? Your words betray you, my friend, you are driven by politics, not scientific enquiry. You are governed by belief, not evidence. Your attempt at scorn – so common amongst “warmistas” it seems – merely combines arrogance with deliberate ignorance. Your mind is closed and, I suspect, can never be opened.

            It is you and those like you that are the greatest threat to democracy, quality of life (and quantity of same, come to that), freedom of speech, thought and movement, prosperity, progress and science itself. Not Trump. And not Climate Change.

            Da-di-da-di-dats all for now folks. There is so much more, of course, but that’s for another time . . .

        • Darren. If your eloquent comment was directed at me then do me a favour and shed light on why you think I am wrong?

          • Simon,
            This is the conclusion from Pat’s paper linked below it is worth reading, you will learn something of value if you do.
            “The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.”
            PF

      • Simon,
        I hope you are more than wise enough to realise the climate is a complex chaotic entity. Does CO2 have a role to play in the complexity of climate/atmospheric heat balance? Well yes it does, but as has been outlined below in many of the answers to your point, it is all to do with scale of influence and more importantly what is the driver of the CO2 in the atmosphere mechanism.
        Does CO2 drive heat or does heat drive CO2?
        As the control of atmospheric CO2 is ocean temperature, and as all ice core research shown global temperature increases many hundreds of years before CO2 increases in the atmosphere, the scientific study thus far tells us Co2 is a reactor to temperature change, not a cause of temperature change.
        It is at about this point, my daughters mother in law changes the conversation….

    • Pass her the link to my paper, Rod

      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

      I’m a chemist. She’ll know the difference between accuracy and precision, and will understand propagation of error.

      I have yet to meet the physical scientist who did not immediately understand and accept the analysis; nor a climate modeler who did either.

      She may end up shocked at their incompetence. I was at first, but no more.

  8. Why won’t the other side debate?

    Because they have the lame-stream media in their pockets, who will parrot anything they say without supporting facts or evidence. The other side doesn’t need to debate, since they believe they already won.

  9. ” Why won’t the other side debate?”

    WUWT already had an article recently by Patrick Moore that shows this as part of the Greenpeace doctrine. No debate means the myth spreads as a doctrine.

  10. “It’s hard to believe they are when so many serious people are so worried. I wish there were a real debate! Why won’t the other side debate?”
    With what?
    What can they bring to the debate?
    They proclaimed for 3 decades;”We have The Science” (TM IPCC).
    But their science seems to vanish under inspection.
    Maybe it is a quantum effect?
    You can know the answer or See the science… But never the two together.

    Soothsaying and fear mongering are great ploys but what good would they serve in a scientific debate?
    Has any of The Team(UN IPCC) ever defined what this “Climate Change”,that they keep referring to, is?
    What ,exactly, is under discussion?
    What defined,agreed upon terms. are we using for this debate?
    In a faith versus science argument, are we even discussing the same reality/world?

    • 3 degree rise above normal level from gas leak in california scientist knew accurately .just then ? mushy science like 1919 betz limits downplay of wind energy values when oil fields discovered in texas . Un hun sure . As if no other designs could be invented scientists ? myth.? Fact like my lonien windmill

    • John Robertson

      “What can they bring to the debate?”

      They bring all the worlds scientists opinion.
      That´s all they have. And all they need.

  11. Climate alarmists only have mass-debates when UN-IPCC supplies the oh-so-soft and absorbent tissues. 😉

  12. I love John Stossel videos. My favourite is when Roy Spencer and Gavin Schmidt were invited to discuss climate change but Gavin Schmidt would only do so when Roy Spencer went off set.

  13. They don’t debate because they don’t have to. The vast institutions are on their side. They can smugly thumb their noses at the naysayers. All the media outlets are brazenly left wing. They don’t care or give a fig for putting up an appearance of objectivity. It is essentially over. Stick a fork in it, the skeptical side of the issue is done.

    • Until the try to enact some of the crazy ideas, then they generally find out what reality looks like 🙂

      Iran is the latest to try a left wing idea lets increase fuel prices by 50% and give the profits to the poor and that isn’t really working out so well apparently. I thought we had enough example of stupid countries shooting themselves in foot with left wing ideas but the comedy show rolls on.

      US with the democrats GND and Germany with it’s “2030 climate protection programme” are next up to the plate and lets see if they can (a) get them over the line (b) survive the backlash.

  14. The problem for an actual science debate is the Alarmists would end up having to agree on many points with the skeptics. Thus like Bjorn Lomborg they’d run the very real risk of being labeled a denier too for saying something un-PC.

