On Jul 31, 10:04*am, ka6uup wrote:
A little old but.....

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global
Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET –

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to
testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between
prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming
skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an
audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3%
to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but
following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in
favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at
the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home
energy use.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting
the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting
his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against
the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers
in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and,
not surprising, it swung against them."

The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor
during the debate.

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of
their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his
house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London
emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop
the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a
ban on private jet travel.

"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra
Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly
on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They
must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if
they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them
seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience. (For more debate quotes
see bottom of article)

The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence
Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as
MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus
professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned
Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.

The scientists arguing for a climate ‘crisis’ were NASA scientist Gavin
Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public
Radio’s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: "Global warming is not a
crisis.”

Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience

The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that
had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate
"crisis" moments before the debate began.

But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed
themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the
skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the
views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience
members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of
46.2% -- a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official
audience voting results]

[Link to full debate pdf transcript]

Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a
man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side
was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the
comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealClimate.org.

"…I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split
roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the
entertaining narratives from [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s
Philip] Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier
fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely
polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him.
Comparatively, we were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote.

‘Advantage: Climate Contrarians’

The ScientificAmerican.com’s blog also declared the global warming
skeptics the clear winner of the debate in a March 15 post titled:
"Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians."

"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate
and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt
made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience
to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello
wrote.

The advocates of climate alarmism "were faced with the folksy anecdotes
of Crichton and the oratorical fire of Stott," Biello wrote at
ScientificAmerican.com.

Biello concluded, "…the audience responded to Crichton's satirical call
for a ban on private jets more than Ekwurzel's vague we need to throw
‘everything we can at the climate crisis.’ By the final vote, 46 percent
of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a
crisis, while just 42 percent persisted in their opinion that it was."

Biello also criticized climate "crisis" advocate Richard Somerville as
"perplexed" and "hardly inspiring."

Skeptic’s ‘Very Popular’

Debate participant Schmidt lamented that the evening turned into one of
futility for believers in a man-made global warming catastrophe.

"Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private
jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying
Eastsiders present and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that
global warming is a problem using any energy at all."

Schmidt continued, "Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially
accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly
rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up
the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science."

Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split
between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are
probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.

Selected Quotes from the climate debate from transcript: [Link to full
debate pdf transcript]

Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:

"I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really
mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American
population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in
them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let’s have the
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace
make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets.
They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in
the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do
that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]"

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private
jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe
all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good,
expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a
while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done..
Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as
stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that
friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to
fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty.
There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a
billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going
to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we
don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the
future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's
unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."

Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of
biogeography Philip Stott:

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of
their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his
house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics.
[LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by
falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of
global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22
million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the
average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it
were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have
fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always
changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony
Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks
ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best
temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only
do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are
politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very
honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind
climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to
cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only
understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

Skeptical quotes of MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance
of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down,
not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases
is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which
is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these
gases on the greenhouse effect."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but
temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And
that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

# # #

Related Links:

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven
"Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film
Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming
Skeptics

AMS Certified Weatherman Strikes Back At Weather Channel Call For
Decertification

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for
Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking
Global Warming"

This is all beside the point and irrelevant. Science is not about
convincing paid skeptics or the audience of accountants and plumbers
and bus drivers and pet store owners. It is not about being popular
or witty. It is about finding the answers to physical questions by
using data, measurement, tests and repetition. That is has always
been the case, and and will always be the case.

In other words, the fact that this "debate" exhibited better
showmanship by the P. T. Barnums and Florence Ziegfelds of the
pseudoscience world means nothing.

Bruce Jensen

bpnjensen wrote:

On Jul 31, 10:04 am, ka6uup wrote:
A little old but.....

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global
Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano – 8:45 AM ET –

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to
testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between
prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming
skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an
audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3%
to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but
following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in
favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at
the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home
energy use.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting
the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting
his debate team was ‘pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against
the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com’s blog agreed, saying the believers
in a man-made climate catastrophe “seemed underarmed for the debate and,
not surprising, it swung against them."

The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor
during the debate.

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of
their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his
house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London
emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop
the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a
ban on private jet travel.

"Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra
Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly
on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They
must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if
they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them
seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience. (For more debate quotes
see bottom of article)

The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence
Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as
MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus
professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned
Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.

The scientists arguing for a climate ‘crisis’ were NASA scientist Gavin
Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public
Radio’s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: "Global warming is not a
crisis.”

Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience

The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that
had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate
"crisis" moments before the debate began.

But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed
themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the
skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the
views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience
members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of
46.2% -- a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official
audience voting results]

[Link to full debate pdf transcript]

Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a
man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side
was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the
comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealClimate.org.

"…I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split
roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the
entertaining narratives from [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s
Philip] Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier
fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely
polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him.
Comparatively, we were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote.

