A debate between one of the world's foremost climate realists and one of the world's foremost climate alarmists took place Sunday on the Corus Radio Network.
In the left corner was Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog. In the right corner was Christopher Monckton, chief advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.
Audio available here.
So...who won?
Littlemore seems to think it's Monckton.
Also, it appears Monckton was right -- and Littlemore wrong! -- about DeSmog's benefactor John Lefebvre having been charged with money laundering.
Comments Policy
Score one for Monckton
August 17, 2008 - 23:18 ET by HillbillyKing"Score one for Monckton."
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Science? Science???!!!
August 18, 2008 - 01:13 ET by nofateFrom Littlemore's capitulatory snivelry: ..."share the same goal - not to win an argument about global warming science, but merely to show that there still IS an argument." Unfortunately, Littlemore and many other scientists are not following the scientific method in their attempts to prove the validity of AGW, but instead rely on computer generated models into which they can plug the data that suits their preconcieved notions. As a non scientist, even I can see that they are trying to make the data fit their theories.
The results they are getting from their computer generated models are not quantitative.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate, I'm not sure that
August 18, 2008 - 01:38 ET by hydrodynDMnofate,
I'm not sure that their models don't give quantitative results - it's just a matter of how seriously to take them.
My problem with global climate models stems from a few things:
1) Give how complicated the Earth's climate is, the models have to incorporate simplifications, approximations and assumptions of all sorts (and that's on top of the approximations that are introduced when you discretize equations so a computer can deal with them).
2) There have to be a ton of free parameters that go in to these models. I once heard an engineer say "Give me enough free parameters and I can make a curve that looks like an elephant".
3) Whatever predictions these models make, they are just guesses until their predictions are verified empirically. Now granted, that will take time (and if they happen to be right, it might be too late by then) and the same kind of criticism can be leveled against the predictions make by models in other areas of science (astronomy comes to mind) but give points 1) and 2), I don't feel compelled to accept them as true.
And the fact that most of these guys have models that suggest that AGW is real might mean little more than that they are all basically using the same kind of model.
The Real Problem
August 18, 2008 - 02:35 ET by nofateHere's the real problem, and Gore's only one person at the tip of the iceberg (h/t Popular Tech- I borrowed the following from his site's listings):
Profiteering:
Al Gore Pushes 'Pollution Tax' (NewsMax)
Al Gore Gets Rich ($100 Million) After White House (ABC News)
Al Gore is criticised for lining his own pockets after £3,300 ($6,757) per-minute green speech (Daily Mail, UK)
Al Gore, Maurice Strong: Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it (Canada Free Press)
Gore's 'carbon offsets' paid to firm he owns (WorldNetDaily)
Gore Cashing in on $6 Trillion Energy Business (NewsMax)
Gore makes sustainable investment his business (The Age, Australia)
Gore to Rake in IPO Millions (NewsMax)
Gore Warns on 'Subprime Carbon' Industry (NewsMax)
Global Warming, Inc. (The Wall Street Journal)
Green firm Camco gets Blood and Gore investment (Reuters)
The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade (Human Events)
Hypocrite:
Al Gore and Global Warming - Is He a Hypocrite? (Video) (10min)
Al Gore's Gulfstream (Video) (7min)
Al Gore, Environmentalist and Zinc Miner (The Wall Street Journal)
- Environmentalist Gore allowed zinc mine (USA Today)
- Zero on Zinc: The mining double standard (National Review Online)
Al Gore, polluter? (WorldNetDaily)
Al Gore Refuses to Take Personal Energy Ethics Pledge (US Senate Environment & Public Works Committee)
Al Gore: Occidental Petroleum Connections (The Wall Street Journal)
Al Gore: The Other Oil Candidate (CorpWatch)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Stock Portfolio Exposed (PR Newswire)
Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump (NewsMax)
Bush's Ranch House 'Far More Eco-Friendly' Than Gore's (CNSNews)
- George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion = True (Snopes)
Eco-warrior Al Gore serves up endangered fish at daughter's party (Daily Mail, UK)
