Gavin Schwartz, one of the debate participants comments regarding a podcast he will be making available next Wednesday here: http://www.realclimate.org/
He says:
"The podcast should be available next Wednesday (I'll link it here once it's available), and so you can judge for yourselves, but 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 Crichton and 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. ..."
"Comparatively, we were pretty dull. ..."
Say it ain't so.
ping for ipod...
realclimate.org is a website setup by Michael Mann after McIntyre and McKitrick ripped his "hockey stick" to shreds.
M&M have their own website over here: http://www.climateaudit.org/
and the history of their paper debunking the hockey stick is available here
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
What M&M are doing is digging into the fundamental data and asking questions of the AGW crowd. Really difficult stuff like
1. Please publish the full dataset you used.
2. Please publish the computer programs you used to generate the results.
and the AGW crowd refuse....which makes them non-scientists in my mind.
Of course. The audience must have been swayed by the 'entertaining presentation' of the skeptics, because all the 'facts' were on the side of the alarmists.
Nice to see that liberals can still rationalize away their losing a debate.
And, according to the POLL, the audience was NOT 'split roughly half/half' before the debate. Only 30% of the audience was in the 'skeptic' camp before the debate, while 46% were skeptics after the debate. That this guy can lie to himself about this does not bode well for his integrity as a 'scientist'.