The results are in and Climate Realist Steve Koonin has trounced Alarmist Andrew Dessler in this debate. Alarmists are rarely ever willing to debate Climate Realists so this was a huge and significant victory.
Texas A&M University’s Andrew Dessler vs. Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy, at the Soho Forum.
Does the world need to rapidly convert to using renewable energy to save the planet from global warming? That was the topic of a Soho Forum debate held at the Sheen Center in New York City on Monday, August 15, 2022.
Andrew Dessler, the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A&M University, argued that fossil fuels are endangering life on the planet by causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions. He contended that solar and wind represent safe, reliable, and cost-effective means to decarbonize the electric grid.
Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy during the Obama administration and is the founding director of New York University’s Center for Urban Science and Progress, argued that making large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions aren’t necessary to protect the earth. He also contended that doing so isn’t cost-effective and that it’s immoral. Koonin is also the author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.
The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
Intro edited by Regan Taylor; interview body edited by Brett Raney.
Photos by Brett Raney.
Steven Koonin ran rings around Dessler, who only had assertion compared to Koonin’s facts. I just wish our politicians would debate folk like Koonin, with an audience present, to demonstrate to them how naive and false their belief in ‘climate change’ is and such policies as net zero are.
And suddenly the science was no longer settled
Would someone who has the patience to listen to the whole debate please tell me if there is much discussion about the mild, harmless global warming since 1975? And about the contrast between actual mild, harmless global warming since 1975, contrary to predictions of rapid, dangerous warming since 1975? CAGW is about predictions, not reality, so the low quality of past CAGW predictions is VERY IMPORTANT. The “authorities” have 50+ years of wrong predictions, yet we are still attacked by the Climate Howlers with their appeal to authority logical fallacy and MORE predictions of climate doom!
I continue to object to the wording of the debate subject:
“Does the world need to rapidly convert to using renewable energy to save the planet from global warming?”
I think there were too many issues for one debate:
(1) Does the planet need saving from global warming? is enough for one debate.
The next debate could be on the subject of converting to renewable energy, or Nut Zero, which might need two different people debating. That Nut Zero debate would be further complicated by the word “rapidly”. Converting, and converting rapidly, might be determined only after deciding how fast the planet needs to be saved. And the planet does need to be saved — that is a fact — saved from the Climate Howlers’ bizarre junk science religion and their Nut Zero panic reaction to a non-existant global warming emergency. Spend a huge amount of money to ruin the electric grid — who does that?
I decided to listen right away this time since the last time the video disappeared quickly, I lasted five minutes listening to Dessler’s scaremongering. He talked about 300 feet of sea level rise since (since peak glaciation ice about 20,000 years ago) when the consensus estimate is 400 feet. That’s a pretty big error. He talked about +6 degrees (I assume C. degrees) global warming in the future, which is a delusion.
That was enough suffering for me. The thought that Dessler had a lot more time to bloviate made me nauseous. At my age — 69 — I have a very low tolerance for predictions of climate doom and other environmental BS. Anyone who listens to Dessler’s scaremongering deserves hazardous duty pay. I wouldn’t mind a transcript of ONLY Koonin’s words! I could not have survived the actual debate — I’d have walk out — like watching a bad movie — you paid for the ticket, but why suffer for two hours? Sorry for the long comment — I’m not a concise person!
Who’d does Dessler remind you of?
I am disappointed that the discussion did not focus on the alleged science of CO2-induced global warming. Instead they largely talked about presumed or envisioned economic issues of increasing temperature, dodging what I believe is the elephant in the room – that CO2 really can’t cause much global warming. It should cause a hot band in the troposphere around the equator according to theory, but there is none. Is should cause atmospheric humidity to increase, but atmospheric humidity is decreasing. Cloud cover has decreased slightly in the past several decades; enough to cause the observed temperature increase, so where is the CO2 effect? And the bull elephant, Happer and Wijngaarden have shown that the IR spectroscopic bands in which CO2 can operate are nearly saturated and more CO2 cannot have much effect (and also determined that methane can have no detectable effect.) Perhaps I am wrong about these points?
