Global Warming Debate - Richard Somerville, part 3 of 10

[sconwaysmith]

He's definitely in the 'Science is settled' camp, which from every perspective you can name, except those with a vested interest or fundamental non-understanding, is definitely not the case. Quoting the IPCC is NOT evidence, simply as the IPCC doesn't do any science, and is set up with an overtly biased basis from the start. They are NOT objective. The guy doesn't address anything Richard Lindzen said, especially denying the reducing effect of CO2 with increasing concentrations.

[2wheels88]

Who's this guy kidding?

[kzfm100]

Sommerville had the chance to refute Lindzen's claims but chose to simply make a didactic party political statement. Poor performance. He asks us to believe in authority and is not prepared to debate facts.

[turretsCanada]

Youd think that the fossil fuel industries would jump onto the green energy bandwagon. You can get solar energy for 80 cents a kwh while they only get 6 cents a kwh.

[HugoNewman]

@JackLarson9 Wow. Mental. This statement is MENTAL.

[youd21]

What planet do you people live on?! What makes you think that the majority respected scientists in the world are involved in some bizarre unprofitable conspiracy? Has it not occurred to you that some of the largest and most influential corporations in the world (e.g. Exxon Mobil, Shell...) have a hugely lucrative interest in denying global warming? Wake the fuck up.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

fail

[jlucks123]

If this weren't so tragic it would be comical. Richard Lindzen goes on an 8 minute expostulation, talking about how the troposphere is barely warming, the levels of oceans rising is not significant let alone historically significant, the models can't even predict past climate let alone future climate, etc., and then within the first freakin' minute Somerville gets up and says "the science is settled." It's just too ridiculous for words. Jonathan Swift couldn't even satirize this.

[HalMitchum]

It would seem to me that we have spent a lot of money, trained a generation of bright minds to focus on this global warming, and what have we got...go back to a preindustrial civilization, or die. Can't they tell us which mountain ranges we can level to make things better? If sea levels are rising, why don't we build huge canals that criss cross the land? Have all the jets release some form of nontoxic glitter. Do we really have go back to living in caves and trees, without trying something?

[Nick300wm]

The IPCC is a political advocacy group; it's not a dispassionate practitioner, all their considerable errors are one way.

[imbrd]

oooh 58 comments- this guy is funny. the way he words things just shows his ignorance of the past climate changes. c 'climate change- is co2 the cause'. the medieval warm period was highly notable & pretty darn prosperous- yet these folks r trying to dilly dally hoping to delay or do somethin to climate which is just a natural process filled w/ hundreds&thousands of intrinsic factors

[MissingGWdotcom]

Note GISP ice core temperature data shows 1 degree C higher 1000 yrs ago, 2 degree C higher 2000 yrs ago and 3 degree C higher 3300 yrs ago with many ups and downs in between. The Vostok ice core from Antarctic shows the SH experiences the same thing drastic temp change is the norm as it has seen 3 major temp swings of 2.5 degree C in just the last 800 years (how is it CO2 only effects the NH?). Note the polar bears are still here and the earth did not flood.

[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 temp 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 times

[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.

[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 nuts say well 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 said "the scientific community, today, has IMPECCABLE, SETTLED science" and "we FULLY understand the fundamental physics behind the green house effect." Emphasis added

Is he supposed to be a walking straw-man? Is he secretly working for the other side? A scientist should NEVER utter those words.

[dinkolino2]

HIV doesnt cause AIDS

[nkrej]

5:47 ....."We scientists have been expecting measurements like these and now we see them." In private emails they say this..."The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant." The real travesty is that the public has bought this crap for so long.

[ohmannhey]

EVERY TIME .... somebody talks about climate change and wants to make the point that it´s happening they quote the bloody IPCC. Thie IPCC is ran by an Economist and is a political instution. I WANT FACTS! Not UN BULLSHIT!

[dinkolino2]

thats about all they got

[pohjalo]

Pachauri was awarded an MS degree in Industrial Engineering---as well as a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics

[pepetruelo]

Why base his speech on stressing the difference between "we, the mainstream science", and ·"they, the contrarians".

Attacking his opponent's credibility like this only means he has nothing, no hard evidence to back his position with.

[capemaychange]

Ad hominem attacks within 2 minutes ... come on, really? Lindzen begins by offering strong evidence, Somerville insults the opposition outright.

[macroman52]

@capemaychange You must have an odd idea of what ad homenium is.

[citizenschallengeYT]

Do you folks actually want some evidence and explanation of the science and the data?

Go to Greenman3610, he explains climate issues as well as anyone.

you are challenged to actually learn a little......

[MarcinP2]

"Here are my arguments: IPCC said..."

Normally an argument is not built just on authority alone.

[crocop60]

@MarcinP2 It depends on if the authority used facts. If the facts are true, then it is perfectly reasonable to use it to prove a point.

