The Koonin-Dessler Debate

By Andy May

Update: You will be able to watch a recording of the debate around August 24 on Youtube, the link that worked briefly has been taken down.

The debate I announced here between Steve Koonin and Andy Dessler took place Monday August 15th, it was very educational and illuminating. I will try and write more about it in a few days.

In short Andy Dessler said that economic models suggest that climate change is a negative for human civilization and not positive at all. But he avoided putting any numbers to this assertion.

Dessler believes that wind and solar produce electricity cheaper than fossil fuels, and that they can provide most of our power. Koonin counters that the only reason wind and solar are cheaper is that the cost of fossil fuel backup and the required changes to the U.S. grid are not included in the solar and wind costs. Koonin shows an estimate of $2.4 trillion to upgrade our electric grid to work with mostly wind and solar.

Koonin stated that the costs of climate change are minimal, and in 100 years will not be noticeable because the world economy will grow so much in that time. Climate change, even in the worse scenarios, only reduces economic growth very slightly, by 4% or less, and everyone will still be better off. He notes that in the past global warming and climate change have benefited mankind since people are much better off today, and much more resilient to climate change, than 100 years ago. He also points out that the poor of today should not be made to suffer because the elites (that is the U.S. and the western world) believe, without evidence and only based on models, that fossil fuels are polluting or dangerous. He adds that solar and wind are not pollution free.

Koonin quotes U.S. economist Anthony Downes, who once said:

“The elite’s environmental deterioration is often the common man’s improved standard of living.”

From “Up and down with ecology- the ‘issue attention cycle,'” by Anthony Downs (link)

At the end of this very interesting Oxford-style debate in the New York Sheen Center, these were the results:

Dessler Koonin Debate Results

Obviously Koonin won, the swing was 25% in his favor. Let us hope that these results are not changed online like they were in the last big climate change debate.

5 68 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 16, 2022 2:15 am



Last edited 1 month ago by HotScot
Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2022 3:25 pm

The new, even more Orwellian term for it is: Malinformation – Information that is true, but may cause the public to distrust government or “The Science”

Andrew Wilkins
August 16, 2022 2:17 am

Hahahaha hahahaha!
Dessler will have lost his sh*t about this. Mike Mann will be fuming.
A brilliant start to my morning.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
August 16, 2022 5:46 am

And historians will note this debate as the FINAL DEBATE where an alarmist agreed to debate in public.

George Daddis
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
August 16, 2022 4:17 pm

Mikey was recently advising activist scientists (an oxymoron in my opinion) NOT to debate or engage.
This is why. (Smirk)

August 16, 2022 2:23 am

Mr. Dessler wasn’t prepared/was ambushed/the audience was packed/they turned the aircon up……..


Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 5:49 pm

“Mr. Dessler had a brain freeze, and thought he was debating elderly COVID infected seniors at the rest home.”

August 16, 2022 2:26 am

Putin, Putin, Putin.


August 16, 2022 3:01 am

Koonin. Tick. VG

Ron Long
August 16, 2022 3:12 am

The recent congress-approved “Inflation Reduction Act” includes $370 Billion for Climate Change action (spread out over 10 years?). This is $1,000 per person. Wonder where this money actually ends up? Maybe Congress will read about the Dressler-Koonin Debate and refund the money?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ron Long
August 16, 2022 4:35 am

I heard some reports that the EPA is getting a $27 billion slush fund out of the Inflation Reduction Act. Anyone know anything about this?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ron Long
August 16, 2022 4:39 am

More likely it is $1 Billion for 370 specific people to be named later.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 16, 2022 7:35 am

You have a career in politics if you choose that “profession”

Reply to  Ron Long
August 16, 2022 4:55 am

Leftists seem to only show one hand at a time, whether it be from their desire to deceive or inability to balance an equation.

For sure they are horrible at balancing.

Reply to  Ron Long
August 16, 2022 5:21 am

Almost all of that is tax credits, not spending, which may never be used. It is a made up number. Sound familiar?

Reply to  David Wojick
August 16, 2022 6:31 am

A “tax credit” is either “used” to reduce government revenue, or, if the credit exceeds the taxes owed, the balance is “spent” in a so-called “tax refund.”

Reply to  David Wojick
August 16, 2022 8:51 am

The tax credits are to MANIPULATE spending.

Solar and Wind unreliables that would be otherwise uneconomical will be built, and the funds will come from the working poor among us the MOST as a % of total income/wealth.

Do you hate working poor people also, like Simon and griff?

Reply to  Drake
August 16, 2022 12:56 pm

How do tax credits manipulate spending?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  David Wojick
August 16, 2022 3:33 pm

They manipulate your spending. If an electric vehicle is a marginal choice for you, sweetening the pot by $7,500 or whatever may tip you to make the purchase. Same for PV arrays.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 17, 2022 2:36 pm

I have increased attic insulation in 3 homes in Las Vegas, NV primarily due to tax credits on the purchase of the insulation.

I also replaced old single glazed windows with dual glazed low-E windows in one of those houses and received a credit.

On one of those houses I did replace single with dual glazed windows without a tax credit, but it was a rental house and I could deduct the cost.

During the Jimmy Carter years lots of people in LV put rooftop solar water heaters on their houses. Tax Credits were the ONLY reason anyone would ever do that because NOW you cannot find ANY of those systems still in use and none installed since that time. The only solar water heating I see is for swimming pools.

Reply to  Ron Long
August 16, 2022 7:17 am

Hunter Biden. And the Big Guy gets 10 percent

Gunga Din
Reply to  Ron Long
August 16, 2022 10:18 am

Enacting The Green Raw Deal one boondoggle at a time.

Reply to  Ron Long
August 17, 2022 3:26 pm

10 held by H for the big guy

August 16, 2022 3:21 am

Will this be available to view online?

Reply to  Paul
August 16, 2022 4:08 am

A recording is going to be available online, but I don’t know if it is restricted only to those who attended or paid to have it streamed, or to the general public. It was a great debate and a pleasure to watch/listen to Dr. Koonin go through his well thought out presentation and reply to Dressler’s remarks.

Climate believer
Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 7:05 am

If it’s a convincing debate (as comments here suggest), with some solid home runs from Mr Koonin, then if possible try and go for the widest, freest, creative commons distribution possible.

I realise there’s a cost to cover, but these opportunities don’t come along that often these days.

Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 8:44 am

I certainly hope that the debate will be distributed to news outlets.
I’m sure that Ben Shapiro, who has a production company, would be able to bring the salient debate points into a presentation that the average person could understand. Dan Bongino is heavy into Rumble for distribution.

I think the sooner this is presented to the general public, the better for all of us.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 11:31 am

I will certainly email my MP with the link when it appears, I hope everybody will do the same with their government representative.

Reply to  Paul
August 16, 2022 8:10 am

I’m sure that “Covering Climate Now” will be distributing the whole debate exactly as it happened, and without “Distressing Content” warnings.

Rick C
Reply to  Mr.
August 16, 2022 8:55 am

Mr. I actually did laugh out load when I read your comment. Thanks.