    Today’s western Baizuo admires Communist China so much with its ability to command a large domestic economy and turn the population on a dime, censor its internet, and lockup dissidents and those pesky Uyghur troublemakers into “re-education centers.”
    No doubt the Leftists are assembling their list of names for future Climate Denier gulags and studying plans to run Western countries like the Red China model. So no one on the Left wants to run the risk of being labeled a Denier and end up in gulag, either real or virtual.

    Too bad Micahel Crichton isn’t alive. He could probably write one heckuva doomster novel on a dytopian future of Progressive run world with climate denier gulags and mass genocides from energy poverty induced famines.

  15. Why won’t they debate? Um, because they’re chicken? And because they always lose. Not fair, the Skeptics need a handicap.

    • The alarmists learned their lesson from the 2007 debate between skeptics Stott, Crichton and Lindzen vs.
      alarmists Schmitt, Somerville and Ekwurzel. The alarmists thought virtue would carry them to victory but got their butts kicked royally. The “noble cause” has avoided debate ever since. Hence Gavin Schmidt famously (imfamously?) would not be in the same room as Roy Spencer, might catch skeptic cooties.

  16. They won’t debate because they know they would lose the scientific argument.

    But if they won’t debate… they lose anyway!

  17. I saw a farmer in the UK who breeds a particular type of sheep they call salt lamb.
    When the tide is out they go and eat the seaweed.
    He said;
    “If they get caught by the incoming tide they will just stand there. They can swim but they will just stand there and drown”.

    • King Canute was obviously the first person to domesticate the salt lamb and successfully propagate a flock!

  18. I am amazed that no one relates to the 1975 movie Rollerball, a futuristic vision of earth…where Corporations were the government…I recall there were 8 of them. They made all the rules and assigned everyone their roll in life…until they decided it was time to end that life. James Caan stars and his character stuck into my brain…I just can’t get past it. He bucked “the establishment”.
    That movie so impressed me as a new college graduate/career military officer…now it seems governments are answering to Billionaires…and the aim is to “Rule the World”. Climate Change is a means to that end in my humble opinion. Is it too far fetched to consider a group of the “Ultra-Wealthy” actually becoming the Ruling Class of the entire world?
    Who is funding all these “protesters” as they are not local folks…they are paid “hired guns”.
    I wonder….

  19. the other side is debating. at conferences, in journals.
    not theatre. real debate with data methods and review.

    anyone can join. i did. anthony did. mcintrye did.
    nic lewis did.

    TV debates? sorry, no data, no code. theatre not science.

      • Gerald,
        Reality or fiction is his point.

        There isn’t any International organization devoted to unbiased findings Science.

        Until this changes, the media goofs will spin every headline for rates.

    • Journals and conferences I can give a list of great ones from actual hard science and they were all junk and rather comical. It’s actually amusing to look at the real pointy end and the Solvay Conferences.

      Lets take the 1927 conference and what is usually described as the most intelligence in 1 frame
      https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/solvay-conference-probably-intelligent-picture-ever-taken-1927/
      If you don’t know them all take a second to read each of the 27 bio’s

      They were simply trying to sort out Atoms and electrons and they had piles of data and actually all the answers and still didn’t get it right because each had stupid bias 🙂

      Finally in 1929 Paul Dirac crawls over the top of his bias and writes what is glaringly obvious.
      Dirac was the first to use the term quantum electrodynamics and write the first equation as so is the founder of the field. The detection of positrons in 1932 proving the theory grants the 1933 Nobel prize to him along with Erwin Schrödinger.

      The reality is there were at least 7 other people in that group that should have been able to work that out. Paul Dirac is not the smartest in that image by any means but he was the one prepared to be objective.

      They were only trying to sort out electrons and atoms not the entire worlds atmospheric thermodynamics :-).

      So the lesson for our English Lit Grad, self claimed Scientist and drive by spam poster is
      You can do all the Journals and conferences with all the needed data and the best and brightest scientists and you still wont solve the problem. There is nothing about Journals and conferences that stops you fooling yourself and produces “correct outcomes”.

    • Dead wrong. Sorry to you too. Alarmist scientists grandstand in the press and on TV. No data. No code. They claim consensus but don’t know the true ECS, only a wide range. AOC is a politician putting forward a programme. This gets us to the point. Alarmist science asks for urgent changes to the entire economic structure of the developed world, and the means of power generation for the whole world. Whether these changes occur is a matter for the people in any democracy, and execution is for elected politicians. If there are differing views held by knowledgeable scientists and others on “what, if anything, we should do….” (Gavin Schmidt quotation) -and there most certainly are, however loudly some activists try to deny it – then these ideas MUST be discussed and debated by those concerned in the same public sphere in which extraordinary claims are being put forward.

