Via: http://climatechange-tv.rtcc.org/2014/12/15/cop20-marc-morano-of-cfact-and-walt-cunningham/
UN Climate TV Description of Debate:
Marc Morano, Walt Cunningham , CFACT
From Lima: COP20 UN Climate Change Conference 2014
COP20 (11/12/14) – Marc Morano of CFACT and Walt Cunningham talk to RTCC about their opinion that human activity cannot alter the climate. They feel that global efforts to tackle climate climate change, particularly in the UN, are politically and financially driven, referring to these efforts as the “global warming war”. They also debate the idea that their views are only held by a small minority of climate scientists, arguing that this notion is based on flawed evidence. In addition they talk about the difficulty of securing funding as a sceptical organisation, likening their struggle to David and Goliath. They go on to state that continuing to rely on carbon intensive energy is the best protection against extreme weather events.
Climate Depot’s Selected Transcripts:
Marc Morano: The UN is first and foremost political and they have bastardized science to achieve a political end. The head of the IPCC climate panel has said they are at the ‘beck and call’ of governments. So there whole mission is to enrich the UN. They are using that to claim that they can alter global temperature and storminess and weather events many decades to 100 years into the future. And the United Nations does not have that power — that is reserved for medieval witchcraft.
It’s about centrally planning a global economy — that is the agenda. It has got nothing to do with climate science. The UN is hyping the alarmist science and it is really bad science at times – when UN scientist and spokesmen are claiming that every weather event it proof of global warming.
In 1846, aborigines blamed bad weather on the introduction of the white man. In 1933, Syria banned the yoyo because they thought it caused drought. During WW2, many people thought the war caused bad weather. In the 1970s bad weather was blamed on global cooling. Now they are blaming our SUVs and modern way of living for bad weather. Bad weather happens all the time.
Question: UN asks Cunningham and Morano about alleged 97% consensus:
Walt Cunningham: ‘It is one of the most ridiculous numbers that I have ever seen used in this process.
UN TV interviewer to Cunningham: What are your qualifications?
Cunningham: My background in space science. My doctoral thesis that I was working on was fluctuations in the Earth’s magnetic field. I have no political inhibitions at all, I just think we ought to be honest about this and not be trying to use it to our own ends to try to get money from the government.
Morano on alleged 97% consensus: The media refers to Rajendra Pachauri as the top climatologist, his background is in economics and engineering, he was a train engineer. The idea that somehow skeptics aren’t qualified to dissent. As Walt mentioned the 97% consensus alleged is not even 97 scientist, it is 77. Other survey have come out since and there have been peer-reviewed studies debunking them.
The UN is self-selected. Governments pick scientist that will play ball and toe the line. It is a political pressure group disguised as science – the IPCC. It is really appalling what is happening.
Cunningham: They go ahead and sell that then to the public who is not scientifically trained and does not understand when you should accept data and when you should not accept data. These people are politically driven, financially driven.
UN TV Asks About Funding of Skeptics
Morano: Fossil fuel donations to groups like the Sierra club exceed our annual budgets by 3 or 4 times. We are truly the David vs. the Goliath that is the global warming establishment.
UN TV asks about funding of GOP candidates by climate ‘deniers’:
Morano: They always mention the Koch brothers. One survey found the Koch Brothers are only 59th giving in U.S. politics. Way down the line. American labor unions are the largest and of course they mostly give to Democrats. Any perceived advantage is not there. The Left and the climate establishment has people like Tom Steyer who has pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats just on the climate issue. So if you want to play the money game, skeptics are the David vs. the Goliath of the climate establishment.
UN TV asks what if skeptics are wrong about global warming?
Morano: You are basically saying what is wrong with an insurance policy? Well the UN is selling a policy with a very high premium with no payout. If we did face a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on the UN, we would all be doomed! The UN is in this for political reasons. Carbon based energy is the best ‘insurance’ against extreme weather, bad weather. The more development you have the more you can handle floods, hurricanes, droughts. Despite the fact that those are all on either stable or declining trends. Carbon based energy, coal, oil, natural gas, that is what the developing world needs more than anything.
The United Nations knows all about carbon based energy, this is one of the highest carbon footprint conferences they have ever had. Your president, IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri says he lives in airplanes.