Environmentalists Attack Gore's Dishonesty (NewsMax)
Gore and Enron: Controlling Hypocritical Authority (National Review Online)
Gore's Elk Hills/Occidental Oil Scandal: Bigger Than Teapot Dome (NewsMax)
Gore’s Entourage Lincoln Town Car Outside Global Warming Speech Idles w/ AC Cranking for 20 Minutes! (Canada Free Press)
Gore's Oil Money (The Nation)
Gore Hits the Waves with a Massive New Houseboat (Pajamas Media)
Gore home's energy use: 20 times average (WorldNetDaily)
- Al Gore's Inconvenient Electric Bill (FOX News)
- Al Gore's residence uses considerably more energy than the average American home = True (Snopes)
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite "energy-efficient" home renovations (Tennesse Center for Policy Research)
- Al Gore's Epic Hypocrisy (FOX News)
- Gore's Mansion Uses More Energy After 'Going Green' (CNSNews)
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe (USA Today)
Hypocrite Gore Should Practice What He Preaches (The Tech, MIT)
Integrity in the Balance: Al Gore's Record On the Environment (CorpWatch)
Meet the real Al Gore (WorldNetDaily)
Old-Growth Timber used to Rebuild the Veranda of the Vice Presidential Mansion (Newsweek)
Whose Ox Is Gored? The Former Vice President's Environmental Exaggerations and Hypocrisy (The Wall Street Journal)
If you haven't visited PT's site, I recommend it. He has an amazing list of articles on the subject. But Gore is only one of thousands of hypocrites jetting around the world attempting to force policies down the throats of gullible policymakers who remain unaware or buy into the fact that when these people are done remaking the world, freedom will be nonexistent. And they will be rich(er).
Really. I thought that if something was quantitative, it was measurable and could be expressed as a number or quantity. If the numbers or measurements they are plugging in are guesses, doesn't that make the end results qualitative, i.e. not measurable or precise? Maybe, being a non-scientist, I have my definitions jumbled, but, as you said, "Whatever predictions these models make, they are just guesses until their predictions are verified empirically." And often, their models leave out or ignore significant factors:
From Global Warming and Nature's Thermostat, by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.:
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate, Really. I
August 18, 2008 - 15:23 ET by hydrodynDMnofate,
You are correct with your definition of "quantitative" and what you say about "guesses" is what I was getting at when I said that it's up to the modeler to decide how seriously to take the results.
As far as I know, computer models always give qualitative results (they only work in numbers). How you handle those results depends on your judgment.
For example, let's say you make a model that studies the affect of air resistance on the motion of a projectile. About the only real way to do this is to work with actual equations that describe trajectories. So your model will give you specific (quantitative) results (like the max height achieved or the range, given different firing angles and projectile shapes and things like that) but if you had to guess at certain quantities within the model, then you might opt to only present the general (qualitative) results of your model - e.g. that max height seems to be achieved for a firing angle that is larger than 45 degree (which is the max height angle without air resistance) without specifying what your model actually says is the max height angle (which is probably not correct because of your guesses).
In reality, if you were writing a paper, you would present all of your results (along with an explanation of what equations you used and what assumptions you made) and leave it up to the reader to decide how seriously to take your numbers, or general results.
Fascinating Discussion
August 19, 2008 - 12:15 ET by nofateI haven't checked in here for a while and am fascinated at the level of discussion and apparent expertise displayed since I last looked. I am no programmer or scientist, just work as a tech with basic scientific method training as my background. Not being an expert myself, I read a lot to determine what I believe to be the best advice available from those who are specialists, and act accordingly. But I do know that Fortran is an antique. And from the discussion, we are led to believe that Fortran is the basis for the NASA/GISS model??? NASA??? I'm speechless, almost. I've had to use programs that have been built on old Fortran code and they are the dumbest, most user unfriendly pieces of junk imagineable! And I'm trying not to use hyperbole in saying that.
