Global Warming Debate - Gavin Schmidt, part 5 of 10

[crocop60]

I think Gavin Schmidt made the mistake of trying to make the science accessible to the audience, but in the process of doing so he came off as patronizing or talking to them like they were kids.

[jwalker477]

What a putz.

[maryfay53]

"We are going to talk about the bigger picture."

? I wish he would talk about something based in fact. What the hell is he talking about cigarettes for? A complete waste of time.

[TenemaesLament]

His diatribe applies SO WELL to his own argument. It's like a beautiful regression.

[ecp73]

He's an angry man.

[Jimmyduudah]

There actually is a conclusion you can come to that is other than his lack of respect for the opposition. You can conclude he didn't have any points to make that aren't based upon massive assumptions written into computer models. He knows no intelligent audience would accept any argument based upon what a computer model suggests alone, and he has nothing else. So, to avoid having his own views subject to ridicule he (ineffectively) attacks the opposition.

[herbietiff]

It is a real shame Schmidt wasted his time, pointing out the presence of false arguments by his opponents, but only starting to address the issues as his time runs out. The only conclusion you can come too is he had no respect for the opposition, and just pointed out he didn't accept their arguments in order to get a laugh. Without a desire to address the issues over the data, nor an attempts to argue why the oppositions' points were invalid, his contribution to this debate is absolutely nothing

[Jimmyduudah]

This speaker is unbelievably patronising. Does he think he is preaching to the gullible? He should leave that crap to any time he might appear on the BBC - they lap this stuff up.

[gothkid287]

@Jimmyduudah I think you mean Fox 'News' not BBC, but regardless I agree with your statement.

[Jimmyduudah]

@gothkid287 I meant exactly what I wrote - the BBC has proven itself to be unable to be impartial on this matter (and others). Though I don't doubt that Fox news is totally unable to be impartial too. The difference is all Britons are required to subscribe to the BBC by law. The BBC is required by law to be impartial. At least if you don't agree with Fox news you don't have to give it any money...

[slytown]

@Jimmyduudah Same goes for NPR in America. They continue to recycle the words of those like Gavin Schmidt. FOX news is in the business of the GOP, an organization largely fueled by (pun intended) oil producers. Keep in mind that just because President Bush shunned the Kyoto Protocol and denied the establishment, his reasons were most likely in the interest of the GOP and the oil companies.

[slytown]

This is a horrible example of knowing your audience; he says the point of the debate is not to engage the specific facts? This isn't a PBS special, it's an important academic/professional debate.

[toshzpelta]

Notice how the pro-agw side always talks to you like you're a child...

[toshzpelta]

Notice how the pro-agw side talks to you like your a child...

[TheTempestSpark]

Meanwhile Fast forward to 2011 the warming has been slowing down and most likely reversed despite co2 being around 340-390ppm. and Gavin is explaining how AGW predictions were wrong. he looks very silly now! how is he going to look in a fue more years.

[axe414]

The evolution theory is a big joke also! All of this is simply to create a New world order and a micro-chipped population. Its a Luciferian conspiracy. Those Luciferians wants to reduce the population down to 500 millions and make them worship Lucifer.

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."

David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@axe414 you idiot

[axe414]

@FIGHTFANNERD3 LOL yep I forgot to say that evolutionists usually have bad fruits like FIGHTFANNERD3. Your Ad hominem attack shows how helpless you are in your argumentation. I just exposed your NWO Luciferian agenda and you don't like it!

"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind." George Herbert Walker Bush

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@axe414 lol oh nevermind i know what your doing now lol nice one

[mateo3470]

It's a sad state of affairs when people cannot distinguish science from wearing lab coats and tinkering with equations and computers. I would suggest that strict science employs the scientific method with controls. Climate research fits into a less rigorous definition of science, which is the general search for natural explanations. That should be made clear before anyone starts throwing around certainties about isolating simple causal relations on a scale as large as the entire earth.

[TimothyBragan]

LOL like csi, they are spreading a bunch of bs

[brokencountry123]

This is the NASA guy? You got to be kidding me.

[klnine]

Gavin - dick head, while we are on a hierarchy of knowledge " old boy " - YAD 43

[Highlyskeptical]

I think that ignorant people that don't understand what this guy is saying may ultimately destroy this world.

Just as they've always have.

[EasyEs]

@Highlyskeptical Yeah your "highly skeptical" don't break your arm patting yourself on the back for your intellect...respond promptly so I further put your arrogance in place.