People in the developing world need carbon based energy. It has been one of the greatest liberators of mankind in the history of our planet. It brought us long life expectancy, low infant mortality. We should be here to praise it. And it turns extreme weather into weather we can deal with. The more infrastructure you have from carbon based energy, the more you can deal with bad weather.
#
Related Links:
Reactions to Lima summit conclusion:
Lima climate conference tensions may bring storm clouds to Paris
Associated Press: ‘Weather porn? Storms take over evening news’
Paper: New era of cheap oil ‘will destroy green revolution’
Paper: UN climate negotiators pass watered-down deal in Lima
Lima climate change talks end in agreement – but who won?
Lima’s UN Climate Conference The Most Disgraceful, Destructive Ever…Time To Disband The Traveling Parasitic UN Circus
IS LIMA A FAILURE?
Obama’s Possible Paris Climate Agreement End Run Around the Senate
Skeptics Welcomes Non-Binding And Toothless UN Climate Deal
UN Climate Talks Once Again Break Down Over ‘Climate Reparations’
Tame tornadoes: Quietest 3 years for twisters on record
UN planning a global carbon tax?
Claim: Rising sea levels could make Florida beach front property ‘worthless’ in a few decades
German Scientists: ’2°C Target Purely Political’
Ice Expanding! Highest Global Sea Ice Since 1988
Bianca Jagger adds some glamour to the Lima climate jamboree: ‘Time is running out’ !
Video Coming Soon: Walt Cunningham & Marc Morano in contentious debate with UN TV Host
With Gore seated in the front row, John Kerry Tries To Out-Gore Al Gore in Lima
Harvard Astrophysicist: 2014 ‘Hottest Year’ Claim A ‘Prostitution Of Science’
Analysis: Kerry’s UN climate speech was packed with misinformation
UN SECRETARY GENERAL CONTINUES TO IGNORE CLIMATE REALISTS
John Kerry warns of ‘moral failure’ at climate conference
Kerry warns of climate ‘tragedy’
Time to tackle global warming running out, Pope tells climate summit
26 Responses
Climate Change agreements are designed to fail in order to allow the Geoengineers like David Keith, access to spray particles in the stratosphere as a commercial venture. Tim Ball is right about the deliberate corruption of climate science. Unfortunately, all sectors of science are in decline by political pressure to maintain a dangerous Ponzi economy of moral bankruptcy.
Well this guy is lying. The 97% is not the result of a survey. The 97% is a survey of scientific papers.
Marc needs to do some real research. And I am not going to help him. True knowledge is earned – not given.
No – they guy is lying. The 97% figure is Oreskes survey of scientific papers. They guy is a liar. Czech List doesn’t understand science, and I won’t be teaching him it.
Czechlist has pursued inorganic chemistry, spectroscopy and electro-physics for 30+ years. He does not require your pedantry or approval. Czechlist recognizes science is based in fact – not consensus or opinion. Any divergence from a theory disproves the theory. Czechlist continues to observe divergences from all CO2 based AGW theories to date.
Czechlist is always open minded an anxiously awaits proof of CO2 based AGW.
In the meantime Czechlist is offended that Marc should accuse others of lying. There are many publications – pro and con – and all are worthy of consideration.
Czech List doesn’t understand the basics of science in the academic community. Czech List thinks expert opinion is wrong because he doesn’t understand it, and Marc will not be teaching it to him. Czech List thinks that if models are withing the error bars set by the theory, then Carbon Dioxide does can not reflect IR.
Czech List is not open minded and does not awiat proof of CO2 based AGW.
Czech List is unaware of the history behind the 97% and the justification in his label of liar.
Czech List misleads when he says there are many publications all worthy of consideration. What Czech List ignores is according to Oreskes 97% of all peer reviewed articles support AGW.
“I wonder if Czech List uses Newton’s laws with any regularity. They don’t match observations with 100% accuracy, but are pretty damned good at modelling planetary motion (with the exception of Mercury).”.
Ahem, “Pretty damned good” doesn’t cut it in science.
Czechmate!
Ahem, “Pretty damned good” in fact does cut it in science. But I’ll concede. I”m not 100% certain in AGW, only 95%, pretty damn good.