I think they need to farm out some of this stuff to people like Roy Spencer, William Grey, Lindzer, Fred Singer, etc. Oh, I forgot, they won't toe the AGW line ;-)
"Folks, we are so screwed!" --- Rush Limbaugh
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
HDM, Long time, no
August 18, 2008 - 04:25 ET by NL207HDM,
Long time, no see.
I think you've overlooked the greatest weakness of all associated with these computer models that have replaced empirical science amongst the Climate Alarmist set:
Computer models only give the results they were programmed to give.
Digital Computers are deterministic. That is, their results are repeatable and predictable, 100% so. This is a mathematical certainty. It is equally certain that a computer will produce the results that it is programmed to produce.
In the case of these computer models, their authors believe that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the principle driver of the climate drift we measure in the world today. Not surprisingly, the models they have written predict more of the same.
One of the strongest clues theses models are fallacious is their inability to correctly compute the all three intervals 1900-1940, 1940-1970, and 1970-present using the same model andsame parameters. Not one of these climate models can do this, not even the Hadley Center model, despite Hadley Center's claims to the contrary. They grudgingly admit on their website they actually have TWO distinct models they use to cover these intervals.
Testing a climate model against past climate is meaningless
August 18, 2008 - 06:40 ET by PopularTechI agree but would add that testing a climate model against past climate (even if accurate) is meaningless. Testing a model against past climate is an advanced exercise in curve fitting, nothing more and proves absolutely nothing. What this means is you are attempting to have your model's output match the existing historical output that has been recorded. For example matching the global mean temperature curve over 100 years. Even if you match this temperature curve with your model it is meaningless. Your model could be using some irrelevant calculation that simply matches the curve but does not relate to the real world. With a computer model there are an infinite number of ways to match the temperature curve but only one way that represents the real world. It is impossible for computer models to prove which combination of climate physics correctly matches the real world.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopularTech, I second
August 18, 2008 - 15:45 ET by hydrodynDMPopularTech,
I second that. Like I mentioned to NL207, I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of atmospheric models, but I have to assume that there are a tone of parameters within the code that can be tweaked to give a wide range of results. And even though some or most of these might be empirical parameters, I would guess there's a range of acceptable values for them which again give a range of results.
Having said that, I'm not necessarily as pessimistic as you about the goings on of the modelers. I'd like to think that if some researcher simply pulled some term out of his butt and introduced it into the code to make the results come out the way he wants, that he would be called on it. But then, who knows.
No Auditing of Climate Model Code
August 18, 2008 - 19:24 ET by PopularTechThere is no independent auditing of model code. Much of the code in these models is programmed by natural scientists using Fortran and not computer scientists. All the peer-reviewed papers based on computer modeing do not include a peer-review of the model code.
You have millions of lines of code which includes various approximations, theoretical calculations and tweakable variables of which later data sets are dependent on. Thus the results are meaningless.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop, the code is available
August 18, 2008 - 20:07 ET by NL207Pop, the code is available for public inspection for the NASA/GISS model. Why don't you look at it? I have. It's right on their website. I can't actually run it because I don't have a FORT compiler.
I am aware of the NASA/GISS code
August 18, 2008 - 20:53 ET by PopularTechThough not all the code is available nor is it properly documented. What I looked at was a mess in terms of proper coding guidelines. If this was my project it would be easier to start from scratch.
But this is just one of the models used by the IPCC report. People have attempted to look into it:
Models, Methods, Software
When you have the computer community at large not even aware of the significance of this issue you get people who have no business writing computer code having their work be the basis for trillion dollar changes to the world economy.
There are free fortran compilers available online. Though I am not concerned with running it because to me the output is meaningless.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
From your view of its
August 18, 2008 - 21:10 ET by NL207From your view of its internals, you would agree with my assessment that this code has its actual origins back in the 70's?
It has been reworked and patched many times. Moreover, the actual authorship of its sections cannot be traced. My assessment is that the code was never under strict source control. Nor is it likely that it is under strict source control today.
I am interested to know how any researcher using this code base is able to verify that the particular version of the program he is or has used is the same or different than any other.