[MarcinP2]

@crocop60

The problem with publication in question is the evidence was not published, only the conclusions.

You cannot validate the claims so just bringing up the study is relying on authority of UN.

The study did not submit to peer review so this is non-science.

[crocop60]

@MarcinP2 The IPCC isn't tasked with presenting the evidence. It doesn't carry out any original research. It was tasked with analyzing the facts and implications of climate change and how we should handle it. Yes, the study isn't peer reviewed, but it is absolutely absurd to call it non-science. Every major national science academy which utilizes the peer review process endorses the findings by the IPCC.

[MarcinP2]

@crocop60

The code for the computer models used is not public, the raw data was allegedly wiped out, the methodology is obscure.

The panel is called IPCC. The head was a railroad engineer. I am more qualified to read the papers and draw my conclusions than he is.

Only minority of scientists cited and used in the compilation agrees with the statement that there is abundance of evidence for significant influence of human activity on CC.

There is no reliable study on consequences.

[crocop60]

@MarcinP2 The methodology the climate models employ is available in peer reviewed journals. A perfect example of a study that many people feel validates the use of climate models is Hansen et al. 1988. The model used was the Goddard Institute for Space Studies model II. Also, if you type in IPCC technical papers in google, then you'll get the data and the science behind global warming. The statement that only a minority of scientists agree with man made global warming is merely wrong. 

[pudnog]

I am sick of sweeping generalising statements like 'the majority' of scientists think that' and 'we have models for.' I watched animal farm last night and i could swear this man has based his entire rhetoric on everything the nasty propaganda pig says.

since when did having a model for something mean that it is a correct model.

I could make a model tonight that runs two mathematical equations which disprove each other!

Get a fukin argument mate!

[pudnog]

what is he talking about!

every scientific proposition has two sides!

Why is he wasting his debate time by listing completely irrelevant instances where mainstream scientific thought has been opposed with these minorities later being proved wrong.

He could just as easily list those occasions when the minority were right, theory of relativity, earth is round, etc etc

In this debate the against global warming side completely smashed their opposers.

[littldough]

where are the pictures of baby polar bears swimming for ice that has melted?

[IGORYESMASTER]

Where is their "smoking gun"?

[hac1m]

ok so wtf, is he actually going to present any evidence for global warming. Is there actually any evidence at all questionable or not? or is it just complete bullshit.

[St37One]

"despite what you have just heard"

LOL

its so obvious that he prepared that in total ignorance of what was to be said before him, but he still went ahead and said it anyway.

maybe he wasnt even listening :(

[160589digga]

good god, it's so evident tha this man is ridiculously out of his depth debating with a man like professor Lindzen. He is exposed as having no scientific backing for what he is saying and resorts to petty insults trying make Professor Lindzen as a mad scientist alone in his views. Unfortunately for him such cheep shots do not hold any weight.

[DantesDump]

These people don't have 'science'. They have 'models'.

As models are evidently now sufficient motivators to cause entire nations to radically harm their economies, I am putting forward a radical new anti-Climate Change protocol.

It's called the "MakeDanteHideouslyRich" scheme. All governments need to do is send me all of their money. That drain on the international economy and the elevation of me to the status of God-King will have a calming effect on the climate.

I have models to prove it.

[danndan6]

thats also incorrect

[KJShackx]

al gore's michael mann graph actually shows it. many, many times.

[shikamaru2589]

As a manner of fact, dann, both of your own statements are incorrect.

A study published in 2003 in Nature magazine (a peer-reviewed scientific journal) by Collier et al. found that CO2 lags behind temperature change on the order of hundreds of years. The Collier et al. conclusions were based off of the findings of the Vostok Ice Core Samples in Petit et al. (1999). As such, 789grizz is correct.

I suggest perusing peer-reviewed skepticism, and citing scientific evidence to prove your own point.

[danndan6]

thats an incorrect statement

[AWS12345678910]

This testimony is a show-case of Michael Crichton's observation about alarmism and the Human proclivity for Crisis Hysteria.

[dragknuckle]

Somerville commits the logical fallacies of "appeal to popularity" and "post-hoc".

This is a political argument, there is no science here. When I say "political" I don't mean partisan politics, I mean that he is arguing about the people involved in the debate, not the data.

[ghayklan]

Somerville sounds like a preacher.. Is this science of religion?

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@ghayklan indeed 

[bobdiver7]

Somerville does not present science at all. He might as well be a puppet working for the government. He is using the IPCC document as his holy grail. It seems like he hasn't doesn't any qualitative or quantitative research on his own. Many of the people involved in preparing that document aren't even scientists and he quotes from it like it's the bible...

[edeagleman]

Re: "using the IPCC"

Somerville really doesn't need to do much more than that. The IPCC is like a giant megaphone -- one with thousands of expert and diverse participants -- that easily drowns out the bullshit being peddled by the libertoon FUD campaign.