‘Advantage: Climate Contrarians’

The ScientificAmerican.com’s blog also declared the global warming
skeptics the clear winner of the debate in a March 15 post titled:
"Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians."

"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate
and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt
made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience
to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com’s David Biello
wrote.

The advocates of climate alarmism "were faced with the folksy anecdotes
of Crichton and the oratorical fire of Stott," Biello wrote at
ScientificAmerican.com.

Biello concluded, "…the audience responded to Crichton's satirical call
for a ban on private jets more than Ekwurzel's vague we need to throw
‘everything we can at the climate crisis.’ By the final vote, 46 percent
of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a
crisis, while just 42 percent persisted in their opinion that it was."

Biello also criticized climate "crisis" advocate Richard Somerville as
"perplexed" and "hardly inspiring."

Skeptic’s ‘Very Popular’

Debate participant Schmidt lamented that the evening turned into one of
futility for believers in a man-made global warming catastrophe.

"Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private
jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying
Eastsiders present and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that
global warming is a problem using any energy at all."

Schmidt continued, "Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially
accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly
rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up
the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science."

Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split
between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are
probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.

Selected Quotes from the climate debate from transcript: [Link to full
debate pdf transcript]

Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:

"I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really
mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American
population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in
them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let’s have the
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace
make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets.
They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in
the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do
that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]"

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private
jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe
all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good,
expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a
while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done.
Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as
stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that
friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to
fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty.
There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a
billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going
to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we
don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the
future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that's
unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace."

Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of
biogeography Philip Stott:

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of
their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his
house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics.
[LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by
falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of
global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22
million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the
average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it
were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have
fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always
changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony
Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks
ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best
temperature. ‘I could do two degrees C said Angela.’ ‘No, I could only
do three said Tony.’ [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are
politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very
honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind
climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to
cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only
understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

Skeptical quotes of MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance
of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down,
not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases
is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which
is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these
gases on the greenhouse effect."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but
temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And
that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

# # #

Related Links:

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven
"Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film
Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming
Skeptics

AMS Certified Weatherman Strikes Back At Weather Channel Call For
Decertification

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for
Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking
Global Warming"

This is all beside the point and irrelevant. Science is not about
convincing paid skeptics or the audience of accountants and plumbers
and bus drivers and pet store owners. It is not about being popular
or witty. It is about finding the answers to physical questions by
using data, measurement, tests and repetition. That is has always
been the case, and and will always be the case.

In other words, the fact that this "debate" exhibited better
showmanship by the P. T. Barnums and Florence Ziegfelds of the
pseudoscience world means nothing.

The only 'showmanship' is that exhibited by Al Gore and the other clown 'tards.

Do some research Bruce, look at the historical record, and you'll find that
climate has been changing since day one, and the reality is that ultimately, when
the sun reaches it's last days, the earth will burn, and will be merely a rock
somewhere in the grand scheme of things.

If, as many of you seem wont to do, and that is, tax folks, then I suggest you get
your wallet out and send in a bit extra come April.

I suggest that you tell Boy Barry the same thing, as on his last return he took
advantage of the 'Bush' tax measures.

Did he get out his wallet, or whatever the folks from the 'hood' carry these days
and send in a bit extra? No, he did not.

Your Boy Barry is a liar.

In the Summer time, Earth is farther away from the Sun than in the
Winter time.Bit, Earth's Northern Hemisphere is tilted more toward the
Sun and receiving more Sun light than in the Winter time.

I still (jokeingly) say it is all that 'Ether' that is doing it.
cuhulin, Ether R ME

On Aug 8, 4:03*pm, dxAce wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
On Jul 31, 10:04 am, ka6uup wrote:
A little old but.....

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global
Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate
March 16, 2007

Posted By Marc Morano 8:45 AM ET

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore s scheduled visit to
testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between
prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming
skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an
audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57..3%
to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a crisis , but
following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in
favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at
the expense of former Vice President Gore s reportedly excessive home
energy use.

After the stunning victory, one of the scientists on the side promoting
the belief in a climate "crisis" appeared to concede defeat by noting
his debate team was pretty dull" and at "a sharp disadvantage" against
the skeptics. ScientificAmerican.com s blog agreed, saying the believers
in a man-made climate catastrophe seemed underarmed for the debate and,
not surprising, it swung against them."

The New York City audience laughed as Gore became the butt of humor
during the debate.

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of
their hypocrisy. I m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his
house. But it is a very serious point," quipped University of London
emeritus professor Philip Stott to laughter from the audience.

The audience also applauded a call by novelist Michael Crichton to stop
the hypocrisy of environmentalists and Hollywood liberals by enacting a
ban on private jet travel.