I do not care to have a free fortran compiler or for that matter, a fortran compiler of any price. There is nothing I need to do in FORT that I cannot achieve in a more maintainable fashion using a 4GL.
Gavin admits the code is a mess
August 18, 2008 - 21:24 ET by PopularTechEven earlier than that since Fortran 66 came out in the 60s (66).
"These codes are what they are - the result of 30 years and more effort by dozens of different scientists (note, not professional software engineers), around a dozen different software platforms and a transition from punch-cards of Fortran 66, to fortran 95 on massively parallel systems." - Gavin Schmidt
Heh, nobody uses Fortran anymore except natural scientists, some engineers and legacy programmers.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Man, am I behind the
August 18, 2008 - 21:27 ET by hydrodynDMMan, am I behind the times.
I'm still writing stuff in C.
I think the power in my machine is supplied by a hamster in a hamster wheel.
NL207, Like Pop said, you
August 18, 2008 - 21:08 ET by hydrodynDMNL207,
Like Pop said, you can snag a compiler from online somewhere, but by question would be - what would you run it on?
I would imagine that these models are pretty computer intensive and if they are written using come kind of parallel protocol, you'd have to have a machine that accommodates that. I'd imagine that a regular PC would choke on it.
I have a machine with the
August 18, 2008 - 21:14 ET by NL207I have a machine with the horsepower to run it: a 16 cpu Blade with 16 GB physical mem. But I doubt the freebie compiler will produce code that can take advantage of the parallelism the machine is capable of.
You can buy personal super computers now
August 18, 2008 - 21:44 ET by PopularTechYou can buy personal super computers now.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopularTech, I know that
August 18, 2008 - 21:01 ET by hydrodynDMPopularTech,
I know that it isn't typical for someone to include their code in a paper. However, in my experience, it is expected that you describe the equations you use (and what all the terms in them are about) and give a general description or reference to how you are solving those equations.
That's what I had in mind when I said that someone (i.e. someone on the peer-review board or at the least, someone outside of your research group reading the paper after its published) would call you out if you simply introduced an ad hoc term that had no physical basis and was just put in to get the results you wanted.
But then, I'm assuming a level of honesty here that might be on the naive side.
Computer Science vs. Math
August 18, 2008 - 21:17 ET by PopularTechThis would be acceptable if this was simply papers on mathematics but since computer models often work differently then what is on paper there would need to be more scrutiny.
I believe it to be computer illiteracy with the reviewers not understanding the significance of an approximation in a computer program or the irrelevance of a virtual world result as "proof".
I do not believe they are making up absolutely bogus variables but ommission of code is just as important as what is included. There are a multitude of ways to manipulate a model and still appear "scientific".
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I acknowledge everything
August 18, 2008 - 21:47 ET by hydrodynDMI acknowledge everything that you say.
About the only way to really check if someone is on the up and up is to either get hold of their code, understand it and then reproduce their results (which typically doesn't happen) or try to reproduce their results based on the information they have given in their papers.
And even in the later case, the results are never exactly identical (I know this from experience) precisely because there's any number of ways to handle the zillions of little decisions you have to make about how you handle a particular calculation or whatever within the code. But if your results more or less match up with theirs and you know that the model you're using is realistic, you can (maybe) say the same of theirs.
The problem is if they don't match up. Did you mess something up or are their results bogus?
One of the tests any
August 18, 2008 - 19:50 ET by NL207One of the tests any successful model must pass is regression. The fact that none of the Climate Alarmist models can accomplish this falsifies their hypothesis of an accurate model. Any model that fails to accurately regress know data sets is no model at all. In the context of the scientific method, this is an important result.
The next test is to correctly predict future events. Any model that cannot do that is also falsified.
There IS no test to VERIFY a climate model as you have noted, which is in itself another important part of the scientific method. No climate alarmist can verify his model. This is how weak the scienctific argument created by climate models alone truly is. I am cetain these points were lost on Gavin and his co-followers when you were attempting to debate him.
NL207, Nice to hear from
August 18, 2008 - 15:36 ET by hydrodynDMNL207,
Nice to hear from ya.
