Climate Science Debate : Global Warming Alarmist VS. Global Warming Skeptic

[johndaddyo444]

Skeptics outnumber AGW Warmists approximately 9 to 1. Naomi Oreskes distorted the truth by selectively counting papers in certain journal databases which had stopped accepting papers by scientists skeptical about AGW pseudo-science. Now that it is clear from ALL evidence that AGW is false, Oreskes has some 'splainin' to do! Hansen's objectivity went out the window years ago, as evidenced by blocking the entrances to coal mines. AGW Warmists - $25 Billion 2010; Heartland Institute - $7.7 Million.

[EODsplosion]

I deal like I learn the most when watching a debate between two people who respect eachother. This is great!!

[IFrancyISantosI]

this is ehy i am a sceptic..

my school teacher made it better.

[1000frolly]

Who is this fool Scott Denning who talks to informed scientists like they are in 4th grade?

I would throw the idiot out if that is the best that the AGW camp can come up with.

Where is the fucking evidence for AGW you fool?

[kariolafsson]

Calling this a debate is really stretching the definition of the word...

[bernzeppi]

even the title shows the horrendous bias.

AGW is not a hypothesis, it is a theory with enough evidence to reach the level of significance (over 95% certainty)

this is a sham video... no wonder you had trouble getting scientists to be involved other than the discredited Roy Spencer.

[bernzeppi]

For many years Spencer, along with John R. Christy, has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the "UAH" record record (see also satellite temperature record). This was once controversial as until the late 1990s the satellite record erroneously showed a net global cooling trend, at odds with the radiosonde and surface record.

Oh my... Roy was wrong!

He's never been able to admit his mistake.

[Richard482]

I'd like to address this issue of 'balance' in science as in 'A balanced respectful climate science debate at last.' Balance has no place in science. Balance is not what science is about. Science is based on theory, research, evidence etc. Who here believes that a debate between an evolutionist and a creationist or between a flat-earther (there are a few) and the rest of us, should be balanced? What's important is the amount of scientific evidence which supports a theory. Rant over.

[MemberNo2]

@Richard482 If evidence from only one side is allowed, the science is not balanced.

[Richard482]

@MemberNo2 Whats important is the amount of evidence which supports a theory or idea

[garethb1961]

if i see an American flag placed in a dominant position next to the podium I immediately know a con is coming. Why? People who peddle misinformation always play the nationalism card.

Denning is an appalling speaker. Climate science IS complicated and is NOT accessible to non-scientists.

[gtopa1]

"received funding from the tobacco" What % of their funding was it???

Try FA!!!

[mphello]

All I hear and see in this video are unpatriotic anti-socialist anti-progressive anti-freedom alarmists. Typical conservaturds loving corporate fascism.

Let's have a balanced view on politics and power, inviting ALL political parties - World Workers, Greens, not just Libertarian and conservatives - at the Heartless Institute. THAT would be an amazing spectacle.

[R4t10n4L]

Fuck, these Heartland puppets will applaud anything so long as the speaker bashes the gov't and praises the "free" market.

[mphello]

@R4t10n4L

Amen! Bravo!

= these Heartland puppets will applaud anything so long as the speaker bashes the gov't and praises the "free" market.=

[R4t10n4L]

What game is Spencer playing? His ocean temp data only goes to 700 meters but it has been shown there's greatly increased heat down to 2000 meters.

Also, even if he's right that climate sensitivity is only 1.3 deg, that's NOT something we can ignore, it only means things will take longer to get really bad. We haven't doubled CO2 since the start of industrial age and the increase we've seen to date is still pretty bad.

[dmagwaza]

Compared to other debates I've seen on this subject, this one did seem to be the most respectful!

[Richard482]

In the 90’s The Heartland Institute received funding from the tobacco company Phillip Morris to question, find uncertainties and cast doubt on the science linking second-hand smoke to cancer and other diseases, thus postponing any new regulations. Today the goal is the same, its just the scientific issue and the source of funding which has changed.

[meghaljani]

@Richard482 Yes, because second hand smoke does not cause cancer.

[Richard482]

@meghaljani Yes it does

[MemberNo2]

@Richard482 meghajani was right. Second-hand smoke does not cause cancer. His statement is as true as the earth orbits the sun.

[coldwarkid007]

If this was really a 'A balanced respectful climate science debate' there would be 99 climate scientists and only 1 climate change 'skeptic' - this would reflect the actual reality in the scientific world.

[sensiblebilly]

@coldwarkid007 negative. the IPCC and scientific community like to censor those who disagree with "consensus". That's how the "consensus" is being made. There is recorded evidence of this happening. Do you personally know 100 climate scientists who agree with the IPCC's views?

[sensiblebilly]

@coldwarkid007 if you noticed, the organizer talks in intro to this video about how there would have been many more dissenting opinions keynoting the event if they accepted-- but they're scared to do so because every time someone does they are labeled a "denier" and their career tanks. So much for fair debate.

[pacmink21]

This conference was organised and "sponsored" by the Heartland Institute, a U.S. think tanks that in preceding years received substantial funding from Exxon for its work downplaying the significance of global warming. This is why no credited people go.