Reply to  Mr.
August 16, 2022 10:05 am


August 16, 2022 3:23 am

D is even wrong about the Econ models. Of the 3 major ones, one shows warming being net beneficial up to around 2 degrees. The other two are “constrained” not to. Plus none considers the destructive adverse impact of reducing emissions.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 16, 2022 4:24 am

Could you give some references? Without having really investigated, my guess has always been that the economic models make implausible assumptions

As was explained, for example, by Walton Francis, a former director of regulatory analysis at the Department of Health and Human Services, “[The IPCC] has published epidemiologically absurd claims that vector borne diseases such as malaria and yellow fever might return to North America, where such diseases were endemic two hundred years ago—when temperatures were far lower than today—and are now nonexistent.” 

And Oren Cass found that the EPA arrived at its social-cost-of-carbon estimate by projecting year-2100 heat-death rates in northern cities like Pittsburgh to be 42-80 times the current rates in southern cities like Phoenix—which were already hotter in the year 2000 than northern cities are predicted to be in 2100. It seems likely that other costs, too, are based on the assumption that people won’t adapt—as though, e.g., farmers wouldn’t be smart enough to adjust their seed selections, crop mixes, and planting schedules to take advantage of whatever climate changes occur.

But at some point I should investigate those economic models in greater depth.

Reply to  Joe Born
August 16, 2022 5:26 am

They go out 300 years to get the damages, which is truly nuts. Tol’s model gives net benefits to 2 degrees. In a conversation he said the other two were “constrained” not to. The three in question are those used to calculate the nutty Social Cost of Carbon.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 16, 2022 5:31 am

Thanks a lot.

Reply to  David Wojick
August 16, 2022 6:12 am

Economic models ARE Leftist fantasyland fiction. As a group US economists have never predicted a recession. Why should we care about their models? No one knows if the climate will be warmer or colder in 100 years.

We have had 47 years of global warming since 1975. If there were any costs, I must have missed them:
— Greening of our planet = good news
— Warmer winter nights in Siberia = good news

Where’s the bad news?

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:54 am

I thought that economists have predicted 18 of the last 3 recessions. And provided policies to ensure a soft landing.

As to their models, I have seen that the GCMs are based on econometric models. That is really scary.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 16, 2022 11:33 am

Some economists are perma-bears who are “right” as often as a broken clock

As a group, the top US economists have never had a majority predicting a recession before a recession began. AND THAT:S EXCLUSING THE “I don’t knows”.

I edited an economics newsletter for 43 years and that fact always amazed me. … By the time a large majority of economists agree we ARE in a recession, it is usually near a stock market bottom, and a good time to buy. They are a contrary indicator.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Kevin kilty
Reply to  David Wojick
August 16, 2022 8:41 am

Thanks for that link. I followed it and found this under “Shortcomings”

All numerical models have shortcomings. In 2021, the integrated assessment modeling community examined gaps in what was termed the “possibility space” and how these might best be consolidated and addressed.[41] In an October 2021 working paper, Nicholas Stern argues that existing IAMs are inherently unable to capture the economic realities of the climate crisis under its current state of rapid progress.[42]: §6.2 

They apparently forgot to list under “shortcomings” that they consider only things qualifying as “its worse than we thought”. The bold typeface is mine.

Last edited 1 month ago by Kevin kilty
Reply to  Joe Born
August 16, 2022 6:10 am

re: “The IPCC] has published epidemiologically absurd claims that vector borne diseases such as malaria and yellow fever might return to North America, where such diseases were endemic two hundred years ago”

Won’t happen; The swamps, which contributed to the problem in NA back then, have been drained, exc for the ‘creature’ swamp in DC that remains an issue …

There were numerous ‘ditch and drainage’ programs effected to take care of that ‘plague’ of swamps.

Last edited 1 month ago by _Jim
Jay Willis
Reply to  _Jim
August 16, 2022 8:50 am

Malaria was a massive killer in England from the 16th to the 19th century. Especially around Cambridge and other marshlands where is was known as marsh fever, or Ague. It was most likely endemic in medieval Britain also, especially again the eastern marshes, although records from these times were poorly kept and other evidence needs to be employed.

The contemporary view was that the draining of the fens reduced and finally eradicated the disease. This seems to be a reasonable conclusion to draw. Since the temperature across the country was comparable, it seems highly likely that malaria is associated with marshlands and fens and has little to do with temperature.

See: Fenland Ague in the Nineteenth Century, by Alice Nicholls.

les online
Reply to  Joe Born
August 16, 2022 6:50 pm

Fortune Telling has gone mainstream – where cushy jobs and the money is…
So much Fear of The Future ! So many trying to control the future… It doesnt make for good orgasms…

August 16, 2022 3:50 am

As I predicted before the so-called debate and will repeat that today, having not heard the debate: Leftists do not debate climate change. They make predictions of climate doom that would take decades to refute and “prove” them with the appeal to authority logical fallacy — claims that because government bureaucrat scientists say so, the predictions must be correct. They further “support” the predictions of doom with false claims that bad weather events are caused by climate change, and with climate models that are programmed to predict exactly what they want predicted. The climate crisis is ALWAYS coming in the future — it does not exist in the present.

You can not “win” a climate debate based on science because there is very little science — the always wrong wild guess predictions of climate doom are not science.

The question asked of the audience is nearly irrelevant,
They may have been biased to distrust people like Dessler in the first place. Many said they were undecided before the debate which could be virtue signaling (showing they are fair and open minded), It is hard to believe almost 27% of the general public are still undecided on “climate change”.

The question used about the debate is not useful.
What of people who want reductions in greenhouse gases, but disagree with the words: “large and rapid reductions” What about people who favor large and rapid reductions based on the so-called precautionary principle (te baloney principle) rather than based on conclusive science?

Long ago, before I became a lazy retired bum in January 2005, I developed some surveys for an engineering organization. Every question requires a lot of thought to prevent bias. The questions needed to be anonymous to avoid engineers afraid to speak up, and most important, the questionnaire had to include the opportunity for respondents to write in their thoughts (in my case, on reasons for low engineering productivity)

For this debate it seems like one simple question asked before and after the debate would have been much more useful than the question shown in this article:

What kind of problems do you expect from future climate change?
A Serious problems
B Moderate problems
C Minor problems
D Few or no problems
E Don’t Know

Answer: “Climate change: is a prediction of CAGW in the future — CAGW does not exist today, or at any time in modern history. Climate change (CAGW) is about beliefs, not science. I want to know only if the debate changed beliefs of people in the audience. And I want to know what beliefs they had before they showed up.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 4:02 am

It is hard to believe almost 27% of the general public are still undecided on “climate change”.

The UN ran an online poll of 16 life affecting events like, health, education, prosperity, climate change, internet access etc.

Almost 10m people responded.

Climate change came a poor last, behind internet access.

The poll was taken down.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 6:00 am

While I don’t entirely disagree with how you would approach a debate, I think the question asked is exactly right for where we are right now with respect to policy. Right now, the rage is all about getting to net-zero ASAP regardless of the economic consequences. It’s an absurd goal and impossible to achieve even if we bankrupt every person in the western world and make everyone go back to living in tee-pees or caves. The idea that we can power an industrialized society – or a society not yet industrialized for that matter – using weather dependent and unreliable energy sources is another absurdity.