Well, yes, but that's true of all computer models - even the good ones (which would be mine, of course). What you are pointing out is what I was talking about when I mentioned assumptions and simplifications.
I don't know crap about atmospheric modeling, but I don't think I'm wrong in assuming that the physics of how the atmosphere works isn't fully understood. And if that's the case, modelers can introduce any series of assumptions into their models which are (perhaps) reasonable but which produce a huge range of results.
Hey hyrdro
August 18, 2008 - 15:55 ET by BlondeI don't know crap about atmospheric modeling, but I don't think I'm wrong in assuming that the physics of how the atmosphere works isn't fully understood. And if that's the case, modelers can introduce any series of assumptions into their models which are (perhaps) reasonable but which produce a huge range of results.
Exactly. Here's a few I'm watching with rapt attention. The big jags to the left just showed up this morning at 8:00 a.m. Go figure.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Hey Blonde, Yup - wide
August 18, 2008 - 16:06 ET by hydrodynDMHey Blonde,
Yup - wide range of results. But the graphs are kinda pretty, aren't they?
I worked with a guy years ago who seemed to produce papers on almost a monthly basis (which is a lot). I asked him how he did it and he basically joked that he created lots of pretty graphs that impressed his boss.
Quite, hDM
August 18, 2008 - 16:16 ET by BlondePretty. Looking even prettier to me as they are far enough west to make me happy.
Modeling is fun stuff...but to base policies on something which is not fully understood (like AGW....much less hurricane predictions) is nuts.
Seriously, I don't enjoy putting my shutters up and doing all this work based on a model....which predicted I would not be directly hit. However, I've experienced enough hurricane reality to know that it's best to be prepared for any contingency.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde, The one thing I
August 18, 2008 - 16:29 ET by hydrodynDMBlonde,
The one thing I won't miss when I move back north from SC is all this hurricane/thunder storm stuff.
I've been lucky so far - the only hurricane warning I've experienced was a couple of years ago and that ended up being nothing.
I'd rather take a blizzard any day - at least afterwards, you can make wicked awesome snow forts.
You can keep the snow forts...
August 18, 2008 - 16:33 ET by BlondeBrrrr! This is a nuisance, but at least I don't have to shovel the driveway.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Besides blizzards and power
August 18, 2008 - 16:43 ET by bigtimerBesides blizzards and power going out...plus shoveling....blah blah blah...good ol' tsumami warnings were always fun...immediate evacuation to higher ground and destinations with little warning never knowing the time of day or night when that would happen....this was in Ak. a new experience and way of life for me...even though I'd been through earthquakes before being raised in Ca....living in Seward Ak. was a new bottle of wax.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
bigtimer, Years ago, I
August 18, 2008 - 16:50 ET by hydrodynDMbigtimer,
Years ago, I lived in western PA - not much snow, no hurricanes, no earth quakes - nothing. Renter's insurance for a year was about $20.
I move to SC and a coworker mentioned that they pay about $1000/year for renter's.
I had to wonder what kind of an insane fun-house of natural disasters I had moved into.
I understand Hendrik Schon
August 18, 2008 - 20:25 ET by danboI understand Hendrik Schon was also producing a lot of papers. He was just reusing the same forged data.
I understand his co workers were predicting he'd either be awarded a nobel or go to jail.
Limited Disclosure: I used to belong to the Sierra Club untill they went crazier. Worse of all, I was bribed by Exxon with free New Orleans Saints glasses with fill ups in the 70's.
Hydro, don't give me this
August 18, 2008 - 20:02 ET by NL207Hydro, don't give me this stuff about you don't know crap about atmospheric modeling. You are a specialist in fluid dynamics. You know more about flow in compressible and noncompressible fluids than Gavin Schmidt knows about beer!
I will speculate that you learned the exponential atrmosphere model as part of your formal training. You might even have taught this at one time or another. You also know and have taught the physics of black body radiators and I am equally sure you learned about the Beer-Lambert law when you studied refraction and absorption. Add in heat transfer. That is also required material at your level of education. You and I have both studied every one of these subjects and half a dozen more that are germaine to the problem. You probably minored in Mathematics at the Baccalaureate level. I did. It comes with the discipline.