The likes of Dessler have the propagandasphere behind them…
“England endures its joint hottest summer EVER! This year’s heat ties with 2018 in data stretching back to 1884, Met Office reveals “
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11169941/England-endures-joint-hottest-summer-years-heat-ties-2018-Met-Office-reveals.html
Whatever happened to 1976???
It didn’t happen
Failed to discuss 1) CO2 release in the manufacturing, transport, and installation of wind and solar infrastructures and just how long before that release is counterbalanced (when or if?); 2) loss in transmission over distances (no, as the sun rises over Maine, that solar generation will not power the lights in Oregon without significant loss); 3) energy in the free marke, as witnessing in UK, where the wind power is heading to the open market and costing the UK customers far higher prices for that wind energy.
Dressler lost the debate despite talking far more minutes than Koonin.
There’s an unofficial version?
Dessler had a good debate with Alex Epstein. Epstein got some applause when he mentioned the slave labor in China used to make solar panels.
We should be listening, should be willing to hear Dessler out. Because if we have any chance whatsoever in convincing our lawmakers, who are STEM-illiterate and easily filled with fear, we have to know what the Desslers out there are claiming.
So I appreciate his willingness to go out there and debate. Koonin, too. I read Koonin’s book and was impressed with his understanding of the political climate out there and dedication to working within science, not defining science to suit his position, as the media does.
It’s too bad, for now, that lawmakers won’t listen to a debate like this. It’s also too bad that Dessler made such a poor showing. Quoting Rolling Stone magazine? We need the best they’ve got, and level-headed arguments.
Civilization is being led off of a cliff here, and damage that will be done will mean the end of what we’ve considered quality of life. To have any hope, we have to calmly and rationally separate church and state here. So far, we’re losing badly.
We don’t have the luxury of not listening to Dessler because we don’t share his belief. This is now the state religion, and it’s only through working with those within the religion who are willing to listen to us that we can break this terrible cycle.
I’ve been looking forward to watching this debate and gracious, Mr Dressler really isn’t at all convincing. If I were a climate alarmist, I’d be converted to scepticism after listening to him.
A point I find interesting.. This post has been up for over 10 hours as I am reading it, and not one of the usual trolls has chimed in to defend Dessler. It’s almost like they know he’s full of it..
A 6 F warming is about 15 C to 18 C.
If Earth average temperature is 18 C will there be a significant increase in global water vapor, and will this significant increase water vapor reduce amount deserts in the world- in which currently 1/3 of all land area is deserts.
Or how much will the Sahara Desert, green?
How much is it worth to green 1/2 of the Sahara desert?
How much of other deserts in the world, will green?
How much is that worth?
Of course more CO2 will increase growth of all vegetation, in terms crops.
how much is that worth, globally?
Can we agree that most of 6 F warming will night time and winter time warming?
How many lives will be saved by having less cold temperatures and how much more
crop growth will occur by having less cold conditions. And how much land which is too cold
to use for farming will become available to productive farm if there are warmer conditions.
We are living in coldest times of 33.9 million year Ice Age, most life lived in a world with average global temperature of 18 C [or warmer] for thousands of years.
We in Ice Age because we have a cold ocean. Our cold ocean has average temperature of
3.5 C. Life on Earth have recently lived when the average temperature of the ocean was 4 C, with the Sahara deserts were mostly grassland with forests, rivers and lakes, and having ocean which 4 C or warmer, causes an average global temperature of more than 18 C.
Or It’s possible the world is not warm enough at 18 C to totally green the Sahara Desert.
And next question is when could we expect the world to warm to 16 C, and than 17 C and then 18 C? And maybe 19 C?
And at what point will 1/2 of sahara desert become, green?