As I have asserted many times, wind and solar are 100% dependent on fossil fuels from cradle to grave – for the mining and processing of raw materials which requires A LOT of heavy equipment, to transport, manufacture, site preparation, life cycle maintenance, and ultimate decommissioning. They also need fossil fuel backup for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. And no, batteries are not the answer given that they are not a source of energy, they store energy, just like a gas can that must first be filled, and the energy loss during charge/discharge cycle is not insignificant. With a capacity factor of maybe 20% for solar and between 30-35% for wind, you would need to excessively overbuild the energy infrastructure to produce sufficient excess energy to charge enormous battery arrays – that also require enormous number of heavy machines to mine and process raw materials, transport, manufacture, etc. Add to that the relatively short life span of wind and solar compared to fossil fuel and nuclear plants meaning that unreliables must be replaced more frequently. And the amount of raw materials is enormous along with the amount of earth that needs to be moved to get to the raw materials. The reality is that wind, solar and batteries are far more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels.

Both Mark Mills and Willis E. have written a number of great articles that document the absurdity. Here are 2: and

I have yet to have any alarmist constructively dismantle my assertion. I am no scientist and certainly don’t have the math skills of Willis or likely 99.9% of the other people posting here which is why I say I “assert”. It just appears to me to be so plainly obvious when you look at the end-to-end process that you have to be willfully blinded not to see it. The entire process is energy intensive and wind and solar simply can’t deliver.

Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 16, 2022 6:25 am

Mark Mills is an expert on Nut Zero mineral needs

The Climate Howlers want the debate to be over how much money to spend and feasibility of Nut Zero. Complicated engineering issues.

The last thing Climate Howlers want to debate is why are they promoting Nut Zero IN THE FIRST PLACE.

We’ve had 47 years of global warming so far, and it has been pleasant — not a climate emergency. How can actual experience with global warming justify spending a huge amount of money to make electric grids less reliable?

A secondary argument is that China, India, Russia, and every undeveloped nation in the world, could not care less about Nut Zero, MEANING THAT NUT ZERO WILL FAIL TO STOP THE GROWTH OF CO2 EMISSIONS.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:01 am

You have made some good points in your posts, however saying:

The Climate Howlers want the debate to be over how much money to spend and feasibility of Nut Zero.”

The “Climate Howlers” have no intention of even discussing the feasibility of “Nut Zero”, so please do not give them credit for such a reasonable approach. They just want to spend the taxpayer’s money, as much as possible, on ANYTHING that is “Green” or “Unreliable” without any regard of the feasibility of achieving a “Nut Zero” outcome.

Reply to  Drake
August 16, 2022 10:42 am

They don’t care if its green or not. They just wan’t to raid the public coffers for their own benefit.

Reply to  Drake
August 16, 2022 11:50 am

Let’s say the Climate Howlers want climate realists to focus on the details of Nut Zero because there are no details !

They really don’t want to debate anything — the “debate” is really just climate realists TRYING to debate them.

A Nut Zero plan requires sufficiently details, including assumptions and timing, to perform an engineering feasibility study, reasonable cost analysis and reasonable timing analysis. Such a Nut Zero plan will never exist because if it did, the plan would be found to be
Not Feasible
Not Affordable
Not able to be completed in the allowed time, if ever completed

With no master plan that summarized detailed plans by individual electric utilities and others involved, we can’t say “Things are not going according to plan”. Can’t do that if there is no plan.

( By deleting reason and accountability, I am able to think like a leftist ! )

I have previously predicted that Nut Zero is designed to fail, and Nut Zero falling way behind “schedule” will be spun as a new “climate emergency”, which can only be solved by more government power and more government spending.

There are leftist engineers and scientists — most of them must know Nut Zero will fail, but they are afraid to speak up.

Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 16, 2022 8:25 am

Here’s a link to all the failed CAGW predictions from their failing models:

Reply to  DrEd
August 16, 2022 8:32 am
Barnes Moore
Reply to  DrEd
August 16, 2022 2:34 pm

Thanks for this. I have seen it before bur forgot the link. There are multiple sites showing that the alarmist are zero for all time in their apocalyptic assertions, but appreciate the link nonetheless.

Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 16, 2022 10:40 am

The question of renewables powering the world can be answered simply.

If one wind turbine (or solar panel) can produce enough energy in its lifetime to replicate itself from cradle to grave, we will have cracked perpetual motion and can stop all research into fusion and abandon fission.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 2:36 pm

Very funny. Thanks for that. Much more succinct than my lengthy “blurb”.

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 6:19 am

I said that 27% were undecided according to the poll
That seems unusually high for the general public.
Whether people thought climate change was important or not is a different question.

In a poll when you ask people about contributing money (higher taxes) to fight climate change, it’s suddenly not important at all. And that’s just in a poll where it’s so easy to virtue signal about contributing to the fight against climate change, without actually opening your wallet and spending a penny.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:52 am

Richard, the fact that people paid to attend or stream the debate shows that it was an audience of people interested in the topic. This was not some romantic event made for a couple on a hot date.

Certainly, this wasn’t anything close to a random survey of the population.

I think that the 27% undecided are those that have been exposed to the constant propaganda drumbeat of the YSM (Yellow Stream Media) but have also stumbled across contrary information AND have realized that all the mitigation is going to hit their wallets very hard. (That was me a bit over 20 years ago.)

Once all those billions of dollars started getting tossed around, they take an interest in the topic of Climate Change™ and want to know what’s really going on.

That’s my take on the high number of undecideds in the audience.

Reply to  H.R.
August 16, 2022 11:52 am

If a poll question results in 27% undecided, then it is probably not a good poll question

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 5:54 pm

I don’t think so in this case. The audience was self-selected and such a high percent of undecideds in the audience is no surprise.

The question and topic were of interest to them precisely because they were undecided, so they attended.

Why wouldn’t it be the same for a debate over hair plugs vs Rogaine? It would be a self-selected audience and there would probably be a lot of undecided bald guys attending, eh? And of those that attend, maybe some that had decided on hair plugs will change their mind and try the topical treatment instead.

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 9:58 am

Hot Scot, that is just anecdotal data. Not a properly constructed or properly conducted poll. (Just in case, \sarc)

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 16, 2022 10:47 am


Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 16, 2022 11:15 am

No, you always know when survey or poll results are believable, because they are “disappeared” as soon as that “uh oh” moment of realization occurs to the publishers that the result is totally contrary to the “settled science” narrative.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  HotScot
August 17, 2022 4:05 am

And if people made their own “lists” of what they consider “life affecting events,” then “climate change” wouldn’t even MAKE the “list.”

Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 5:04 am

The courage to do nothing is antithetical to the mechanisms allowing distribution of public funds to special interests. In so many problems, governments make things worse.

Just think, the wealth of public “servants” like Pelosi have grown toward a $billion.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Scissor
August 16, 2022 7:15 am

Liz Cheney got a 600% net worth boost during her “representation” of the State of Wyoming, up from a couple million.

Today is the Rep. primary election in Wyo., she will be gone soon.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 16, 2022 8:48 am

And begin her new career as a “conservative” talking head on CNN or MSNBC.