The only advantage these Climate Modelers have over us is they are actively working in the field and we aren't. In my experience, the only thing that buys you is learning curve and at the same time it opens the door to prejudice and close minded investigation.
NL207, Yes, I've heard
August 18, 2008 - 21:20 ET by hydrodynDMNL207,
Yes, I've heard (and even taught about some) of those things. But my area of work (like most people's) is in a very specialized (narrow) area.
Having said that, I do work with models and I do know what that kind of work is like and it's from that general stand point that I put out my criticisms.
But it's also why I never comment about specifics (like the affects of certain substances in the atmosphere on absorption or whatever). It isn't my area of work. I'd like to think that if I sat down and read through the research, I'd get it (maybe more easily than some others since some of the ideas are related to what I do), but I haven't.
But thanks for the compliment anyways.
Computer Climate Modeling "Experts"
August 18, 2008 - 21:08 ET by PopularTechKnow "good-enough" Fortran + have the ability to plug in physics equations into a spherical model scaled to the size of the earth = Computer Climate Model Expert. Any Computer Scientist with the help of a Mathematics or Physics Scientist can understand it. Since you already have a background in fluid dynamics modeling you should have no problem understanding climate models (especially if they were properly documented).
Code is code no matter what fancy name they give it.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PopularTech, I know what
August 18, 2008 - 21:35 ET by hydrodynDMPopularTech,
I know what you're saying but the fact is, I have no real desire to spend my time on the topic - I'd rather keep track of what's going on in my own area of work (which, quite frankly, I've gotten lazy about over the last year).
And although code is code, it's torture trying to go through someone else's stuff - particularly if they haven't documented it the way they should.
Exactly!
August 18, 2008 - 21:51 ET by PopularTechExactly! You could spend days and get no where.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Some computer model approximations are too simple.
August 18, 2008 - 06:49 ET by Par for the CourseThe following article shows an example of how some climate model approximations are just too simple:
Par, I'm sure you could
August 18, 2008 - 15:55 ET by hydrodynDMPar,
I'm sure you could find a ton of articles like this where scientist disagree over the importance of some such affect or another.
A computer modeler cannot incorporate everything into his model - the run times would take forever. Simplifications have to be made and assumptions have to be made regarding what affects to include. Then there's the process of actually incorporating terms into the code to mimic those affects - that introduces more simplifications and assumptions.
It's difficult for me to believe that some researchers in this field of work actually think that anyone should change their lives based on the predictions of their models.
These models have more basic
August 18, 2008 - 20:26 ET by NL207These models have more basic flaws that even that. For example, no one actually knows how much precipitation falls on this planet every day or in what geographic distributions. The numbers used by thes climate modelers for this most basic heat convection agent are ESTIMATES cobbled together from a patchwork of different monitoring systems, many of which were designed for work far different than precipitation metrology. NASA has planned for the future a new, dedicated, whole planet system, GPM, to measure precip, but it will not actually be deployed for several years.
Imagine, No Change
August 18, 2008 - 00:08 ET by nofateFrom the link above, Littlemore's bio:
"Most importantly, he is a parent to three teenage boys who, like all children of their generation, deserve to inherit a world uncompromised by climate change."
Where does he plan to find that world with no climate change? All it would take is one major solar storm, a meteor hit, a series of large volcanic eruptions, a longer than normal unexplained lack of sunspot activity (..."the sun is again blank of sunspots. Solar minimum lives on.") as in the "Maunder Minimum" that led to the "Little Ice Age". Check out recent solar cycle variations.
Watermelons.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Wonder why...
August 18, 2008 - 01:45 ET by HillbillyKingLittlemore's kids aren't a part of an "Inconvenient Youth"? I looked, no Littlemores listed as members. What, shouldn't they be working right along side Dad to ensure they "inherit a world uncompromised by climate change"? Also, it's funny how there are no ICY groups in Canada.