      • AOC has said since that “12 years” was a joke for which only Conservatives would fall.

        Of course, all subsequent policy (including the GND) developed by her and adhered to by Most Democrat politicians is based on that “joke”.

      • You wrote “execution is for elected politicians” Ah yes – I agree with Shakespeare! Now, would it be noose or firing squad? (Not the ‘electric chair’ – the carbon footprint is too large!)
        /sarc in case anyone of nervous (or political) disposition is reading…

    • If a scientist is only interested in doing science and is not good at dealing with the public, fine. But, a lot of supposed climate scientists are writing blog posts, editorials and making public presentations. Is there any real excuse for them not to debate? If there’s a contrarian side that is misrepresenting the issues, who’s better qualified to confront them?

      IMO, these particular people have no excuse not to debate in public:

      Naomi Oreskes
      Gavin Schmidt
      Michael Mann
      Katherine Hayhoe
      Mark Jacobson

      The three people on Stossel’s show are serious, accomplished professionals. They may be wrong on some points, but they shouldn’t just be dismissed — they should be refuted, if they are.

    • TV debates are absolutely the proper venue when you are proposing to steal trillions of dollars from the world’s economies, mostly to enrich industrialist parasites who’ve decided to hitch their wagon to the renewables star. You want my money, make your case in public.

  20. “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”
    —Tom Paine

    PS: It’s not true that all warmists won’t debate. Mann and that ex-admiral (Quigly or something?) debated Moore & Curry in Charleston WV earlier this year. But it wasn’t online or televised.

    • Rubbish and carbon footprints growth promoting site debates results ,click on
      “corruption index” it parralels oil nuclear industries that manipulate internet responses.

      • Please don’t let your cat walk on your keyboard when you are composing responses. They wind up unintelligible, just like this one.

      • Rubbish and carbon footprints

        I do agree that both those concepts belong together. That’s about the only part of your post that makes any sense.

        Steven , it’s clear from your postings that either English isn’t your native tongue or else you have some mental deficiencies that make effective communicating difficult if not impossible. I’m going to be generous and assume the former. Your poor grasp of the English language makes it near impossible to understand what you meant to convey. I suggest you find someone more conversant in the language to help you craft any future posts you might wish to make.

      • I speak his language. Here’s what he’s trying to say,

        “The organization that hosted the debate also propagates the canards of dangerous increases in CO2 discharge, and that any doubters are paid shills of the energy industry. You can find their summary under the “Corruption Index” portion of their web site.”

        I have no idea if he’s right, but that’s what he’s trying to say. 🙂

  21. It is now 11 years, 1 month and 10 days!!! Hyperventilate, hyperventilate!! Politicians, especially the left of centre ones MUST be asked if a climate emergency must be declared because the world will end in 11 years, 1 month and 10 days. It will put them on the spot and show what utter morons they are if they say yes. How many people actually believe this fairy tale? They can be lampooned mercilessly for believing in fairy tales. If they say no, then they can be shown up as liars because they supported the climate emergency. If they say – “not sure”, then it means the science is not settled and we need to debate it.

    Because the Truth comes through in the end, this very simple play can flush out the truth before the warmists flush civilization itself down the toilet.

  22. The audiance is not educated . California gas leak raised earth temp accurately .start their. If you care about fact and preventing the excerbated demise of humans from self exterminations from greed based short terminology.

    • Judging from the poorly craft post, I suspect that the one that is “not educated” is you Steven Lonien.

      California gas leak raised earth temp accurately

      Care to elaborate on what you mean here. What gas leak are you referring to (a single link to a reliable news source will do)? and accurately to what? I assume you mean to some kind of prediction, please cite the source of said prediction.

      start their

      start their what? their engines? their marathon? Oh, you mean start there. Well, you need to give more details (see above) before anyone can hope to “start there”.

      If you care about fact

      we do, clearly you don’t considering what you said next:

      and preventing the excerbated (sic) demise of humans from self exterminations from greed based short terminology

      Sorry that’s just nonsense. The only thing that will cause the “exacerbated demise of humans” is the abandoning of the cheap, reliable energy that has made human life longer, safer and overall more pleasant.

  23. Mankind accounts for 5-6 Gt of CO2 emissions per year. Natural sources account for 190-225 Gt per year. Just the natural variability of 35 Gt (225-190) is 6 to 7 times as large as the total anthropogenic emissions.