Richard Page
Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 17, 2022 12:20 pm

I heard she planned on starting an anti-Trump organisation once she was defeated. I thought that job belonged to the Federal government?

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 16, 2022 9:10 am

I see a lump of coal in her stocking in the near future.

Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 16, 2022 10:48 am

When will we know?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 3:45 pm

Polls close in about 2 hours (~5:00pm MDT r/n)…

Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 6:55 am

I gave two reasons why the question could bias answers.

Here are further details:
Lukewarmers tend to agree that global warming is a problem but they do not believe science justifies large and rapid CO2 reductions. So we have people favoring CO2 reductions, maybe even large CO2 reductions over a long period of time, who would answer “NO” in response to a question including “large and rapid CO2 reductions”: The question is useless for that reason alone. It forces people into a for or against mode, with no other less definitive choices (other than undecided). That can obscure very important information.

Another possible source of bias:
People going to a debate want to think of themselves as being open minded, It would be virtue signaling to claim you were undecided before a debate — claiming to be undecided is like claiming you are unbiased. “Undecided” can capture people who don’t know or are not sure, when you really want the answer to say: “I don’t know”.
(If the “I don’t know” percentage goes down after the debate, that might reveal if the debate was “educational”)/

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 7:43 am

I have never met a “lukewarmer” who feels that global warming is a problem.
I have personally stated many times that a degree or two of warming will be a net positive, and that anything beyond that doesn’t matter because there aren’t enough fossil fuels left to get CO2 levels high enough to cause them.

Reply to  MarkW
August 16, 2022 11:57 am

The most famous lukewarmers all believe global warming is a problem. If you don’t believe global warming is a problem, then you are a climate realist, not a lukewarmer.

Climate realists believe global warming is not a problem. Climate Howlers believe global warming is a serious problem. Lukewarmers are in the middle

Old Cocky
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 3:33 pm

To a large extent, “is it warming?” and “would warming be a problem?” are orthogonal. Some people believe minor warming would constitute a serious problem, others think it would be a minor problem and yet others think minor warming would be a net benefit.

By definition, luke warmers are of the opinion that the anthropogenic contribution to warming is minor.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 3:38 pm

Your definition of lukewarmer is different from most of the people I have debated. For them a lukewarmer is anyone who doesn’t believe that GHGs have no impact.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 7:13 pm

Nostalgia! Haven’t heard the term “lukewarmer” in long time, perhaps because the subject of climate has become so polarized. Back in the heady days of climategate the definition of “lukewarmer” was a subject of debate with no resolution. Just because the “famous” (Steven Mosher?) adopted the appellation, does not mean they owned it. Luke warm simply means tepid or minor warming and does not convey any sense of peril or need for countermeasures. There were many of us who credited a theoretical slight to immeasurable warming from increased atmospheric CO2 with accompanying benign to beneficial climate effects. We also considered ourselves as “lukewarmers”.

Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 9:12 am

Several years ago there were statewide ballot questions regarding requiring utilities to buy a certain % of unreliables in both Nevada and Arizona, paid for by Tom Steyer.

In Arizona, the, I think, AJ required an added line on the explanation of the description to include “regardless of the cost”. Nevada had no such added language.

The ballot measure failed miserably in AZ, and passed marginally in NV.

The politician who got the language added in AZ was attacked by Steyer who also supported his Democrat opponent who ended up defeating the Rep AG(?).

It is almost always about the “Benjamins”, but the Left can slip crap through by making sure no one talks about that. The discussions of the latest Dem. scam bill i viewed on US media NEVER even mentioned the higher cost of electricity that is inevitable due to “unreliable” “energy” increases to be paid for.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 4:57 am

A Serious problems
B Moderate problems
C Minor problems
D Few or no problems
E Don’t Know


The world is still at a rather cool period of the current interglacial.

Warming would happen in higher latitudes and at night

What’s not to like !!

Reply to  b.nice
August 16, 2022 5:13 am

I will take it when it’s -20 in the winter.

Reply to  Derg
August 16, 2022 9:57 am

Agreed, Derg. -10 is better than -20. Someone needs to explain how warming is such a bad thing.

Reply to  H.R.
August 16, 2022 11:30 am

They haven’t gone to the point of saying 10 deg C change yet have they? Current ‘we’re all going to die’ estimates would take that -20 to -18.5 isn’t it?

Reply to  whatlangaugeisthis
August 16, 2022 12:15 pm

No. No-one, including me, has claimed AGW will cause a 10(C) warming,whatlanguageisthis.

Neither Derg nor I specified C or F. The point is that -20, C or F is freezin’ @$$ cold either way and -10, C or F, is still freezin’ @$$ cold but less so. Definitely not worse.

b.nice wrote:
“Warming would happen in higher latitudes and at night.

What’s not to like !!”

Derg replied that he will take “it”, meaning some “global warming” when it’s really cold at night in his neck of the woods.

I replied to Derg with the 10 unspecified degrees difference to highlight that the region and type of warming that b.nice pointed out would and should be welcome in Northern climes, even as much as 10 degrees of some sort.

All that said, you at least got my upvote and reply for asking about the 10 degrees vs the 1,5C warming that we are spending $trillions on just to avoid “The End Of The World As We Know It.

You can’t have been the only one to interpret the serious points made using casual banter and exaggerated numbers as contrary to the pulled-outta-their-ass 1.5C number used in official Climate Porn Propaganda™.

So, it didn’t hurt a thing to ask what the heck was going on with ’10 degrees’. Someone else was probably wondering, too. 👍

Reply to  b.nice
August 16, 2022 7:01 am

Keep the question and possible answers simple,
but avoid forcing people into a for or against answer.
Always include “I don’t know” so those people
don’t try to answer .. because they don’t know!

With 50 years of climate change propaganda,
I believe few people could handle a “benefit” answer.

But we love global warming here in Michigan
Give us more of that

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:17 am

LOTS of people need to be asked the benefit question. If it is not in the answers of a multiple choice question, the author of the question has determined that there is no possibility of that being an answer, just as you have in your comment.

I think you would be surprised how many people are not lead around by the nose by the MSM.

Reply to  Drake
August 16, 2022 11:59 am

I think you first have to convince people that the past 47 years of global warming has done no harm. Assuming they even noticed. Then you can debate if there was really no harm, or a net benefit. One step at a time to change beliefs. Changing beliefs is not easy.

Robert Austin
Reply to  b.nice
August 16, 2022 7:20 pm

But what about the precious permafrost. Woolly Mammoth carcasses will sprout. Inuit ATV’s will sink out of sight. Flora and fauna will advance 50 miles pole-ward.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 3:06 pm

Problems similar to those produced by past climate change.

David Dibbell
August 16, 2022 3:56 am

Andy May, thank you for this report. Koonin, Epstein, Shellenburger, Lomborg and others make good arguments dismantling the wind+solar+batteries+EVs proposal for our energy future. But we also need to directly dismantle the core claim of the climate movement that heat energy has been, and will be, accumulating to harmful effect in the land and oceans by what GHGs do in the atmosphere.

Reply to  David Dibbell
August 16, 2022 4:13 am

Sceptics have been attempting to dismantle that claim for 50 years and failed miserably. Time to stop flogging a dead horse.