Nofate, they are watermelons, they just happen to be rotten on the inside. Being full of sh!t will do that to ya. :-}
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
"Where does he plan to find
August 18, 2008 - 02:39 ET by ckc1227"Where does he plan to find that world with no climate change?"
And what entitles his kids to a phenomenon that no other kid in the history of mankind has been entitled too?
Climate....changes. It always has, and it always will.
Download them here (MP3)
August 18, 2008 - 02:26 ET by PopularTechDownload them here (MP3)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I love the fact that
August 18, 2008 - 02:41 ET by RainsfordI love the fact that Littlemore keeps going on about how "non-scientists shouldn't debate science, so this whole debate means nothing" before he even starts. That would be all well and good, aside from the fact that alarmists scientists WON'T debate. Ugh.
Littlemore
August 18, 2008 - 02:46 ET by Cool ArrowSo if non-scientists shouldn't debate AGW, is he in a polite way, telling Al Gore to Shut Up?
I ♣ my seal
Background on DeSmogBlog
August 18, 2008 - 02:50 ET by PopularTechJames Hogan is a Co-Founder:
Who is James Hoggan? (Financial Post, Canada)
"So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.
One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.
There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.
But it is as a climate commentator that Mr. Hoggan gets carried away. On The Denial Machine, Mr. Hoggan is allowed to go on at some length about how climate skeptics are not true scientists, are not qualified, or have no expertise.
That takes some gall. Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science. "If you look in the scientific literature, there is no debate," he tells Mr. McKeown. It doesn't seem to bother Mr. McKeown that Mr. Hoggan has no expertise. It is also a little rich to have a member of the Suzuki Foundation board pronounce other scientists unfit and unqualified for climate assessments, while geneticist David Suzuki roams the world issuing barrages of climate change warnings at every opportunity."
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Another BC PR firm has also taken him to task
August 18, 2008 - 09:52 ET by littleblackduckhttp://www.prheadqua...
"Our concern is the tactics Mr. Hoggan is employing to build support for what might be called the climate change movement.
To
be frank, we find several aspects of his campaign distasteful and even
disturbing. We think his analysis is flimsy and comes dangerously close
to offending the code of ethics of the Canadian Public Relations
Society."
Here is a fairly long but excellent article:
http://www.canada.co...
Gotta love this quote:
"I don't call them deniers, I call them skeptics," says Makeluch [communications director at the Suzuki Foundation],
"and they are still in full cry. If you do an RSS search on climate
change, you still find lots of deniers. If you google up David Suzuki,
you will still find lots of people bashing him.
I've only listened to the first two parts. I really don't think that Monckton did that great a job, but he didn't have to. Littlemore was terrible, and when faltering, blamed the medium. I can't understand why he seemed to be so poorly prepared unless it was sheer arrogance. Like that kid so sure he'll 'ace' an exam that he goofs off the night before and then is shocked when he gets a big red 'F'.
I Love These Debates
August 18, 2008 - 15:36 ET by deerjerkydaveLittlemore seemed down in the count early on over the rising of the sea. He attempted to scare people that the arctic sea will melt and the ocean will rise a meter to two meters and that it would cause major worldwide destruction. When asked how long it would take to rise that much, he broke down and admitted that it would take 100 years. Monckton followed up with the two punch by revealing that arctic ice floats and therefore does not significantly conribute to sea level changes (put an ice cube in a cup of water and mark the level, wait until it melts and mark the level again...the water level goes DOWN, not up). And then the three punch was that sea level increases are more likely to rise a foot or less in the next 100 years.
On Littlemore's website he only concedes that Monckton won on debate tactics, but of course would never concede that Monckton won on substance.
It doesn't matter what
August 19, 2008 - 09:30 ET by NL207It doesn't matter what Littlemore thinks of his performance. It matters what the audience came to believe as a result. Littelmore's defeat is another nail ini the coffin for this scare campaign.
We will win this debate when the public begins to view the Alarmists as the kooks they are.