This was an excellent example of an informed climate realist speaking to an-appeal-to-authority believer.
Tom Nelson’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/tan123
Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/
About Tom: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2022/03/about-me-tom-nelson.html
Notes for climate skeptics:
https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2019/06/useful-notes-for-climate-skeptics.html
ClimateGate emails: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html
Gerald Kuntey is one of the reasons I got my twatter ban. He reported every post I made.
He lies like griff.
He must have borrowed Griff’s brain for that debate.
Kuntey was only concerned with politics and authority, not science or logic.
Nelson ate his lunch.
You need a proof-reader to edit your spelling 🙂
No spelling mistake….😁
Yeah, I thought so….:)
I have never come across a person (Kutney) so light in facts. He is like a blind parrot. One thing that really makes him look an idiot is his comment that a Nobel prize should be offered that the climate scientists are wrong. He should read Nelson’s appendix Over 400 Scientific Papers Published In 2020 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
couldn’t one just post all their failed predictions, and their over heated models to get the prize?
Anyone who uses the term “climate denier” is equating doubt in the model or claims with neoNazis.
Yeah. That’s on purpose.
Yeah even the term “climate denier” is a nonsense, and just plain lazy, notwithstanding its intended historical association.
It’s not lazy, it was deliberate, and introduced by Ellen Goodman, as I recall. She made the connection explicitly.
Every time the ‘believers’ debate a knowledgable skeptic, they lose bigly.
Dessler lost to Koonin.
Kutney lost to Nelson.
Mann lost to Curry in the 2016 Congressional hearing, and you can find the snippet of that televised hearing on YouTube. Mikey whined, ‘I never called anyone a denier.’ Judith replied, ‘You called me that in your written testimony for this hearing!” Ouch.
Judith Curry smacks down Michael Mann for denying calling her a ‘denier’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPUMztYMuis&t=16s
From the March 29, 2017 House Science Committee hearing on climate science.
Full session … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eki6JC1M89k&t=1s
Mann lost several of his remaining hairs with that slap-down.
Several years ago there was an Oxford Union debate on climate change – OU debates are probably the most prestigious in the world.
The sceptics, led by Christopher Monckton, won both the debate and the vote.
It’s no wonder the climate cultists like to say the debate is over – when there is a proper, fair debate the cultists always lose!
Chris
McKibben vs. Epstein Debate on Fossil Fuels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_a9RP0J7PA&t=979s
Epstein mopped the floor with McKibben
Kuntey is a textbook example of the delusional idiocy these brain dead ideologues embrace as unquestionable truth. He got bitch slapped with logic and facts but failed to wake up from his mental slumber.
From the first ten minutes: the belief that humans changing the composition of the atmosphere and thereby the climate from what ‘it ought to be’ must be intrinsically bad is teleological or quasi-religious.
Trying to counter that with facts and reason is futile.
… that humans changing the composition of the atmosphere and thereby the climate from what
‘it ought to be’‘it was meant to be’ must be intrinsically bad …It is no different to arguing with any zealot. Logic is irrelevant.
The fundamental inconsistency is that he went to university to get knowledge – so the then knowledge is accepted as true – he defers to authority. Then he accepts that science is never settled. The most important learning is the ability to think and have a the curiosity to apply that ability.
Yes, Charles nailed him as a “an-appeal-to-authority believer.”
His science is like a religious dogma.
The problem with “appeal to authority types”, is that they must prove that only their authorities are authorities.
That’s why the fall back position is to declare that unless you have published papers in one of the “approved” journals, you can’t possibly be an authority.
Or they claim that anyone who disagrees with them is just a paid shill of the oil companies.
Don’t ever expect them to actually argue facts, because they can’t.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that this guy believes CO2 levels have been 280ppm going back to the formation of the planet.
On twitter, Dawn TJ90 makes Kutney look like an imbecile on pretty much a daily basis. To say the guy is light on the facts would be charitable.
Seems like Dawn TJ90 is heading toward being banned.
Nah, she is good.
I used to converse with Dawn TJ90 regularly – she’s an outstanding sceptic who hands the alarmists’ bums to them on a plate every time.
Then I got banned from Twatter because a comment I made upset a thermageddonist who didn’t understand the concept of sarcasm and reported me. Ho hum….
Listened to this. Nelson didn’t argue fairly. Kutney was gracious under fire.
What is the “denier” position that they should be discussing? Nelson didn’t articulate that. It could have been that the claim of CURRENT extreme weather is not CO2 related and not particularly different from before but an appearance due to reporting (observation and confirmation biases). It could have been about Lomberg and Schellenberger saying the net benefits outweigh the costs. Or emissions are down on the West so the crisis (if one) is under control on our side but now the responsibility of China, India and Africa. It could have been the “crisis” is based on 8.5, but temperature rise is much less than that, so the upcoming problem is not much of a crisis.
The argument should have been about whether Kutney represents a unrealistic alarmism and the “deniers” are mostly against the alarm, not the physics of atmospheric CO2.
I think Nelson was trying to score indirectly by making Kutney looks foolish rather than address the “planet on fire” alarm skeptics generally object to.
“I think Nelson was trying to score indirectly by making Kutney looks foolish”
Nelson didn’t have to try … Kutney proves his stupidity all by himself.
Graciously refusing to answer any question which might dare to challenge his religion.
It is really important to know that climate change is a constant. There is absolutely no way to stop climate change.
