Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners In Global Warming Debate

The (Senator) Inhofe Environment and Public Works Blog ^ | March 16, 2007 | Marc Morano

[Lecie]

Just days before former Vice President Al Gore’s scheduled visit to testify about global warming before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, a high profile climate debate between prominent scientists Wednesday evening ended with global warming skeptics being voted the clear winner by a tough New York City before an audience of hundreds of people.

Before the start of the nearly two hour debate the audience polled 57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis”, but following the debate the numbers completely flipped to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of the skeptical point of view. The audience also found humor at the expense of former Vice President Gore’s reportedly excessive home energy use.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Remarkable the difference that can occur IF the MSM is not allowed to color every quote and tithe and tittle of the debate.

[Armando Guerra]

All the more reason for the left to silence critics and avoid debate.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Keeping this myth alive is very profitable. Tons of grant money available to pursue continued investigations. Read a column the other day where the writer predicted the demise of the Polar Bears as a fact, whereas the truth is there numbers are growing. It's the old story..."follow the money".

[R.W.Ratikal]

It's true that there are and have been climate cycles that have changed weather patterns. But it's not true that these cycles wee caused by man's activities in modern life.

This is common sense, something the "Global Warming" zealots lack.

Instead, they should get a life.

[claudiustg]

I drive a hybrid and I'm a global warming skeptic.

What I'm not skeptical about is that the libs would turn this "crisis" into the biggest socialist boondoggle in history.

To borrow a phrase from the Dim's political past, "In your guts, you know they're nuts!"

[Sicon]

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealCilmate.org.

"…I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s Philip] Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote.

So typically liberal: blame the delivery of the message, but don't ever consider that perhaps your argument itself is lacking... No, far better to continue to tell yourself that it's just that the rest of the world is too stupid to "get it".

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

---

[Arrowhead1952]

I drive a hybrid and I'm a global warming skeptic.

Did you see this thread Tuesday?

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage

[fedupjohn]

About this Global Warming thing; let me see if I understand it.

If I pay Al Gore's Company for the carbon I use its okay to use all I want to but if I don't I'm destroying the Climate.

Isn't this called protection money and shouldn't RICO Laws apply to this racket?

Just a thought...

[A message]

Schmidt appeared so demoralized that he mused that debates equally split between believers of a climate ‘crisis’ and scientific skeptics are probably not “worthwhile” to ever agree to again.

Headline: Global warming alarmist admits can not win a fair debate with skeptic.

[freedomfiter2]

Keeping this myth alive is very profitable.

My timing's terrible. I just started offering carbon credits yesterday.

[claudiustg]

Says Chris Demorro, Staff Writer for "The Recorder" out of Central Connecticut State University.

I don't think I'll take my cues from him any more than Al Gore.

[proud American in Canada]

About the polar bears--people were reporting that the bears were going inland, supposedly because the ice was cracking up and they nowhere else to go.

But the people who live there report that the bears are going where the people are because....they eat the garbage. The bears rummage through dumpsters, etc.

[Yo-Yo]

A complete transcript of the debate is available here (.pdf format.)

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Once upon a time, the Eskimo villagers ddetermined that when villagers were too old to contribute anymore, they would take them out to the ice and leave them for the bears to feed upon. It accomplished two tasks. One less non contributor mouth to feed and it kept the bears away from the village. I guess political correctness has killed off that idea.

[dfwgator]

I'm not a skeptic, not at all, I KNOW GW is a bunch of hooey.

[SoFloFreeper]

NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, one of the scientists debating for the notion of a man-made global warming "crisis" conceded after the debate that his side was ‘pretty dull’ and was at "a sharp disadvantage." Schmidt made the comments in a March 15 blog posting at RealCilmate.org.

"…I'm afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I'd say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from [Novelist Michael] Crichton and [UK’s Philip] Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it's hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull," Schmidt wrote.

TYPICAL LIBERAL RESPONSE!

He says he wasn't "entertaining" enough...this is the same kind of "it is all marketing" CRAP liberals use when they lose an argument!!!!! Same thing they said about Reagan, what they say about Rush, what they said about GW Bush.

As if the audience isn't smart enough to figure out the difference when the playing field is level!

[Matchett-PI]

Michael Crichton Debates Global Warming Wednesday 03/14/2007
Intelligence Squared.org ^ | March 14, 2007 | Event Staff
Posted on 03/15/2007 12:35:38 PM EDT by Matchett-PI http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1801351/posts [refresh browser]

[theBuckwheat]

The debate is not that the climate is changing or not. It clearly is. More honestly, it clearly *always* is changing.

The debate should be about humanity's role in the change, and to what extent we can mitigate any *harmful* change.

Most people are aware that Greenland was settled in a period about a thousand years ago when it was warm enough to farm and raise cattle there. Only a few hundred years later, the climate grew so cold that the settlement was all but abandoned. In Europe, the year of 1850 was known as the year without a summer because it was so cold. Crop failure lead to famine. Rivers in England froze over.

Such cold climate can still be seen today in the quaint graphic prints of winter scenes produced by Currier & Ives, such as this one:

http://www.artprintcollection.com/detailPage.php?printCode=CurrierAndIvesAmericanFarmScenesNo4-21x30

Going back further, entire Native American populations were wiped out in the SouthWest by a change in climate that destroyed their ability to grow crops. We protect the Cliff Dwellings of Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico as tourist attractions and cultural heritage sites, yet refuse to consider why these small communities were abandoned in the first place. The climate changed for the worse and it had nothing to do with human activity. Nothing they could do would mitigate that change.

This debate is not even about climate or SUVs. It is about more about whether or not we are going to be honest about the data and what it implies.

It comes as no surprise that the left proposes to bring climate change to a halt by imposing massive restrictions, taxes, and regulatory impossitions. They counter the skeptics, not with firm data, but by hinting at sanctions for the crime of "denial". These are all the symptions of a verdict first, trial later bum's rush to greater control over people's lives and wallets.

I will not be rushed. Big government is already too big for me.