[Highlyskeptical]

@EasyEs @EasyEs Listen buddy, if you don't respect the process of science and peer review to figure out how nature works, then you tell me of a better way.

If I want to fix my car, I go to a mechanic, because they're experts at fixing cars.

If I want to find out if I have bacterial pneumonia, well I go to a doctor because they're the experts on the human body, and I respect experts.

If I want to know how the atmosphere is changing over time, I'm going to listen to what expert say.

[EasyEs]

@Highlyskeptical Well see the problem with your comments are that I am a scientist and I understand what peer review is and the role it has in getting things published. I also don't pretend that it is free from bias or means that a theory is correct. For every peer review study that says one thing there are tones out there that say the complete opposite.

Experts in climate science are just starting to learn what intelligent questions to ask so don't go looking for answers just yet.

[Highlyskeptical]

@EasyEs You mean like for every oil company sponsored study there are dozens of studies done by gov't researchers and universities that say the complete opposite? I couldn't agree more...

Or BECAUSE a few bold outside the box thinkers dare to challenge the prevailing scientific view that the Earth is warming and the climate is changing, that makes you more likely to be right? Please explain.

Dupont (CFC's) and Lucky Strike (Cigarettes) hired scientists...any chance you worked for them?

[EasyEs]

@Highlyskeptical. Lots of papers and studies get released that contradict the assumptions that give us future catastrophic climate change. they come from lots of scientific disciplines. They don't come out and say climate change isn't a potential future problem, but that doesn't mean their findings don't contribute to the hypothesis that our climate may not be unstable in a positive direction.

I also work as a scientist in Canada in main area of interest is biostratigraphy etc

[Highlyskeptical]

@EasyEs Well hell, Canada? No wonder you're not worried. After the world heats up you guys will be the new United States climate-wise.

I don't think the process of science is perfect by any means...its just WAY better than any other means of knowing about how nature works.

I guess we'll find out one way or another eventually, and hopefully future generations will learn from our mistakes, though probably not unless quality of their lives are extremely diminished.

[IskurBlast]

@Highlyskeptical

I have a descent general automotive knowledge. If my mechanic tells me something I know to be false I'm not paying him $2,000 to fix my car. I don't need to be an automotive genius to know when my mechanic is trying to rip me off.

[itcanbecheezcaketime]

I'm not an automotive genius but if you're suggesting that auto mechanics are not one of the most crooked professionals in the united states, and also incapable of ripping off the average person, then you are being deceptive.

"Your CV joints need replacing. I'm not sure how much further they will go. They don't look good!"

You get the old part back and you're not sure if it really came from your car! In reality, the joints were just fine, but he needed the extra work. Happens every fuckin day.

[Highlyskeptical]

@EasyEs Listen buddy, if you don't respect the process of science and peer review to figure out how nature works, then you tell me of a better way.

If I want to fix my car, I go to a mechanic, because they're experts at fixing cars.

If I want to find out if I have bacterial pneumonia, well I go to a doctor because they're the experts on the body, and I respect experts.

If I want to know how the atmosphere is changing over time, I'm going to listen to what expert say.

Reasonable?

[Highlyskeptical]

I think that stupid people that don't understand what this guy is saying will ultimately destroy this world. J

ust as they always have.

[gochanging]

Wow.  I didn't hear ANY argument the first time. I will have to listen again and keep score on him.

Why on Earth did they bring him to an intellectual debate?

[LordVigeous666999]

CO2 had the opportunity? Really?

[daveeol]

god this is painfull.he is such a shittalker.boring

[MissingGWdotcom]

Note the IPCC completely ignores the Volstok ice core which shows 3 major temp changes over 2.5 degrees C in the SH the last 800 years.

Drastic temp change is the norm and the ice cores prove all of the temp change seen in the last 100 is within the natural range!

The IPCC wants you to believe any change in temp is man and cannot be natural despite the ice cores showing they are 100% wrong but the IPCC simply ignores ice core data in their 4th report, ignoring is the same as lying

[MissingGWdotcom]

If you read chapter 6 of the 4th IPCC report the only temp records they refer to is 1300 years of plant data that has been exposed as wrong as they ignore the medieval warming and the little ice age in the last 1000 years. The only thing accurate after a 1000 years are ice cores and in the IPCC 4th report they completely ignore this data showing 100s of drastic temps changes the last 10,000 years or since the last ice age and as much a 3 degrees C in as little as 200 years has happened many time

[coturnix19]

@MissingGWdotcom but those are changes in antarctic temps, or not? if so, average earth must have had times lower amplitude

[MissingGWdotcom]

The IPCC wants to paint a picture temp change is unusual and any temp change today must be man because the IPCC cant explain it as they say, but the IPCC cant explain any of the past 100s of temp changes more drastic than the one we are experiencing today and we know those past ones were not do to man. The IPCC is wrong to ignore the ice core data that clearly shows temp changes is the norm not the exception. You can see a link to the ice core data at the top my site, see my name.