    If we are going to combat Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere can anyone please tell me, further to sorting out the anthropogenic emissions, HOW we can reduce the 190-225 Gt produced from Natural Sources if we wish to Save the Earth from an unknown disaster (?) in 12 years?

    • Hi JoHo (robot?)
      Humans are not in charge of the atmospheric CO2 level, nature and the biosphere is.
      If pCO2 rises then the oceans (at whatever temperature they are at) may increase it’s take-up of CO2, if CO2 falls then the oceans (at whatever temperature they are at) may increase it’s venting of CO2.
      Either way puny humans are NOT in charge of CO2 levels, the biosphere maintains atmospheric CO2 levels.
      Also note CO2 can not and does not warm the oceans, the sun and geothermal effects does that.

  24. I’m sure this “debate” was online, the good folks here at WUWT made sure the links were available in the end, and I watched a good bit of it too, esp. the presentations by Moore and Mann.

    However, for whatever the reasons it wasn’t a debate, it was separate presentations. I particularly liked the bit where the Hockey fellow strutted around bragging about the 8 or so scientists whose papers slavishly follow up in such a way as to just confirm his conclusions, his “hockey team’ he calls them ..

  25. The reason life expectancy has doubled is the availability of cheap reliable energy. Turn the power off and in 6 months we are all hunter gatherers again and our life expectancy will start dropping like a stone.

  26. I blame the Internet !

    And the ability of thinking folk to be able to explore contentious topics, or sacred cows, with the merest slide of a mouse. It meant that folk who had doubts about all sorts of received wisdoms got to see that there were others who had the same doubts. Worse still it enabled perusal of information that was not conducive to the prevailing story. Remember the hole in the ozone gig ? that popped up just before the age of the WWW, and its fascinating to wonder how the debate and conclusions may have been affected had it been open to much more input.

    The No Debate gig started with the topic of the Holocaust, and things like Billy Wilders shrunken heads and soap, which once exposed to critical gaze, proved to be a source of embarrassment to the High Priests (money makers) of the narrative. The same topic also spawned the use of the word ‘Denier’ to smear not only the flat-earthers, but those with no malicious intent who asked inconvenient questions. In such an atmosphere it doesn’t take long for the mass of enquiring minds to realise that such doubts as they may have, are best kept to themselves.

    The whole modus operandi of non debate has now been applied to any subject that has the potential for a caste of priests to become earners. Climate Change, Donald Trump is bad, doubts about gender fluidity, think outside the box, and once the Denier tag gets pinned on you, see the potential for far reaching effects on your everyday life.

    As Orwell had it, ‘In a time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth becomes a revolutionary act’ 🙂

  27. Debate can be healthy and good even when it’s contentious..however, when you’re able to feed the public a steady diet of misinformation, debate ceases..The same goes for schools. Our children are inundated every day with the following trope, CO2 and carbon emissions are evil, the seas are rising and our coasts will soon be flooded, storms are getting stronger, we only have 20 years to do something(or insert other random # here), droughts are worse, temperature extremes are the norm (and caused by climate change).

    While I don’t hold a degree in science or math, I’m quite capable of reading and formulating my own opinions. The non-skeptic’s main goal is to prevent that while at the same time playing on the most base of human emotions, fear..Think about the last 15 to 20 years, if you went back and looked at the number of articles or news stories related to weather events, i,e storms or temp records broken, you’d probably see a 10-fold increase in the number of them even though there hasn’t been any statistically significant increase in either..That should tell you all you need to know..

  28. Why alarmists won’t debate? Easy just point them on a simple scientific fact with a scientific fact: the end of the young dryas.

    Once you point them to how the young dryas ended, they are clueless and can’t debunk it

    The end of the young dryas is an abrupt climate change at a speed that is 4-10 times faster than the worse case rcp 8.5 scenario of the ipcc and is almost double their predicted rise. There was no co2 back then.

    All they can do then is try to ridicule instead of using science

  29. Why won’t they actually debate?
    To suppress opposing ideas. To control information. They only want their ideas to be known. They want opposing ideas to be silenced or presented as “nutso”.
    Way back when the Founding Fathers of the US knew Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religions were important.
    Today, in the context of CAGW and with the internet, we have blogs such as WUWT to counter “Control of the Press” and zero MSM debate.

  30. (Meant as a “PS” to my previous comment)
    As far as “Freedom of Religion” goes, I’d like and would prefer to lead a quite and peaceable life in that regard, but persecution has never stopped the Good News before.

  31. ‘Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists’

    I’m old enough to remember when states had meteorologists. Who were trustworthy. ‘Climatologist’ is political.

Comments are closed.