"Let s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra
Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly
on private jets. They must get their houses off the [power] grid. They
must live in the way that they re telling everyone else to live. And if
they won t do that, why should we? And why should we take them
seriously?" Crichton said to applause audience. (For more debate quotes
see bottom of article)

The debate was sponsored by the Oxford-style debating group Intelligence
Squared and featured such prominent man-made global warming skeptics as
MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, the University of London emeritus
professor of biogeography Philip Stott and Physician turned
Novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton on one side.

The scientists arguing for a climate crisis were NASA scientist Gavin
Schmidt, meteorologist Richard C.J. Somerville of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography and Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of
Concerned Scientists. The event, which was moderated by New York Public
Radio s Brian Lehrer, debated the proposition: "Global warming is not a
crisis.

Skeptics Dramatically Convinced Audience

The skeptics achieved the vote victory despite facing an audience that
had voted 57% in favor of the belief that mankind has created a climate
"crisis" moments before the debate began.

But by the end of the debate, the audience dramatically reversed
themselves and became convinced by the arguments presented by the
skeptical scientists. At the conclusion, the audience voted for the
views of the skeptics by a margin of 46.2% to 42.2%. Skeptical audience
members grew from a pre-debate low of 29.9% to a post debate high of
46.2% -- a jump of nearly 17 percentage points. [Link to official
audience voting results]

[Link to full debate pdf transcript]

Scientist Concedes Debate To Skeptics

NASA s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a
man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side
was pretty dull and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the
comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealClimate.org.

" I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split
roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the
entertaining narratives from [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK s
Philip] Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier
fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely
polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him.
Comparatively, we were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote.

Advantage: Climate Contrarians

The ScientificAmerican.com s blog also declared the global warming
skeptics the clear winner of the debate in a March 15 post titled:
"Debate Skills? Advantage: Climate Contrarians."

"The proponents [of a climate crisis] seemed underarmed for the debate
and, not surprisingly, it swung against them, particularly when Schmidt
made the fatal debating error of dismissing the ability of the audience
to judge the scientific nuances," ScientificAmerican.com s David Biello
wrote.

The advocates of climate alarmism "were faced with the folksy anecdotes
of Crichton and the oratorical fire of Stott," Biello wrote at
ScientificAmerican.com.

Biello concluded, " the audience responded to Crichton's satirical call
for a ban on private jets more than Ekwurzel's vague we need to throw
everything we can at the climate crisis. By the final vote, 46 percent
of the audience had been convinced that global warming was indeed not a
crisis, while just 42 percent persisted in their opinion that it was."

Biello also criticized climate "crisis" advocate Richard Somerville as
"perplexed" and "hardly inspiring."

Skeptic s Very Popular

Debate participant Schmidt lamented that the evening turned into one of
futility for believers in a man-made global warming catastrophe.

"Crichton went with the crowd-pleasing condemnation of private
jet-flying liberals - very popular, even among the private jet-flying
Eastsiders present and the apparent hypocrisy of people who think that
global warming is a problem using any energy at all."

Schmidt continued, "Stott is a bit of a force of nature and essentially
accused anyone who thinks global warming is a problem of explicitly
rooting for misery and poverty in the third world. He also brought up
the whole cosmic ray issue as the next big thing in climate science."

Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split
between believers of a climate crisis and scientific skeptics are
probably not worthwhile to ever agree to again.

Selected Quotes from the climate debate from transcript: [Link to full
debate pdf transcript]

Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:

"I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right might really
mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American
population doesn t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in
them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] "Let s have the
NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace
make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets.
They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in
the way that they re telling everyone else to live. And if they won t do
that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]"

"I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private
jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe
all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good,
expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a
while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you re done.
Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it."

"I mean, haven t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as
stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that
friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to
fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]"

"Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty..
There are, a third of the planet doesn t have electricity. We have a
billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going
to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we
don t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the
future than pay attention to what s going on now. I think that's
unacceptable. I think that s really a disgrace."

Skeptical quotes of University of London s emeritus professor of
biogeography Philip Stott:

"What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of
their hypocrisy. I m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his
house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point."

"In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics.
[LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by
falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts."

"The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of
global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22
million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the
average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it
were. [LAUGHTER] It s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have
fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always
changes."

"Angela Merkel the German chancellor, my own good prime minister (Tony
Blair) for whom I voted -- let me emphasize, arguing in public two weeks
ago as to who in Annie get the gun style could produce the best
temperature. I could do two degrees C said Angela. No, I could only
do three said Tony. [LAUGHTER] Stand back a minute, those are
politicians, telling you that they can control climate to a degree Celsius.

And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very
honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind
climate change. Well let s use an engineer; I don t think I d want to
cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only
understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]

Skeptical quotes of MIT s Professor of Atmospheric Science Richard Lindzen:

"Now, much of the current alarm, I would suggest, is based on ignorance
of what is normal for weather and climate."