[MissingGWdotcom]

I think it is important to understand the IPCCs proof of man made global warming. There is no direct proof an increase of 100 ppm in CO2 has any effect on temp. Fact is an increase of 100 ppm CO2 has a no effect on temperature in the lab, none! You need to increase CO2 to about 200,000 ppm in the lab to see a 3 degree C change. Global warming believers then say, well the lab is not fair because CO2 is 50,000 feet of atmosphere.

[LordVigeous666999]

Did you read this in a scientific journal? What are the details of this experiment?

Because it sounds very interesting

Did they use a lot of jargon, or can a moderately scientifically competent person understand it?

[MissingGWdotcom]

@LordVigeous666999 It is not that difficult as there are high school experiments based on two fish tanks on the web. Note you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2 so you can do the math by blowing a certian volume into a one of the tanks and noting temperture changes. You can also you baking soda to create a layer of CO2 about 20% of the tank to see the temp increase 3 degrees C in the tank.

[MissingGWdotcom]

@LordVigeous666999 Way back when it really bothered me the people claiming man made global warming had no clear cut lab data proving it. Take a look on the web, google for it, you will find nothing. That is because a 100 ppm increase in CO2 is nothing and has no effect in the lab so they ignore it. Now 200,000 ppm does, but this is like me giving you $100 or $200,000, which is going to effect your life more?

[IskurBlast]

@LordVigeous666999

All libratory experiments have shown that at atmospheric concentrations CO2's IR absorption saturates at about 10 meters. Warmists like Gavin have gotten around this problem with a nice little unfalsifiable hypothesis that magic occurs in the upper atmosphere that extends CO2's IR band allowing it to absorb more IR than can be seen under laboratory conditions. This is the kind of theory hacks like Gavin love because it can neither be proven nor disproven.

[MissingGWdotcom]

So there are some theories based on an idea of layers in 50,000 feet that tries to prove a 100ppm increase in CO2 increase temp a few tenths of one degree F. A few degrees F is an insignificant increase much less proof of man made global warming so the IPCC claims CO2 has an amplifying effect and then they rely on flawed global warming models which are grossly positive lookback biased so of course they are going to show an amplifying effect from a small amount of CO2 as they are built to do.

[MissingGWdotcom]

However the models have been proven wrong again as they predicted a .2 to .7 C temp rise the last ten years, however the temp did not go up at all and many say it went down .2 C not up, the models missed this completely and the leaked emails call it a travesty and the fix the numbers to hide the decline!

[somethings90]

He condemned logical fallacies while employing more than the other three speakers combined. According to his own logic, he spoke as a lawyer and not a scientist. He even played the "creationist card."

[dinkolino2]

if the white house agrees than it must be true, ej

[Zpock1]

Am I the only one confused which side this guy was arguing against?

[czisc]

It's not just the two-party system, Capemay, it's the opportunistic binary-polarizing games played by the lawyers Schmidt tags. And others. It doesn't take a lawyer

to be a sophist or a "tinkling cymbal"-- which means: "just noise." We all like good cymbals. I take my points from no one. And I agree.

[777strangelove]

Schmidt ,i love you , i hope hair on your head gonna increase, and with that your brain activity, and then may intellectual emptiness will end.

[czisc]

Thank God for a real scientist and a helpful person.

[capemaychange]

"The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject if by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind. No wise man ever acquired his wisdom in any mode but this." John Stuart Mill

[czisc]

Thank God for a real scientist and a helpful person.

[pohjalo]

So we should ask a philosopher about his views on the radiative forcing of water vapour ?

[capemaychange]

How disappointing it is that people refuse to consider opposing viewpoints without bias.

If you're a conservative you watch Fox News, if you're a Liberal you watch MSNBC. Everyone's taken their talking points from the like of O'Reilly and Olbermann rather then forming their own opinion based on extensive research and analysis.

The two-party system will be the death of us.

[thegoodlocust]

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your stupidity.

AGW has nothing to do with creationists - and I am not a creationist.

The fact of the matter is that climate science likes to pretend that it is as hard a science as physics, when, in fact, it is far closer to psychology both in methodology and in accuracy (although I'd say even psych is more accurate).