Not sure why you felt the need to clear your throat, probably because while pretty damn good does work in science, asserting your hypothesis doesn’t work in logic.
Haven’t responded to my liar assertion I see.
Check Mate.
If you were about to board a 747 flying from NYC to Paris and the Airline told you the chances of a successful journey were “pretty damn good”, would you board the aircraft? I believe you would expect a better estimation of the certainty. What if all of the 747 design engineers, production people and test pilots put the odds of a successful trip at 99.9999% but the A&P mechanics that just serviced the aircraft put the odds at 50/50. Would you board?
As far as calling Morano a liar. I have don’t need to defend him. He can do that himself. However I have seen many reviews of studies such as Oreskes and it appears they are cherry picked to produce desired results ( isn’t it amazing how they all end up around 97%?).
And recent exposes about “peer Reviews” are very troubling.
I am skeptical about any results funded by governments – especially if the UN is involved – as you probably are about anything funded by Industry.
Pax. neither of us will change the others’ opinion.
That’s a bad analogy, for the following two reasons:
1) Taking a plane when the odds of dying are say 50% is a bad thing to do. Travelling to New York may be of value, but it’s not worth risking your life. Even if there is disagreement on the odds of dying. There are other ways to travel.
2) AGW is either True of False. If I’m wrong, and it’s false I won’t be dying. You analogy breaks down here.
As for the rest of your post:
3) If you don’t need to defend him why were you offended at him. I’m not claiming any credibility in the Oreskes analysis, I’m simply pointing out that he lied about the nature of the 97%.
4) The Oreskes study examined all papers in which the term global warming was used. It’s hard to have an opinion on GW if you don’t mention it. It wasn’t cherry picked.
5) What are the recent exposures about Peer Reviews?
6) Government has little to gain and everything to lose by advancing false arguments that support the concept of AGW. Governments that support AGW lose votes. Industry has everything to gain an nothing to lose by challenging AGW. You’d be hard pressed to support your suspicions that government and IPCC is more likely to be lying. The IPCC doesn’t do science. It reports on academia.
7) I agree neither of us will change the others’ opinion. I’m not trying to change yours. I’m looking for an argument that supports your position. As far as I can tell, (in light of the fact that neither of us really understands climate science, and as I believe you said you have some expertise in spectroscopy, and therefore I’m sure you are well aware that CO2 reflects are larger portion of the GeoSpectrum than the Solar Spectrum, and therefore would be hard pressed to concede that CO2 has no warming effect), your sole argument goes: The 97% is fake, therefore AGW is false. Mine goes: The 97% is true, therefore AGW is true.
I think I have a stronger argument.
From your responses it is obvious you have not done much research and are extremely uninformed. I did get a good laugh out of #6. Talk about naive!
From your responses it is obvious that you have not done much research and are extremely uninformed. I got quite a laugh at your inability to address my arguments, but instead chose to categorize them. Talk about being afraid to debate without name calling.
My analogy addressed Theory, modelling and arrogant expectations v. Reality.
Do you believe your VOM readings because of Simpson’s tolerance specifications or do you calibrate it?
I am not “offended” by him.
I did not “address your other arguments” because – as I said- if you did your research you would have know the answers.
Oreskes’ study did NOT include ALL publications mentioning Global Warming. Naomi ignored many of those which did not support her position. Also not all of the papers took a position on AGW – only mentioned it.
Peer review has been under suspicion because of cronyism – google it for your own sake.
Governments lie everyday – “you can keep your doctor” as an example. Do you actually believe governments don’t want your $$ ? As I say – that is naive – which BTW is an opinion/observation. I was unaware it constitutes “name calling”.
CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere. It doesn’t make any difference how much heat CO2 re-radiates in 4 pi steradians – it is insignificant compared to heat of direct sunlight and other sources. Ever heard of the earth’s core and the sun and magnetic fields and cosmic rays?
This planet is very complex and simplifying to man made CO2 is ridiculous.
Have you researched those 97% numbers? I’ve seen 3 CAGW reports and 97% is always the answer. How does that happen?
You’ll find they start with a large population but “narrow” it to only include their “experts”
BTW. You take 400 ppm of CO2 each time you inhale and then exhale 40000 ppm and the flora thanks you.