The objective now, and I mean right now, when inflation is soaring and gas and energy bills are hurting people, is to demonstrate that adaption rather than mitigation is a much cheaper alternative.

Most of the world does not understand science, 90%+ don’t have a higher education in it. You cannot convince someone of something if they don’t understand the subject.

Everyone, however, understands money disappearing out their bank account at an accelerating rate and that’s the opportunity to seize. Show them there is an alternative to being punished by fanatical support for renewables etc. which is affordable and they will soon change their minds on climate change.

Imminent poverty (one third of UK households are expected to face fuel poverty this winter) is a far more persuasive argument than theories on a subject they don’t understand.

If we don’t change tack and go in for the kill now, the opportunity will be lost and many people will die because they can’t afford to heat their homes.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 5:13 am

‘Sceptics have been attempting to dismantle that claim for 50 years and failed miserably.’

Strictly speaking, skeptics have done a pretty good job of refuting alarmists’ claims of CAGW from the standpoint of science and economics. The failure has been entirely political, where it is just another outcropping of the Left’s relentless march through the (West’s) institutions, which, as you note, may require the meting out of some serious ‘punishment’ on its citizens to reverse.

Last edited 1 month ago by Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 16, 2022 7:14 am

You think skeptics have done a good job?
Judging by the Nut Zero plans and the huge spending involved that has already started, then you must HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR “SUCCESS”

As a skeptic starting one hour after I began studying climate science in 1997, I believe we have done a good job with the science.

But “climate change” is 99% politics (beliefs based on faith of a coming climate crisis) and 1% science. WE ARE FAILING IN THE ARENA OF POLITICS.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:14 am

We agree that the failure to stop (CAGW) has been entirely political. I just don’t believe it’s useful to castigate skeptics for failing to stop a freight train that was already out of control long before our fathers were born.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 16, 2022 12:02 pm

Sorry, I misread your first comment
My dog ate my papers
None of my faults are my fault
Etc. etc.
I agree with you.

Reply to  Frank from NoVA
August 16, 2022 10:17 am

“skeptics have done a pretty good job of refuting alarmists’ claims of CAGW from the standpoint of science and economics.”

Read some building trade magazines, or farming related magazines, or watch shows on the same subject. Then explain to me exactly how what you claim has happened. I certainly don’t see any evidence of it.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  TonyG
August 16, 2022 10:51 am

Clearly, then, none of the content you mention was authored by what I would call a skeptic. Note, we don’t need ‘consensus’, which is a political, not a scientific term — just sound evidence that 1) CO2 has never controlled the climate over geological time and 2) the GCMs are complete garbage, both of which we have in spades.

David Dibbell
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 5:28 am

I don’t disagree with your points about how to persuade folks in the current moment of public debate. I said “also,” not “instead of.”

Richard M
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 6:56 am

Most skeptics have not tried to “dismantle” the false warming science. Many of them have accepted that CO2 will provide additional warming. They generally believe the warming will be small, but then attack the skeptics who try to show the reasons why CO2 does not provide warming.

This has provided alarmists with a free ticket to assert their science is correct with little to no pushback.

Reply to  Richard M
August 16, 2022 7:46 am

The answer to bad science is good science, not more bad science.
CO2 causes warming. Not much warming, but does cause warming.

Richard M
Reply to  MarkW
August 16, 2022 7:53 am

Nope, it doesn’t. The warming effect of CO2 is saturated.

“we conclude that the relative absorption around the peak is 1-T = 99.94% which takes place already within a 10 m layer near ground.” – Dr. Heinz Hug.

“The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 [14] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements (Hanel et al., 1971) and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 – and not 4.3 W/m2.” – Dr. Heinz Hug

You and other skeptics have been led astray by half truths. The energy you see relative to CO2 warming includes reabsorbed/reemitted CO2 IR. That energy cannot produce warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard M
Reply to  Richard M
August 16, 2022 9:59 am

To be saturated, the atmosphere would have to absorb all IR preventing any of it from escaping to space.
Since this obviously isn’t happening, the atmosphere is not and cannot be saturated.
What is happening is that the path length for IR to go from the surface to space is getting longer, resulting in the total amount of IR energy being held in the atmosphere increasing as the GHG density increases.

Martin Mason
Reply to  MarkW
August 16, 2022 12:08 pm

But surely Richard means saturated at CO2 wavelengths not all?

Richard M
Reply to  MarkW
August 16, 2022 1:17 pm

First you need to separate the energy within the frequency bands of the surface energy that CO2 absorbs. That is where saturation applies. After you accept that fact, you can move on to what happens to energy flow in the atmosphere. The reason you need to do this is so we all realize the energy flow in the atmosphere is coming from CO2 molecules within the atmosphere.

A little thought experiment is the next step. What happens to the average photon emitted by one of these atmospheric CO2 molecules? It is radiated randomly, correct? So, that means its average distance/direction can be computed. Since we know there are more CO2 molecules lower in the atmosphere, the average path of a CO2 generated photon must be upward.

Statistically, you can then compute a flow of energy from low in the atmosphere to space. At all layers of the atmosphere the upward emitted photons travel farther than the downward emitted photos. The net flux must be upward.

Now, add in a few more CO2 molecules. How do you compute a reduction in energy flow by adding MORE of the elements that created the energy flow?

Not a trick question. When you digest this fact it becomes obvious that more CO2 cannot reduce the flow of energy.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Richard M
August 17, 2022 1:04 pm

In the presence of water vapour in the lower troposphere, radiative effects from CO2 are “saturated” and negligible.It is at the top of the troposphere at the characteristic emissions layer that CO2 radiative effects are significant. The height of the emissions layer is raised marginally as CO2 concentration increases. The raised altitude of the emissions layer means that the lapse rate acts over a longer distance resulting in a theoretical increase in temperature at the earth’s surface. That said, the theoretical temperature increase from this effect is minuscule to immeasurable.

Richard M
Reply to  Robert Austin
August 17, 2022 1:52 pm

There is no such thing as “an emissions layer”. That is pseudo-science used to push AGW.

Energy is lost at all layers of the atmosphere due to the declining density as one rises. There are always fewer molecules above any layer which means some emissions won’t get absorbed.

Since the relative density of various layers stays the same independent of the concentration of CO2, the same argument continues to hold as CO2 increases.

Once a person understands the effect of density changes the entire warming argument falls apart.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  MarkW
August 17, 2022 4:44 am

Only hypothetically. In reality, it does not, which is what observations support.

Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 7:08 am

Adapt to perhaps, maybe, +1 to +1.5 degrees C warming in 100 years? What’s to adapt? Warmer winter nights in Siberia? Greening of the planet?

How about celebrating that the temperature did not go down in 100 years?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  HotScot
August 16, 2022 7:15 am

Going back to the ’60s when the Green movement began, it
was always about winning politically, regardless of facts
which can be turned upside down- like more heat & CO2 being
evil- if it helps you win. They’re like conmen/thieves who
won’t ever quit but will just find new ways to scam the
people/successfully steal the loot. By the 10% being able
to expose the lies they tell & get people to doubt the
crooks’ integrity, this will force The Team™ to have to come
up with new lies & tactics to keep up the scam. While that
“non-winning” is both tiring & frustrating, it’s the best we can
do until most of climate science is understood which will make
it much harder to lie. That will take a very long, long time.