We used to say that psychology has "physics envy," but I think that phrase applies far better to the new field of climate science.

[pohjalo]

Real climate science is hard science; you have to understand physics, solar radiation, clouds, albedo, electromagnetic spectrum, water-landmass interaction, ocean currents, planetary motions, chemistry etc.

[thegoodlocust]

I look forward to the day when it is actually a real hard science rather than a bunch of physics dropouts who couldn't make it in any real scientific field and who resort to forecasts from electronic Ouja boards to frighten people out of their money.

[IskurBlast]

@pohjalo

And most RC readers don't so they take Gavin's poor interpretations as fact. Real climate is garbage in garbage out. The CRU e-mails and recently FOI NASA e-mails show the team looking to frame the science so it will look good on RC. In all the FOIs NASA has abided by there is still one that they are stalling on and that is for work and computer logs to see if taxpayer money is being spent on RC. There is no question that Gavin edits RC on the taxpayer dime on taxpayer equipment.

[robman419]

If I tilt my monitor just right....Gavin turns into a floating head.

[thegoodlocust]

Gavin Schmit is complete slime. The hacked emails shows he let those fradulent scientist use his "Real Climate" website for propaganda.

The lies that come out of his mouth are unbelievable - unless you have a thing for British accents.

[purpleoscar]

CSI? You guys ARE the crime scene! LOL!

[kendog235]

Climate computer models are based on fundamental well established physics. Output has been accurate so far, if not a bit underestimated... Don't assume you know how all computers work.

[andharvey8]

Anyone who has ever written or worked with a "sophisticated computer model" in any context can tell you that they are extraordinarily difficult to calibrate, and will frequently give bad results.

The lack of empirical evidence for this phenomenon is troubling. They should really study this for another decade or two before they start making social policy

[TRUMPHENT]

The models are sophisticated enough to give useful results today. They get better all the time with increasing resolution. They are hindered most by lack of computers powerful enough to run them.

The scientists, like Richard Somerville that create the computer models do not make social policy.They inform the policy makers of the current state of the science.

[nambypamby34]

AHH!! the Global WArming is real guys. ARE Not telling us ..how in figures .how they came to these conclusion!!THEY SUCK!

[tippman2k01]

maybe its possible that your agenda has made u believe the global warming side u were fed. now both sides in this debate made good arguments. but the skeptic side made a better case, and the vote supports that. i know ur probably going to call me an idiot for being a skeptic but the evidence the skeptics present is stronger

co2 is not a pollutant. plants take in co2 and the mroe co2 they take in the better they grow

but one thing u should keep in mind is both sides are for green technologies.

[TRUMPHENT]

There are lectures on YT by Somerville and other climate scientists. Most are an hour long or more. Look up V. Ramanathan, Richard Somerville, Stephen Schneider, Michael Oppenheimer, Ralph Keeling, Richard Alley, Miriam Kastner, Ralph Cicerone, Rick Spinrad, Mark Serreze, Ted Scambos, Paul Crutzen, Naomi Oreskes.

The information is free for the taking. Take it. It's yours. Wikipedia Global Warming page is another great resource. It's been locked to prevent vandalism.

[NoSz4]

This guy is an idiot.

[uploadJ]

Is this mann (oops, Freudian slip!) making an argument or filibustering?

[MorkMacey]

What happens to Gavin's career when he is proven to have deliberately spun data and results to perpetuate this costly myth?

[uploadJ]

MorkMacey: "What happens to Gavin's career when he is proven to have deliberately spun data and results to perpetuate this costly myth?"

He will be forgotten, for a time, by those still living, since recollection of how he was known is at that moment to be disposed of, but, in time this will be pointed out as a classical case of mass delusion lead by a group masquerading as so-called vaunted cargo-cult 'scientists' ...

[DantesDump]

The entire statement (8 minutes worth!) was contentless waffle.

This is the kind of noise one makes when one has no argument to make.

[wilbert1755]

Gavin S ? is this fellow honest? He mention DUPOND and Freon ban.

[dragknuckle]

Given that Schmidt makes no actual arguments here whatsoever, he ought not throw stones regarding logical fallacies.

[HomoOptimus]

Not a single argument whatsoever. Just unconnected statements and analogies, which prove nothing.

[whereisplant]

There is a logical falacy called ad populum Hm?