If you want to debate, take it up with these guys:

RealClimate. org

[rationalCrash]

Being loud doesn't make them right.

too bad that a LOT of the "scientists" in the IPCC are actually just politicians. Some scientists even had to SUE the IPCC to take their names off of the list. If you want to trust politicians rather than learning science, you'll always be deluded.

[matthew1722]

The UN is a political organization, and they strive for more control over mankind. This Global Warming issue is another way for them to be able to control you, they are not looking out for our best interests. Whenever you hear that "all the scientists agree with something so you should too," its pure propaganda.

[bighitter42]

Gavin Schmidt is the one I'm referring to.

[bighitter42]

He had the best argument on the pro-crisis side, and that's not saying much...the one guy who compares himself to "earth's CSI" will crack you up.

[GTTofAK]

When I was loading this I was hoping for a real debate. Now here in this "climate scientists" first argument is an attack on his opposition. Before speaking a word of science he starts using terms like contrarians and comparing them to those who deny that HIV causes AIDS and continental drift. It's shameful that at an intelegence^2 debate the first presenter for the opposition would stoop so damn low less than 2 minutes into his opening statement.

[random0815]

true, all of somervilles points are (consciously?) deceptive, he suggest that it takes a genious of einsteinian format to contradict this established opinion, but in this case all it needs is simple truthes independent of special interest influence, the contrarians of climate change (and hiv too) do not claim to be geniuses with special knowledge, most of them just pledge for honesty about existing truthes, and they aren't being debunked by the mainstream but ignored and suppressed

[illinoisgrad]

Lindzen has facts... Somerville reverts to authority and filibusters.

(2:10) Oh, and bogus comparisons.

Oh, and lots and lots of appeals to authority.

[Riggro]

just a random thought... take the mass of every single human that has ever lived and put them all together... the accumulated mass would be s little spec, or a dot on the surface of the earth. take everything man has ever built made and produced. it makes another spec on the earth surface... now, take the mass of the earth, then the sun... how can we ever think we puny humans can EVER affect the earth to such an extent? we give ourselves too much importance.

[usmcphrog46]

Well, he uses the UN's IPCC report as his source. Laugh. Do some research on their "main stream view" and you'll understand how political their science, at the always trustworthy UN, is.

[joebogarde]

When he started shotgunning bullet points, rather than presenting an essay, I understood he had no argument.

[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]

he basically said the IPCC rocks. he doesn't think the people at the debate are smart enough to understand a thorough example or 3? come on, use your 8 minutes dude.

[SAJse]

Well that should be taken as read but I'm talking in respect to 'damage', which is what most people think when they hear the words 'man-made global warming'. Somewhere on the planet there's a guy burning wood and contributing to GL himself but I don't think he's the straw that's breaking the camel's back, in the same way that I don't think humanity as a whole is.

[SAJse]

Two people down and still no evidence of man made global warming. Thanks for uploading these.

[ZapRowzdower]

You're pretty much a doofus if you don't believe that the greenhouse effect does NOTHING AT ALL. The real question is how much, and should we care. (No, not really).

[ZapRowzdower]

crud that should be "if you believe" instead of "if you don't believe"

[thedrunkendead]

Woah. Lindzen comes up with factual evidence, careful not to perform a logical fallacy ( such as use of the word "most", "very", ad populum arguments etc ), and then Somerville comes on attacking the scientists, not the science, and reiterates ONLY fallacies.

I suggest people look up the argumentative/logical fallacies before debating.

[crazycoolidge]

For goodness sake, if the speech by Lindzen was considered to be an explanation of science, we would all have a PHD by watching youtube videos.

For every contrary evidence against global warming, there exists one that rebuts it as well. Seriously, most of us watching this video should ask ourselves how much knowledge of climate science we know.

If your source of knowledge is from the internet, movies and youtube, then I think I've well made my point. :)

[Polonius571]

Wow - Lindzen spends 8 minutes explaining science and Somerville spends 8 minutes appealing to authority and insulting his opponents. What a charlatan...

[theprash]

Actually the science is way too complicated to be explained in 8 minutes. Somerville simply makes the valid point that you should be aware of the proportion of scientists on either side of the debate. We can't all have PhD's in climate science.

[ZapRowzdower]

We can't all have PhDs in climate science but I don't appreciate it when Global Warming People state gross oversimplifications as total fact and claim that they know everything about a system that is unbelievably complicated. See Brenda's "fever" metaphor and the audience question about water vapor later on in this series.

[charlieonehorse]

nothing wrong with the video forkeat youa re an idiot this guy is speaking against the movement

[forkeat]

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

[wpaxton]

I second that. I've been trying to expose the scam from the very beginning. See AOL Journals: TheUrbanMystic

[mediclarsen]

Black ghost, can you please fix the feed? It stops at 2:23. Love that you posted these. Great upload!