It may be best to consider this Babylon Bee headline as a
victory: “Experts Warn We Have Only 12 Years Left Until They
Change The Timeline On Global Warming Again”. The more both
Green policies & predictions fail, the more it will force
them to change tactics, as “crying wolf” & energy shortages
won’t sit well with the people as they may have earlier on.
Liberals even had to change the name of the Inflation
Reduction Act to the “healthcare & climate bill” (h/t rah)
as only 12% think it will reduce inflation, a result of
skeptics pushing back against the BeeEss. Take the wins
when you get them as the slog will be very long & very hard!

Reply to  David Dibbell
August 16, 2022 7:05 am

The science behind the greenhouse effect is sound.
There is a greenhouse effect.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas
More CO2 ought to reduce Earth’s ability
to cool itself by some unknown amount
If you attack that basic science, you lose any debate.
The debate must be over CAGW = fictional
Not over AGW = real, with an unknown ECS,
but obviously harmless so far.

David Dibbell
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 9:10 am

That there is a static warming effect is not in dispute, and no attack on that point is coming from me. You can review this post linked below as a refresher of the points I make.

I do agree with your mention of “unknown ECS.” My way of saying it would be, “ECS cannot be reliably distinguished from zero with any method presently available.”

Reply to  David Dibbell
August 16, 2022 12:13 pm

How about: “One ECS for every scientist”,
making it obvious the science is not “settled’

My own ECS has four decimal places
so it must be right !
Four decimal places is real science.
Anything less is malarkey and baloney.
I have a BS degree, otherwise would not know this !

Each with an unknown specific effect, ECS can not even be estimated, IMHO, except for the worst CASE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL MEASURED WARMING IS caused by CO2.
And that ECS would still be a guess.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 3:59 pm

The science behind the greenhouse effect is sound.”

No, it’s not. The radiation physics of CO2 is sound.

We’ll know whether the greenhouse assertion is correct when a complete physical theory of the climate is in hand. However, that theory is not in hand.

Until then, don’t know is the only answer with scientific integrity.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 5:43 am

There IS NO ATTACK – you are simply IGNORING THE FOUNDATIONAL ASSUMPTION of the notion that adding CO2 will affect temperature.


A set of conditions that:

Has never.

Does not.

Will never.


The “feedbacks” are negative, offsetting feedbacks on balance.

Which is why OBSERVATIONS show ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT of CO2 levels on temperature.

Science is based on OBSERVATION OF THE REAL WORLD. The “enhanced greenhouse gas hypothesis” is not “evidence of itself.”

August 16, 2022 4:17 am

Andy thank you for posting about this debate when you did. I immediately signed up to stream it for a measly $7.00 I think it was. Well worth it. Dr. Koonin was a joy to watch as he presented his well-reasoned thoughts and facts, using information from the IPCC itself and other authoritative sources. I was surprised that Dressler multiple times showed graphs that showed his best interpretation of what others had said. He didn’t seem to have a good grasp of economic theory either. All in all, I enjoyed the debate tremendously and have an accumulation of talking points to drop into conversations where appropriate.

Richard Page
Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 5:50 am

“It is not surprising that the climate alarmists avoid formal debates, they always lose.” Yup, if we could only arrange more formal debates like this in the public arena then the climate change scam could be put away in a couple of months.

Reply to  Andy May
August 16, 2022 7:18 am

But if you debate once in a while, you can refute the skeptic claim that you never debate, so one debate every year or two serves a purpose.

August 16, 2022 4:22 am



In 2002 co-authors Dr Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian, Dr Tim Patterson, Paleoclimatologist, Carleton, Ottawa and Allan MacRae published:

1. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

2. “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

Allan MacRae published on September 1, 2002, based on a conversation with Dr. Tim Patterson:

3. “If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”

MacRae modified his global cooling prediction in 2013:

3a. “I suggest global cooling starts by 2020 or sooner. Bundle up.”

This global cooling is primarily solar-induced, driven by the end of very-weak Solar Cycle 24 (SC24) and the beginning of very-weak SC25, as we published in 2002, one year before Theodor Landscheidt’s 2003 global cooling prediction.


Almost everything on both sides of this fractious debate is false nonsense. The real crisis is the sabotage of our vital energy systems by climate fraudsters and charlatans for their own political and financial gain.

As predicted, global cooling started circa 2020.

This is ending badly. Told you so 20 years ago.

Regards, Allan MacRae, Calgary

Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 16, 2022 7:26 am

Please stop patting yourself on the back — you might sprain a shoulder muscle.
It is unbecoming for a climate realist.

Virtually every climate realist (aka climate sleptic) believes:. “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.” That is not a prediction. That is a DEFINITION of a climate skeptic.

Solar radiation is not increasing as the global average temperature rises, so that “prediction” is wrong.

Global cooling did not start in 2020 or sooner
So that “prediction: is wrong

And “science does not support CAGW” is not a prediction.
It is a statement of fact and what every climate skeptic believes.

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 16, 2022 11:30 am

Er, Richard – you’re not exactly without blemish yourself when it comes to patting yourself on the back.

Just sayin’ . . .

Reply to  Mr.
August 16, 2022 2:39 pm

I can’t reach my back!
However I did make the best climate prediction, and most accurate one in the world, back in 1997:
“The climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder.”

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 12:25 pm

Right. Then are you responsible for the lack of discernible warming or cooling since then, the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’?

August 16, 2022 4:26 am

Russian hackers must have altered the result. It will be corrected soon.

Reply to  Javier
August 16, 2022 11:38 am

Here’s a conundrum –

if Javier had said “Nigerian hackers” instead of “Russian hackers”, that would trigger a cry of “that’s racist!”

But Russians aren’t a race as such, but then neither are Nigerians a race as such.

As Prof Julius Somner Miller would say –
“why is it so?”

August 16, 2022 4:57 am

Further to my previous comment, in addition to an energy shortage, a serious food shortage appears imminent.
This is what happens when we let scoundrels and imbeciles run the show.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 16, 2022 7:27 am

The inmates are running the asylum,

August 16, 2022 5:15 am

This is one good reason they usually avoid any debate, their credo is best delivered top-down – without question as orthodoxy.

I wouldn’t imagine many people on my side of the pond will hear of this, Andrew Dessler has never, ever featured in a BBC news report. He has made it into the Guardian, though:

[How do you feel?] From The Guardian’s 97% Consensus pages:

“Cognitive research tells us…”

What scientists should talk about: their personal stories, John Abraham and Andrew Dessler

“Cognitive research has shown that…”

For some climate scientists, speaking out is a moral obligation, John Abraham and Andrew Dessler

There’s quite a reliance on ‘cognitive research‘ to explain things their way. Well, The Guardian is a major disseminator of climate doom and planetary collapse, after all.
I, myself, could never do doublethink. But The Guardian has many readers who can.