[random0815]

now which side in this debate sounded more like a lawyer? who is talking straight here and who is building rhetorical facades! who is drawing the populist images (csi miami..), who seems to be genuinely moved and who is playing "debate", and as he uses the csi miami analogy: the first thing an investigator asks for is the motive, with his illusionary and out-dated picture of science as an altruistic rational truth-club he completely evades the question of individual motives!

[GTTofAK]

Wow he is talking to an intelligence squared audience and he is still talking down them. I had thought that his posting style on his website was simply because of the childish nature of the internet. But his audience here was an intelligent well schooled audience and he still insulted their inelegance with his demeanor. Now I'm pretty much convinced that he is this way all the time. In short he really is a pompous self-righteous ass.

[uploadJ]

GTTofAK: "In short he [Gavin] really is a pompous self-righteous ass. "

In true British parliment form let me respond: Hear hear!

.

.

[elrynx2]

@GTTofAK Ad hominem for you! Yay!

[Riggro]

lol he got cockblocked at the end lol

[Riggro]

he and the other alarmist never talked figures or anything concrete. instead they just vaguely beat around the bushes and tried to sell us why we should believe in global warming... he is putting me to sleep.... prolly cuz michael chrichton went before him.

[usmcphrog46]

Why do these AGW supporters use analogies, vague statements, and loose comments about facts with no support?

[joebogarde]

I like this non-sequitur "we are certain co2 and methane are green house gasses and have increased because of us"

"We are confident that the planet has been warming up" "We're pretty sure that other factors ...(the sun, ozone, changes to particles in the air) aren't dominant"

I do not take these suppositions as fact and they don't necessarily correlate. I'm more intersted in demonstrable empirical data. The ideology of global warming is always based on supposition.

[SelectedNaturally]

These are not offered as fact. He is explaining that while other forcing agents may exist, nobody has yet figured out what they are. Unless that situation changes, the greenhouse gases are left as the smoking gun.

[Gwynne66]

Schmidt shoots himself down quite effectively when he says "Once you start making logically fallacious arguments in order to support a pre-determined position you are no longer acting as a scientist."

That's exactly what he does on his ridiculous web site "RealClimate".

[vsaluki]

One of the biggest issues between GW alarmists and GW skeptics is over the amount of temperature forcing that comes from increased CO2. I decided to put together a 5 minute tutorial to explain the contention over this issue. Put the dots in the blanks where needed, remove excess blanks, and read it for yourself.

mysticminutiae blogspot com / 2008 / 01 / idiots-guide-to-co2 html

[justtex1975]

Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".

[TacticusPrime]

there is a yes/no in this case. are humans responsible for global warming? If we define the percent that represents responsibility then we have a yes/no. there you go.

[SAJse]

The White House backs man made global warming! OMFG!! I hope it doesn't have WMDs!!1!

[brokenlenspro]

there's your red flag right there. bush's globalist puppetmasters want that nice global tax

[thedrunkendead]

LOL He actually brought up logical fallacies ( something I was hoping for ) then IMMEDIATELY made an argument ad populum. He treats these people like schoolchildren.

[JonThm]

The hottest summer was 1934: Look at jonsthings dot blogger dot com for the truth - and it isn't GW!

[peter0ne]

Watch this one to the end. The guy is nervous and not a proffesional speaker but his points cut right through to how the contrairans operate.

[BeachofDreams]

So, what did everyone think of Gavin's comparison to the diagnosis of medical conditions? I thought it was robust and a quite good comparison.

[SanDiegoGreg13]

Pretty funny - people saying this video proves the "denier's" side is weak even though a majority of the audience sided with the "deniers"! More inability to accept the real world, the truth!

[BeachofDreams]

The strength of a position isn't measured by how many people have been persuaded by it.

[Polonius571]

I love how Schmidt talks down to his audience. Argument by analogy, out of context jargon, and philosophical issues of certainty...

"CSI Planet Earth"?? What the hell?!

[forkeat]

more and more scientists are refuting the al gore theory of global warming. Piece by piece the global warming scam is being dismantled.

[crazycoolidge]

Oh my goodness. You actually cut and paste the same comments trying to make a point that "al gore theory of global warming" is refuted by a growing number of scientists?

Hmmmm. I don't even recall Al Gore being accredited for the theory of global warming. He is not even a climate scientist, the last I recall. LOL.

[mattihoo]

thx for posting these videos blackghost!. These will be viewed a ton of times and hopefully people will see how weak the deniers side is.

[charlieonehorse]

mattihoo...i don't know what you are talking about...the side saying that it is not a crisis won...they are so much more convincing and level headed than the other side...especially if you watch gavin schimdt..that guy is a wank