Thanks for sharing the debate … was hopeful to have the possibility to watch it. Wil come back here afterwards
CO2 is caused by “Global Warming”
Consider the following sequence of events:
Condition 1
Water and ice mixture is allowed to melt in a shallow tray in and enclosed space.
The bulk of the mass of ice is grounded on the base of the tray.
Ambient temperature is permitted to influence the condition of the water in the tray.
Water temperature remains constant until all of the ice has melted. (Latent heat of fusion.)
Dissolved gases remain unaffected because the water temperature does not vary. (Henry’s Law. Net sink?)
Water level rises due to the melting of the ice but PPM of CO2 remains relatively constant.
Condition 2
Water volume (as described in condition 1) is contained in a shallow tray and is now ice free.
Ambient temperature is permitted to influence the condition of the water in the tray.
Water temperature steadily rises and dissolved gas is liberated due to the temperature rise (Henry’s Law)
Water level rises due to the expansion of fixed mass of liquid water.
PPM of CO2 contained within the enclosed space increases (Henry’s Law)
Conclusion
Atmospheric CO2 ppm is a function of sea temperature.
The rate of rise of atmospheric CO2 depends on whether condition 1 or 2 predominates.
When sea level rise is primarily due to the melting of land based ice then atmospheric CO2 PPM will remain largely unaffected.
When sea level rise is primarily due to the water expansion due to temperature rise – then the rate of CO2 PPM rise will be greater.
The above condition is demonstrated by long periods of relatively stable atmospheric CO2 PPM following a glacial period followed by a rather dramatic rise in PPM later on in the interglacial.
The present (post 1850) sequence of events is possibly caused by the low hanging fruit of medium & mid latitude land based ice having by now largely melted.
The effect of clouds on daily air temperature is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.
Air temperature can vary from negative night time temperatures to temperatures in excess of 50c at midday.
Day to day air temperatures are fleeting, ephemeral, evanescent, transient, momentary, extremely brief…..
Average air temperatures are moderated world wide by ocean temperatures and heat is stored/buffered in oceans.
Ocean heat is circulated/distributed to higher latitudes by ocean currents.
The only MEANINGFUL consideration with regard to average long term global atmospheric temperature is the rise or fall of ocean temperature.
Ocean temperature rise or fall is dependent on SHORTWAVE solar energy.
Longwave energy is a trivial factor.
Clouds shade the ocean to a lesser or greater degree and thereby moderate SHORTWAVE solar energy penetration of the ocean.
Clouds are therefore the most relevant factor to be considered in the climate debate!
The Schmidt Spencer debate was classic! Gavin left the stage!
How did Dessler get away with that graph showing today’s temperatures as being the highest of the entire Holocene? What happened to the Holocene optimum, the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warms periods? Mann-Gore erasing the Medieval warm period was bad, but Dessler’s effort was unbelievable. I can’t believe that this wasn’t called out or have I misunderstood something?
I watched the full debate. Dessler seems to be getting a lot of his talking points from an IMF study which contains a disclaimer right up front. The claim about the number of lives lost due to pollution is particularly bad as pointed out by Dr. Alan Carlin in his critique of the Environmental Protection Agency’s CO2 endangerment finding. Carlin says they used the linear, no threshold assumption in calculating health effects. That assumption basically asserts that if 100 aspirin is a fatal dose then of 100 people taking one aspirin one will die.
Carlin was told he could never again work on anything related to climate as long as he was at the EPA. He retired and wrote the book “Environmentalism Gone Mad”.
Both Koonin and Dessler said CO2 stays in the air for centuries. That is totally false. Dozens of studies over the years say residence time is 5 to 10 years. Apparently neither of them are aware of the ice core evidence.
Anyone else think Dessler comes across as a pompous know-nothing?
I knew it was just a matter of time before YouTube slapped its own commentary on the video.
They call it “Context,” and link to a politically-driven UN site that has nothing to do with the debate.