It is most important to know that CO2 has no direct impact on the energy balance. There are benefits associated with biomass productivity and some downside.
The long term trends due to orbital changes are:
NH summers are getting warmer and drier.
SH summers are moderating.
NH winters are getting colder and wetter; more precipitation as snow.
SH winters are moderating – currently Southern Ocean and Antarctica cooling.
Tropical ocean surface temperature is limited to 30C.
These mean that the NH will see greater extremes. SH reducing extremes.
The most important FACT is that CO2 does nothing to the energy balance.
It appears that few people actually know what orbital precession means and how it dominates the centennial scale climate trends.
If climate stopped changing, THAT would be a climate change.
The reason we came down from the trees 2 million years ago and started to walk upright was climate change, when the jungles dried out and the savanna became predominant in Africa. Climate change causes evolution of the fittest, humans are a result of climate change.
“The politics of climate science”? That is a non sequitur. If “science” has politics, it is not science; it is politics, and that is dangerous.
And anthropomorphising an abstract concept such as science as if it has feelings, or can collect or analyze data, or can act as an independent entity (e.g., The science says….”), shows a profound lack of understanding of genuine science.
I was really expecting him to state he was science, ala Fauci.
His belief in some of the politicians that run the IPCC is delusional.
After listening and WATCHING the whole thing for an hour and a half all I noticed over and over again toward the end, was Gerald Kutney’s high and mighty nose in the air mannerisms. Was that an ad hominem attack? Sue me.
Basically the whole issue is whether or not science can accurately predict future world climate or not. One side says so far the predictions have been wrong so why should today’s predictions be believed? The other side talks about experts, consensus, precautions and doesn’t address the empirical record.
Sadly he has a dreadful attitude, no knowledge and has been trying to promote himself for a very long time as an authority below those he appeals to on a daily basis.
Challenge him and beat him a few times and he starts to vanish backwards into a hedge
Mr Kutney appears to be a walking, talking contradiction. Did I get this right? Kutney dismisses real world data / measurements, but accepts blindly the “predictive science” that is driven by models, that use the very data he dismisses..Huh?? I’m confused!
Arguments from authority are so easy to refute – Lysenkoism, eugenics, plate tetonics, ulcers. The list is almost endless.
wow, he says science doesnt use a global average temperature instead they use a variance from it, CLUE = to measure a variance from the average requires using the average.
He has been reminded of all the failures along with the UAH global temperature graphs and he has ran out of options. George Orwell said that they use fraud and force and when the run out of the former they solely rely on the latter.
Wow, wants to change everything, but actively avoids any questioning when pressed even in the slightest.
Nice to know that as an average person I’m too stupid to understand anything complex and must submit to the opinions of experts.
People like Kutney and his superior attitude are offensive. He should do interviews all the time, he will single handily set AGW position back decades
Wow,Chutney is deeply into the belief system.He came across as a prize plonker.Not one shred of scientific evidence.
This guy must seem a god for the likes of Griff.
Analysis of debate Nelson 10 Chutney1. I gave Chutney 1 for appearing on the debate.
Well, if we wanted to witness what impact brainwashing has on an individual, then this exchange provides it.
I genuinely didn’t believe such uneducated though loquacious individuals existed even in the realms of Climate Alarmists.
Thanks for sharing this, it shows what the rational world is up against.
It is clear, no amount of data no amount of facts and no amount of educated scientific interpretation of historic data will stop the Climate Alarmist movement and their ‘settled science’ followers.
I am impressed with Tom Nelson’s ability to spend that amount of time with a mindless idiot.
Kutney stated that new-high temperature records have outnumbered new-low records in recent years, and stated that this implied a rising temperature trend.
That’s not necessarily true. Here’s a thought-experiment. Suppose the sea lever rose overnight by a foot and then, on average, remained at that level for 50 (say) years. Owing to eratic (sp?) occurrences of storms and planetary-influenced tidal highs and tsunamis, new highs both absolutely and for every day of the year would continue to be made for decades. New lows would not, owing to the prior one-foot rise.
I see a parallel to the global average temperature, which has been flat on average for the past seven years after a stair-step move higher earlier. Comments?
I’ve forgotten most of the details, but back in the 1980’s some shock jock was arrested because in the words of the prosecutor, this guy’s on the air antisemitic rhetoric caused a mentally disturbed man to kill a jew.
A few days ago, a mentally disturbed person killed a teenage because the teenager was “an extreme Republican”.
When can we expect Biden, Pelosi, et. al. to be arrested?
At about 26:20 Kutney says the “ordinary” person needs help from “the experts” to read the climate data. That passage summaries Kutney’s belief system. It’s when we take a moment to question who exactly gets to be the “expert” and who is the lowly “ordinary” person that it falls apart. No such list of experts exists.
Kutney has virtually no facts to offer, but rather he alludes to “the science” and to “the experts.” When Nelson asks which data and which publications in particular support his view, he smiles and says this is always how “deniers” try to confuse the issue. I think you can see after only ten minutes that Kutney has nothing important to say.
That was difficult to watch. Kudos to Tom for lasting to the end. I did wish he would have asked Kuntey what his take on McKitrick’s peer reviewed paper debunking all the attribution papers for using inappropriate and inconclusive methods.
Kutney is a scientifically illiterate tool. The science doesn’t say what he claims.
I’m only 1 1/2 minutes in and I can tell this guy has nothing to say except spouting the usual mantra.