Funnily enough, there is no BBC news report on Steve Koonin either, but Prof Koonin has also made in into The Guardian

“During his talk Koonin told the audience: “The first thing we can do is get authoritative bodies – the royal societies, the US national academies – to stand up and say there is no climate crisis. This is an issue, we can deal with it in due course – but let’s all relax.”

The Guardian showed a video of the event to three leading climate scientists – Simon Lewis, a professor of global change science at University College London, Julia Steinberger, a professor of societal challenges of climate change at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland and a lead author with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Prof Peter Stott, who leads the climate monitoring and attribution team of the Hadley Centre for Climate Science and Services at the Met Office in Exeter.

They suggested that the talk “cherrypicked data” and “distorted” the facts of climate science. And they questioned whether members of the UK’s ruling party should be getting their evidence about the climate crisis from such events.” 

One of the main societal challenges of climate change is having to listen to all the fantasy as if it were real.

After 2 lots of three hot days and a thunderstorm, where are all the dead bodies?

Reply to  fretslider
August 16, 2022 7:32 am

“climate change” is a secular religion

The belief in a coming climate crisis was not created from facts, data and logic, so can not be refuted with facts, data and logic.

We do have 60 years of always wrong predictions of environmental doom and 47 years of experience with actual mild and harmless global warming — with almost 8 billion first-hand witnesses for up to 47 years of global warming (since 1975).
We have reality on our side (science and data).
They have visions doom (a religion. with no data).
(there are no data for the future climate)

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Reply to  fretslider
August 16, 2022 10:18 am

a professor of societal challenges of climate change”


Barnes Moore
August 16, 2022 5:41 am

How many people participated in the polling?

Marty Cornell
Reply to  Barnes Moore
August 16, 2022 4:32 pm

Don’t know, but I was one who voted at the beginning and at the end of the debate (voted “No” both times). I checked the on-line participants at the end, and we were around 92. I don’t know how many were in the live audience

August 16, 2022 6:16 am

The final vote results won’t be known for ten days until all of the mail-in ballots are received and counted.

Reply to  RonPE
August 16, 2022 9:01 am

And run through Dominion tabulating machines.😉

Reply to  Brad-DXT
August 16, 2022 12:16 pm

Which will show that Biden won the debate !
(Someone forgot to reprogram them)

August 16, 2022 6:25 am

In a way, I was disappointed with Dessler’s performance, because I was interested in what new challenge the climate alarm community could come up with.

Koonin came with data. Dessler had a couple of charts, but mostly made references to the “consensus” view. In other words, appeals to authority. As time went on Koonin continued to rely on data, and it was painfully obvious that Dessler was ‘shooting from the hip’.

I was disappointed, although I expected it, to hear Dessler rely on computer models and attribution studies. There is something very wrong when, not only can the lay public be misled about climate models, but “scientists” think that a computer model is somehow ‘evidence’.

I was surprised and disgusted when Dessler made outright false statements–fossil fuel energy is more expensive than renewable energy, oil companies are deliberately making fuel prices high, the Ukraine War is why gas prices are high. Even Koonin didn’t catch (I may have missed it) Dessler’s ignorance that the power grid can easily juggle fossil fuel power generation around intermittent wind and solar generation. My wife was shouting at me, “what the hell is he talking about that fossil fuel energy risks our national security?”

I think anyone who is trying to be conversant on the details of the climate issue would agree that Koonin won this debate overwhelmingly.

Reply to  apsteffe
August 16, 2022 7:52 am

The Desslers of the world are in different “time zones” than scientists like Koonin. They use the appeal to authority logical fallacy to support predictions of future climate doom. There are NO DATA for the future. They can get into trouble if they present data, so they usually avoiding so. Even then, there are false data saying solar and wind are cheap, from government “authorities”.

Science requires data.
Data are only available for the present or past. There are no data for the future. And predictions of the future climate have been consistently inaccurate.
Always wrong predictions of a coming climate crisis are not science.
So it’s best for the Desslers of the world to ignore data and science.
But they do use the strategy that I call “scientists say”.
Which is the appeal to authority logical fallacy.

It’s impossible to prove a prediction is wrong when it is made.
That’s why the Climate Howlers focus on predictions.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 17, 2022 6:37 am

It’s worse than that because they don’t make predictions only projections

August 16, 2022 7:06 am

When you consider that taxpayers are spending trillions on climate policies that are beginning to dismantle the modern industrial economy, it’s remarkable how rare these debates are. There’s a complete blackout of skepticism across all mainstream institutions like the media, academia and government.

And this debate shows you why. When people hear the skeptical side, they realize how nonsensical the climate movement really is.

Bruce Cobb
August 16, 2022 7:13 am

Tweeeeeeeee!!!!!! Flag on the field. Unfair advantage to Koonin as he has actual facts and truth on his side while Dessler only has ridiculous unfounded assertions and lies. Penalty TBD.

August 16, 2022 7:37 am

This is why those who promote CAGW refuse to debate: their argument cannot withstand even the weakest of scrutiny. Therefore, the only way to protect it is by censorship and the logical fallacies of ad hominum, ad populum, and appeal to authority.

If you want to know who is telling the truth, find the person who begging for a debate; conversely, if you want to know who is lying, find the person who works quadruple-overtime to silence debate. While this is not always true, it does provide a good starting point to find the truth. I believe that truth can withstand the most vicious assault thrown against it, whereas the lie needs a strong fortress of censorship and propaganda to protect it.

The answer for misinformation is more speech, never less.

Rod Evans
August 16, 2022 8:45 am

I look forward to being able to watch/listen to the full unedited debate when it is made available.
Let us hope it is the start of society claiming and achieving the right to discuss matters that are affecting them in ever possible way.
Sounds like Koonin beat Dressel.
Can I suggest he sends an invitation to Michael E Mann offering to hold an open debate with him?

Reply to  Rod Evans
August 16, 2022 11:45 am

His reply would probably be a paraphrase of a Climategate email –

“why should I debate you when you’ll only try to find errors in my points”

Kevin kilty
August 16, 2022 8:51 am

What is wrong with that 19.14% of the audience?

Richard Page
Reply to  Kevin kilty
August 16, 2022 8:58 am

How big is Andrew Dessler’s family?

Reply to  Kevin kilty
August 16, 2022 10:36 am

re: “What is wrong with that 19.14% of the audience?

Let’s begin by reviewing what the Bell Curve for IQ reveals for society in general …

John K. Sutherland.
August 16, 2022 9:08 am

The first ‘debate’ in 2015, is here:

Andy Pattullo
August 16, 2022 9:15 am

A bunch of average citizens looking our for their own welfare are so often smarter than many elite “experts” who never suffer the effects of their own shoddy decision making.
All they need is some objective reliable facts and a bit of critical thinking – things many academics seem to insulate themselves from.

Last edited 1 month ago by Andy Pattullo
August 16, 2022 9:32 am

Since I happen to be in NYC this week within walking distance of the venue, I decided to attend in person. (Thanks for the heads up, Andy!) I took extensive notes that I hope to write up in the next day or two.

It should be pointed out that this debate forum (more events than just this) is sponsored by the (“small-l” libertarian) Reason Foundation, so the audience is probably not representative of the city, or even the country as a whole. That probably worked to Koonin’s advantage.

