Global Warming Debate - Richard Somerville, part 3 of 10

The goal of IQ2 US is to raise the level of public discourse on our most challenging issues. To provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis. To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological. To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views. To engage the live audience as active participants who will ask questions and decide which speakers have carried the day by voting on the motions both before and after the debate.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• IQ2
• global
• warming
• crisis
• debate
• intelligence
• squared
• brian
• lehrer
• wnyc
• richard
• somerville
• climate
• skeptics

[MarcinP2]

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

Normally an argument is not built just on authority alone.

[capemaychange]

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

[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.

[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 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 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 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.

[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.