No, your analogy was clearly a risk benefit analysis. You discussed not wanting to take a chance flying a plane when one group of people says 50/50 and another says 99.99999%. The analogy breaks down because when I say 97% of peer reviewed papers hold the position that AGW is a valid conclusion while 3% hold the position it isn’t – there’s nothing comparable to the statement “I’d better not fly because I”m not sure about the odds of dying, and if it turns out the 50/50 group is right, I’m risking my life”
I’m not sure whey you label the models arrogant. This is purely partisan on your part.
I have no VOM readings.
I agree you are not offended by him. You were offended by my calling him a liar. He is.
Orseky DID include ALL publications that had a position on Global Warming. She did not ignore those which did not support her position. You are lying. There, get offended at that.
Peer Review: I have google it. It is under suspicion by partisans. You can’t hold a position because you google something. You yourself made the point that science is not done by consensus.
Governments lie when it’s to their advantage. There’s no advantage is lying about
AGW.
0.04%. Bad logic. Of course it matters. It’s not the solid angle covered by CO2. It’s the percent of energy it radiates back. You should know that. Further, I agree, it has a small effect. That’s why the temperature will increase only a small amount.
No one is simplifying it man made CO2.
Yes I have researched those numbers. 97% of peer reviewed papers hold the position that Carbon Dioxide, which you know reflects a larger portion of the Geo Spectrum than the Solar spectrum. Calculating the forcing factor is easy, it’s a simple calculation.
It doesn’t matter that I take 400 ppm of CO2 and exhale 40 000 ppm with each breath. This betray a poor understanding of the Carbon cycle. Every CO2 molecule I exhale was extracted from the atmosphere at an earlier point in time. I can’t believe you are unware of this.
I think our argument boils down to:
You dispute the idea of Peer Reviewed Journals
I support the idea of Peer Review.
If Peer review is a valid process then you are wrong and I am right. If Peer review is invalid then I am wrong and you are right.
Do you agree that this characterizes our differences?
“Governments lie when it’s to their advantage. There’s no advantage is lying about
AGW.”
Are you being deceptive or naïve? Just look at the US alone….
“Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/
Common sense dictates that with 100+ billion involved in the climate industry, that would be considered an advantage to both the government and the recipient of said funds. Please don’t tell me that you are a denier…..denying the fact that a quid pro quo exists between politicians and those awarded government grants.
More importantly, just imagine how much real good those monies would have done had they been invested in Ebola research, cancer research, etc. or assisting the poor, the starving, refugees from war-torn countries to name just a few. Think about the good those monies could have done building infrastructure in third world countries. What is the “advantage” climate alarmism has given the world’s poor?
I’ll try adopt your standards for debate.
Are you lying or are you just demonstrating a propensity for raising irrelevant points, and an inability to follow a logical sequence of connected facts?
I agree, “Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spend more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. That doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy””.
I apologize bu that’s not the type of thing I have at the tip of my head. Clearly you have your hand on the pulse of this thing.
The problem with this argument is common sense does not dictate it would be an advantage to government to spend this kind of money. This is where your argument fails. It’s never good for a government to act contrary to the economy.
Ok, I won’t tell you your a denier. Can you give me a word that would describe someone who denies the science as accepted by the majority of people who study climate science. I’m not sure about you, but I would suggest people who deny things are, by definition deniers. But hey, thats me.
I’m not sure that your, “what could the money have been spent on” isn’t rendered moot by the fact that you have failed to demonstrate the money wasn’t wisely spent.
In not really interested in further debate with you, as you have no fucking idea who I am and you open with an infantile insult.
Good luck in the future.
It occurred to me that our debate has nothing to do with AGW – you framed the debate that way. My opening statement was the guy is lying.
You have done nothing to challenge that statement except to deny it.
Marc claims advanced degree MSEE, perhaps is so, but his postings here
indicate no understanding of Maxwell’s equations nor any ability to
explain why “any” spontaneous thermal electromagnetic radiative flux
from a lower temperature to a higher temperature “must” contradict all
of those equations.
Actually I spent a great deal of time studying Maxwells equations.
Any propogating wave will attentuate exponentially.