What I found most interesting was seeing a distilled summary of the “mainstream” viewpoint. I will want to delve into the sources of these, and examine possible counter-arguments.

August 16, 2022 10:23 am

Here’s the YT link. Not sure if it will work for anyone that did not register.

Reply to  drh
August 16, 2022 10:34 am

Well, the beginning is playing for me now. Jumped ahead to 11 mins and its still good.

Last edited 1 month ago by _Jim
Gunga Din
Reply to  _Jim
August 16, 2022 11:06 am

I just jumped to the end and it was still good.

Reply to  drh
August 16, 2022 10:41 am

Andy, maybe you’d like to add this to the head posting.

Rod Evans
Reply to  drh
August 16, 2022 3:48 pm

Thanks for the link drh,
Watched it all the way through. The right result was achieved. Pity the presentation technology vis slide uploading was so hit and miss.

Cheshire Red
Reply to  drh
August 17, 2022 8:40 am

16:39 UK time: ‘Video unavailable. Video removed by the uploader.’

Alarmist rinsed by sceptic, so we can’t have that!

Reply to  Cheshire Red
August 17, 2022 4:28 pm

The climate cabal cannot have this public. Not surprising.

Edit: from Andy in the head post — Update: You will be able to watch a recording of the debate around August 24 on Youtube, the link that worked briefly has been taken down

Last edited 1 month ago by drh
Reply to  drh
August 18, 2022 12:17 pm

I’m glad I downloaded it when it was available.

michael hart
August 16, 2022 10:48 am

“Climate science compels us…”

…by the Power of Greyskull?

August 16, 2022 10:58 am

Koonin 1
Dessler 0
AGW -25

Who knew? /sarc

Gunga Din
August 16, 2022 11:03 am

OT and a suggestion for WUWT:
“Logical Fallacy” has come up frequently in the comments.
Perhaps in the Title Bar or under “Reference Pages” a glossary of Logical Fallacies could be added?
To help the other “Mr. Layman” like me to recognize them and avoid using them ourselves?

Reply to  Gunga Din
August 16, 2022 12:23 pm

“scientists say” is an example of the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy

Here’s a link to a simple summary

16 Common Logical Fallacies and How to Spot Them (

It is also wise to assume half of what you hear and read is BS. Of course it takes very high intelligence to know which half is BS. A short cut is to IMMEDIATELY ASSUME EVERY LEFTIST IS MISLEADING, BIASED, LYING OR OMITTING DATA.
That works for me !

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Kevin kilty
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 16, 2022 12:58 pm

A fun sort of graphic showing the general classification and relationship of one fallacy to another is found here.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 16, 2022 1:41 pm

Thank you Richard and Kevin.
I almost added to my suggestion examples of what is what is not a logical fallacy to the WUWT glossary.
Richard provided one; “scientist say” for Appeal to Authority.
Of course even if the name of the scientist is supplied, that doesn’t mean it is not still Appeal to Authority if what he said has been misrepresented. I think that happened in the summary of AR4?
(And I doubt if Dr. Josef Mengele would be quoted as an expert on “Diversity and Inclusion” even though, while less extreme, the goal is the same.)

Kit P
August 16, 2022 12:16 pm

I am retired from the power industry which included trainning in making good choices. This has benefited me in making personal choices such as buying a car.

I have no training in dabating.

The US power indsutry has never has a problem producig the finite amount of electricty our customers needed except when the debaters do not listen.

Fine you want renewable and low carbon, I have a list of the best choices for the enviroment which are also the most econmical in that category.

I have seen their list. If it has no chance of solving the percieved problem, it is on there list.

I conclude the debaters just want to debate. If you solved the problem, debaters would be out of work. If we just build more wind and solar, we will show you.

Who will be the first countries to achieve net zero with nuclear and EV? France and South Korea.

No oil, no coal, no gas: no choice.

Marty Cornell
August 16, 2022 5:00 pm

I was one of the 90+ who virtually attended the debate. It went as I expected with Dessler appealing to emotion and being loose with the facts, and with Koonin presenting a data-based argument. Still, both stated that wind and solar were cheaper than natural gas for electrical power generation, with Koonin later caveating that renewables were not being properly burdened for reliability. Both were out of their element on grid reality and costs. One in the live audience (it looked like the Manhattan Contrarian Francis Menton) asked Dessler to justify his basis for claiming wind and solar to be the lowest cost, but Dessler deflected in his response. Koonin did not clearly address cradle-to-grave costs of wind and solar, but he did point out their impact on sourcing critical materials from unfriendly foreign powers and their large footprints. Neither commented on the benefits of the mild warming nor of the greening of the earth from CO2 fertilization.

August 16, 2022 5:09 pm

Greatest Fireside Chat VIctory in HIstory for Koonin. He literally gets Dressler to effectively defend slave labor to support his position. He downplays the treatment of the Uyghurs by saying if you have an Apple Phone in your pocket you have a supply chain issue. His message? Slavery is OK as long as it is done for his bogus cause.

August 16, 2022 5:10 pm

Not to be mean…but Dressler reminds me of Despicable Me.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  CO2isLife
August 17, 2022 7:42 am

Nah, Despicable Me is amusing. Dessler is about as amusing as a rabid raccoon – and just as dangerous.

August 16, 2022 5:29 pm

Dressler’s comments are pure nonsense. He claims that fossil fuels are expensive. The markets have no problem making fossil fuels commercially viable, green energy requires subsidies. Markets don’t independently select the high-cost and unreliable options.

August 16, 2022 5:43 pm

How insane if Dressler’s idea of using Nuclear as the backup to Wind and Solar. That is the craziest idea I’ve ever heard of. Koonin destroys the deaths arguements.

August 16, 2022 5:58 pm

Dressler is totally clueless. The US has an Aircraft Carrier Battle Group to ensure Global Trade, only part of which is oil. Last I looked, there are no battery-powered tankers or cargo ships. If wind and solar were the answer, Russia wouldn’t be invading The Ukraine and China wouldn’t be enslaving the Uyhgers which are located where China has critical energy infrastructure.

August 16, 2022 6:09 pm

Dessler says we have coal power in the US only because of Politics. This is delusional. Alternative fuels only exist because of subsidies. The markets would never choose alternatives.

August 16, 2022 6:19 pm

That video only has 377 views. That video should be posted on every FB and Twitter Page possible. Dessler destroys support for his cause.

August 16, 2022 6:24 pm

Dessler has trouble understanding why people might have a problem with wasting money. His attitude is that we should spend trillions and if it doesn’t do anything, then no big deal.

August 16, 2022 6:33 pm

Search “Andrew Dessler vs. Steven Koonin” on YouTube and you won’t find it. Funny how that works.

les online
August 16, 2022 6:42 pm

I’m signing-up for the Vat Goo little billy gates will be marketing – just in case there’s a Little Ice Age or maybe Global Warming…Get myself used to the prison goo…

August 16, 2022 7:14 pm

This is really good!

Cheshire Red
August 17, 2022 8:44 am

Video removed!

The only surprise is it was uploaded in the first place.

Still, I’m sure the Guardian and BBC will be along shortly with their own extensive coverage…

%d bloggers like this: