Description given on Youtube:
Dr. Scott Denning VS. Dr. Roy Spencer .
A balanced respectful climate science debate at last.
July 7, 2011: Scott Denning, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (supporting the dangerous anthropogenic global warming hypothesis) VS. Roy Spencer, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (opposing the hypothesis).
Source :
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=514
It’s not whether our climate is warming or cooling that bothers me, it’s
the hysteria over the alleged consequences.
Forty years ago Paul Ehrlich, the Club of Rome, and a host of other climate
alarmists, told us that a new ice age was coming and that virtually all the
consequences therefrom were detrimental to mankind. Hysteria abounded. Now
we are told, attended by the same hysteria, that the earth is warming and
that all the consequences are also detrimental to mankind.
Hmmm, let’s think about that. In order for both these dire predictions to
be true, one must believe that this one 40 year stretch of time, over the
earth’s billion year existence, a veritable grain of sand on the beach of
history, was the sole, precise, perfect point of climactic equilibrium.
Sounds a trifle narcissistic to me.
Every day, much of the earth’s population undergoes 40-50 degree
temperature changes, cyclonic winds, tides of up to 50 feet, tornadoes,
hurricanes, torrential rain, snow, hail, and, while there is calamity for
some, most people survive. But we’re supposed to believe that humankind
must face, with unmitigated, trembling fear, the possible rise of sea
levels of 1-2 feet and average temperature increases of 1-2 degrees over
the next century. Gee, I don’t know, maybe civilization just might adapt.
Or, maybe, the fertile mind of man may come up with some creative
solutions. Unless, of course, in our infinite collective stupidity, we
elect more socialists, in which case our world will unravel much more
quickly than climate change could ever foment.
People didn’t have such great access to the internet as they do today. (In
fact, we are now looking at the first wave of internet savvy young men and
women who are now in their early 20’s.)
The theory of global warming started before people were able to quickly and
easily research the credibility of news sources and historical references..
It was before one could witness people debating live and unrehearsed.
People have been exposed to argument style and they have learned the
science and art of philosophical argumentation, etc. The people are
beginning to point out fallacies when before it wasn’t so obvious.
It’s as if the original Global Warming propaganda became obsolete before
there was a chance to fully implement cap and trade. So the Global Warming
scheme changes its premise and terms… And not so many seem to care. So
it appears the theory has evolved in order to mitigate most everyone into
being apathetic instead of rejecting the financial terror cap and trade
threatens upon everyone.
The most effective lie is one that is wrapped around a kernel of truth.
The AGW alarmists twist and manipulate data to suit their agenda. That is
not what science is supposed to be. CO2 is a minuscule TRACE gas in our
atmosphere, it is the LEAST effective of all the greenhouse gasses, And the
LEAST Prevalent! The MOST effect, and MOST Abundant greenhouse gas is
WATER VAPOR, ie Clouds! Do we control clouds? Do we have cloud machines
that create and destroy clouds according to our passing whims? If we did,
we could have a hugely powerful effect over the weather systems of our
planet, and thus the climate, but we do not. Human CO2 emissions account
for a Tiny Fraction of the CO2 content in our atmosphere. Guess what is
the biggest source of CO2 emissions into our atmosphere. It’s the OCEAN!
We live on a Water Planet, the Ocean acts as a carbon Sink when it’s cold,
and it spews Carbon when it warms! WE have such a tiny effect on the
climate of our entire planet that it is Insignificant! What we Should be
worried about is Harmful pollution to Local environments, like Smog, and
undrinkable rivers that kill crops due to industrial pollution, etc. etc.
Enough with this idiotic AGW nonsense!
Climate Science Debate : Global Warming Alarmist …:
http://youtu.be/potLQR7-_Tg
Finally a real debate with real science. Climate Science Debate : Global
Warming Alarmist …: http://youtu.be/potLQR7-_Tg
Very predictable: but different methods are necessarily available for
prediction in the futurity; no? And this necessity IS CLIMATE CHANGE. OR
the Variability was under CONTINGENTLY the old form of prediction.
43,334 views on this video and a cat wearing a hat gets 10 million we live
in the age of decadence where people know everything about a football team
from what collage the 2nd string quarter back went to but doesn’t know what
the four amendment is or even who the vice president is so no matter the
facts they will push their agenda to crush the middle class and average
hard working person just research agenda 21 or Cloward Piven strategy
At 23:11 it seems like Dr. Spencer is confusing weather with Climate.
Anyone wanna clarify?
Such a polarizing issue, but here’s the thing…I couldn’t care less which
side is right. My behavior is not going to change one iota…I am certain I
will live out the rest of my life and not be affected by any of the
doomsday predictions. The future of the planet doesn’t hinge on how I
conduct myself for the next 20 years, so fuck it!
Curious.The no.1greenhouse ”gas” is water.He mentioned common sense. C02
makes up 0.0038 of 1% or 0.000038 of the total. I would challenge any so
called scientist that it would be equivalent to 1/3tsp to a gallon. MAN
MADE C02 is at most 4%of that.It would be like adding a drop of antifreeze
to a mack trucks radiator .Very effective.Maybe our climate is ruled by our
primary source,the Sun?
This was an excellent debate. Both men are reasonable and although they
are not economists or politicians its nice that they agree that the free
market is the best hope for a solution to find the next generation of
staple energy technology. Since the debate we have had some more warmest
ever years, but with insignificant rise. We have been effectively locked
in a global temp plateau since 1998 putting all 112 IPCC models on the
skids. The only model that is still in play is the Russian model that has
very low sensitivity making it ironic in this case the Russians may be the
closest to reality on a political question. We still need to get going on
nuclear fusion (not fission). Fusion is waste free.
Great debate! I love these kind, done between what seem to be friends.
Fully agree with both of them on the issue funny enough.
This spencer guy was recently adding corn belt temps that had always shown
no warming for over a century on the national climate data center. Pops on
there and all of a sudden there was a clear warming trend. The climate
scientists there had went back and adjusted the temps downward in a perfect
descending line. waalaaaa….instant warming trend.
One reason to only have speakers from a single point of view is
“meta-balance”.
Yes, it will make your individual presentations incredibly biased, BUT, if
the rest of the Universities and Media outlets are also all biased on the
other side, then you serve as a counter-weight, or counter-bias.
You shouldn’t bother with trying to present a “balanced” point of view
until your opponents commit to the same. Don’t be a chump. Make sure your
good faith is reciprocated.
Pt about cosmic dust by Scott…Yes is the answer. Pretty much proven at
CERN and I’m surprised as well as disappointed he made almost light of that
fact. It’s not the sun so much being less radiant but gravitational
weakness. And boy were the political scientist quiet about that one.
I remember the “coming ice age” in the 1970’s. Look up the Time magazine
cover.
comic sans presentation? is this a tongue in cheek slap in the face? ive
never seen a comic sans presentation worth a shit
This is one of my favorite debates, its obvious they have respect for one
another and hit on some of the same points
Great debate! I must quote Brandt from the “Big Lebowski”; “Dude, we just
don’t know!”
How will the 1 billion people pay for their electricity bills when they
live on $1 a day? This is not benefiting them it is putting money into the
pockets of coal, oil and gas companies. They need food, water and access to
medical treatment. Will power for iphones and microwaves change their
lives? :)
R.I.P. Headphone users … I can’t watch this video…
the surface temperature of venus is 864 degrees fahrenheit…. why is that?
surely it cant be greenhouse gasses that have increased the temperature by
600+ degrees.
Roy thinks the globe is gods perfect creation and that humans can’t destroy
the planet… so even if he was presented with bold faced irrefutable
evidence, he would deny it just like he denies evolution. Roy Spencer’s
views on climate change is ideologically driven.
WOW, Roy Spencer:
*”Spencer is a signatory to **An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming**,
which states that **”Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s
intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful
providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting”**.
He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of
long-term changes in the Earth’s albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse
gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is
small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average
cloud cover. This view contradicts the scientific consensus that “most of
the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities”. “*
Also…
An Evangelical Declaration on Global warming, is a branch of a Christian
activist think tank group called The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship
of Creation.
*”The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation is a conservative
Christian public policy group that **promotes a free-market** approach to
care for the environment that is critical of much of the current
environmental movement. In particular, the Cornwall Alliance **rejects
claims of detrimental global warming**.”*
*Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall
Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and
public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a
libertarian American public policy think tank. *
Nah, no bias or agenda there… pfft. Sorry this puts a huge dent in his
credibility.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29
“Alarmist’ vs. “Skeptic”?