Electro-magnetic flux does not flow from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. If you review Maxwell’s equations which relate the time derivative of both the electric and magnetic fields to the magnetic and electric flux, and the divergence of both the electric and magnetic flux to the magnetic charge density (which of course is zero), and charge density, has no temperature variable.
I’m not sure at “any” point being asked to explain the spontaneous thermal electromagnetic flux from a lower temperature to a higher temperature “must” contradict all of those equations. You’ll have to elaborate and I’ll be happy to explain.
I don’t see that AGW requires the “spontaneous” thermal electromagnetic flux from a lower to a higher temperature. To be honest, you are not interested in debate, you are interested in provocation and personal attacks. I’m game if you are.
If you l like I can email you my credentials.
Sorry, when I said any propogating wave will attenuate exponentially (aside from the spelling error), I should have said, and propogating wave, not in free space, will attenuate. It can be absorbed by the medium or reflected. The transmission coefficient is not one.
I also should have said spacial derivative of the electric and magnetic fields (not time derivative) to the time derivative of magnetic electric flux. Given in almost any medium that the relationship between electric/magnetic fields to electric/magnetic flux is simply a scalar multiple, and given that in sinusoidal waves, the equations reduce to phase differences between the electric and magnetic fields.
It occurred to me that despite my thesis being on antenna propagation, (if you like I can give you my thesis title, and you can look it up), and my being familiar with Maxwell’s Equations, you challenge this saying I claim an advanced degree yet indicate no understanding of Maxwell’s Equations. I’m not sure if you’re aware of how a Master’s Degree works, (it seems you are not), but most people with an MSEE do not have an understanding of MEs. Engineering is pretty broad, and only one part of it deals with propagation, or less specifically Electromagnetics. Most people who have an advanced Electrical Engineering Degree do not understand Maxwell’s Equations. You’re just trying to show off.
“…..a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.”
“These ‘consensus’ surveys appear to be used as a ‘social proof,'” says Ken Gregory, research director of Friends of Science. “Just because a science paper includes the words ‘global climate change’ this does not define the cause, impact or possible mitigation. The 97% claim is contrived in all cases.”
The Oreskes (2004) study claimed 75% consensus and a “remarkable lack of disagreement” by the other 25% of the abstracts she reviewed. Peiser (2005) re-ran her survey and found major discrepancies. Only 1.2% or 13 scientists out of 1,117 agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view that human activity is the main cause of global warming since 1950.
http://www.americ2014/02/debunking_the_97_consensus_on_global_warming.html
I’ll be adopting your debate technique in this post. I’ll say “Bing” when I’m about to do so, and “Bong” when I’m done.
I agree, “… a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.”
1) I have no idea whether or not there was an agreement on a catasrophic view. You are challenging a point I have not made. I applaud this.
2) There is a consensus on the effect of CO2 on the rising global temperature.
3) I agree, Ken Gregory, research director of “Friends of Science”, says just because a paper includes the words ‘global climate change’ this does not define the cause, impact or possible claim. Here’s where he is lying. The 97% is not contrived.
The 75% is papers that express an opinion. Of those that express an opinion, 97% hold the position that CO2 is a significant contributor to warming. If 97% of auto mechanics say it’s good to change your oil every 5 000 km, and the rest of the world has no opinion on it, and if 0.01% of the world are auto mechanics, it’s bad logic to say there’s only a 0.0097% consensus.
Friends of science if funded by the oil industry.
Peiser’s paper was not published. Oreskes ignored letters to the editor, and not papers. Peiser is a liar.
If you would like to debate Peiser, I’m game. But I am unwilling to debate you if you are unable to be respecful.
Thanks for the link but I could find no reference to “snowfall” or anything like the quote you cited. Is this just another case of wingers making stuff up to bolster their specious arguments?
The 97% figure used by Cunningham is not a scientific survey. The 97% figure comes from Oreskes paper,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Nicely put Marc and Walt. It still boggles the mid how otherwise intelligent people still religiously cling to the CAGW hypothesis, some of my friends are absolutely dead set on believing it. When I question them on the science it’s always the same “I trust the government scientists”
They’re happy as zealots of the liberal religion to believe that corporations are evil but cannot conceive of people in government or large governing organisations being corrupt. They’re completely ignorant as to history, power and the human condition.
Very sad.