"The impact on temperature per unit carbon dioxide actually goes down,
not up, with increasing CO2. The role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases
is not directly related to the emissions rate or even CO2 levels, which
is what the legislation is hitting on, but rather to the impact of these
gases on the greenhouse effect."

"The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but
temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about five kilometers. And
that is going up even slower than the temperature at the surface."

# # #

Related Links:

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven
"Consensus

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film
Accusing U.S. Government of Criminal Neglect

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming
Skeptics

AMS Certified Weatherman Strikes Back At Weather Channel Call For
Decertification

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for
Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic s Guide To Debunking
Global Warming"

This is all beside the point and irrelevant. *Science is not about
convincing paid skeptics or the audience of accountants and plumbers
and bus drivers and pet store owners. *It is not about being popular
or witty. *It is about finding the answers to physical questions by
using data, measurement, tests and repetition. *That is has always
been the case, and and will always be the case.

In other words, the fact that this "debate" exhibited better
showmanship by the P. T. Barnums and Florence Ziegfelds of the
pseudoscience world means nothing.

The only 'showmanship' is that exhibited by Al Gore and the other clown 'tards.

Do some research Bruce, look at the historical record, and you'll find that
climate has been changing since day one, and the reality is that ultimately, when
the sun reaches it's last days, the earth will burn, and will be merely a rock
somewhere in the grand scheme of things.

If, as many of you seem wont to do, and that is, tax folks, then I suggest you get
your wallet out and send in a bit extra come April.

I suggest that you tell Boy Barry the same thing, as on his last return he took
advantage of the 'Bush' tax measures.

Did he get out his wallet, or whatever the folks from the 'hood' carry these days
and send in a bit extra? No, he did not.

Your Boy Barry is a liar.

One Must Begin To Ask...

How Many Shares BpnJ Owns in Al Gores
Carbon Credits Corps ? ? ?

Al Gore The Great Profit of Global Warming !

payola big or small is still payola ~ RHF

bpnjensen wrote:

Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.


No need to sink to the acehole's level. You're better equipped to
express yourself.


mike







-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOQroDAAoJECGtZwCbtgwXtLAH/3CkG0E1ulFIO7bSEIwJQxUr
IQ1+9cadhKeUeHf3ZTGJy6+ICp4vVmbe4qxfBkugFac9dXjUq5 isjjvhJBihd+Ai
Yjoy+8997iBQdcMKPO3MMrOSTshYx8LYnfVhhuMlXl9SBMIdQl xV7ej025NeF5Wl
5o6d2nLSaPKLcWYFw0hG2G18wGlQqzxdPBtZr6BiQuQCN3o1Kn P8qrgPPEEFMBgw
FFbQ5MQJhgY7lr7vXFvAPAvic151dQIQEu9OJosSj7VfBO/UCuHFYSiPh7/Wb1qS
Iueu6ILlb9iyOriyjFaqk/nEimjfC+udy41Ux0DDwSPrxPeKZZHZRdsAaxv2tkE=
=PZ8X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
...
On Aug 8, 4:03 pm, dxAce wrote:

The only 'showmanship' is that exhibited by Al Gore and the other clown
'tards.

Do some research Bruce, look at the historical record, and you'll find
that
climate has been changing since day one, and the reality is that
ultimately, when
the sun reaches it's last days, the earth will burn, and will be merely a
rock
somewhere in the grand scheme of things.

If, as many of you seem wont to do, and that is, tax folks, then I suggest
you get
your wallet out and send in a bit extra come April.

I suggest that you tell Boy Barry the same thing, as on his last return he
took
advantage of the 'Bush' tax measures.

Did he get out his wallet, or whatever the folks from the 'hood' carry
these days
and send in a bit extra? No, he did not.

Your Boy Barry is a liar.

Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.
-----------------------------
So much for your "I'm a scientist" meme.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 8/10/11 10:45 , bpnjensen wrote:


Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.


You're better than that, Bruce.

Not really.

On 8/10/11 12:32 , MNMikew wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/10/11 10:45 , bpnjensen wrote:


Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.


You're better than that, Bruce.

Not really.



Actually, he's generally more reasoned than this outburst. He
and I may disagree, but I rarely see this kind of bitterness.

"D. Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
On 8/10/11 12:32 , MNMikew wrote:
"D. Peter wrote in message
...
On 8/10/11 10:45 , bpnjensen wrote:


Every Republican is a liar. It's a congenital defect from massive
inbreeding.


You're better than that, Bruce.

Not really.



Actually, he's generally more reasoned than this outburst. He and I may
disagree, but I rarely see this kind of bitterness.

Most AGW alarmists are pretty bitter.

On 08/10/2011 10:59 AM, MNMikew wrote:

Most AGW alarmists are pretty bitter.



http://dels-old.nas.edu/climatechange/