"Is global warming largely man made?" web-chat debate currently live at
Times Online between
Mark Maslin, Director of the Environment Institute at University College London, with special interest in global and regional climates, and
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
So far:
Times Online: We're ready to start the debate. To kick off, I’d like to establish whether you both accept that the Earth has got significantly hotter over the last century – whatever the underlying cause.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:34 Times Online
1:34
Dick Lindzen: What do you mean by significant?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:34 Dick Lindzen
1:34
Mark Maslin: Hi. More simple answer. Temperature rise over the last 100 years is real and global. This week the Met Office and WMO published data showing the last decade is the warmest on record and 2009 will be the 5th warmest on record.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:34 Mark Maslin
1:35
Times Online: Whether you'd agree that the WMO data published is an accurate reflection of global temperatures.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:35 Times Online
1:36
Mark Maslin: well I do
Friday December 11, 2009 1:36 Mark Maslin
1:36
Dick Lindzen: That hardly answers the question. This still amounts to less a degree. Moreover, having reached a relative maximum in 1998, mere fluctuations guaranty that there will be years with temperatures among the highest.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:36 Dick Lindzen
1:36
Dick Lindzen: And this has nothing to do with whether there is any trend.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:36 Dick Lindzen
1:37
Mark Maslin: are you saying you disagree with the WMO and Met Office?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:37 Mark Maslin
1:38
Dick Lindzen: And accuracy is associated with error bars. These leave any temperature uncertain to the order of 0.2C. This has nothing to do with whether one accepts the published figures.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:38 Dick Lindzen
1:38
Times Online: Mark, why would you argue that a temperature rise of less than a degree is important? Temperatures in the past have been hotter than they are today.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:38 Times Online
1:39
Mark Maslin: so a trend over the 100 years of 0.8 degrees (with your suggested error of 0.2) is significant then Dick
Friday December 11, 2009 1:39 Mark Maslin
1:39
[Comment From John Graham-Cumming John Graham-Cumming: ]
How important is the 'hockey stick' data to the overall story of global warming? For example, suppose it was much hotter on Earth 2,000 years ago, would that matter?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:39 John Graham-Cumming
1:39
Mark Maslin: A degree in global terms is alot. Think about it during the last ice age when ice 3 km thick sat over USA global temperature dropped by only 5 dgrees
Friday December 11, 2009 1:39 Mark Maslin
1:40
Dick Lindzen: Given that the temperature record oscillates, and thus deviates from CO2 means that there are other things going on that are at least as important. Mark's point about the ice age is misleading. The mean temperature change was a residue not a cause.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:40 Dick Lindzen
1:41
Mark Maslin: I think the past data is extremely important for putting current warming trends into context. If we take all the different data sets for the last 2000 years or even the last 8000 years there has a been a long term small cool trend. The so called hockey stick shows us that what has happened in the last 100 years has not happened in the last 8000 years.
[Comment From Pierre Gosselin Pierre Gosselin: ]
If global warming is real, then why has the Antarctic ice mass been trending upwards the last 30 years?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:43 Pierre Gosselin
1:43
Dick Lindzen: John,
Of course it is relevant. The whole point of the hockey stick was to conclude that the current warmth unprecedented even if it seems small. If the earth was warmer then it becomes impossible to claim significance. Even the hockey stick team doesn't argue for 8000 years, and no reviewer accepts the results beyond 400 years.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:43 Dick Lindzen
1:43
Mark Maslin: so if Dick accepts temperatures are rising does he also accept that carbon dioixde levels are rising
Friday December 11, 2009 1:43 Mark Maslin
1:43
Dick Lindzen: Of course
Friday December 11, 2009 1:43 Dick Lindzen
1:44
Dick Lindzen: Are rising? Not temperatures currently
Friday December 11, 2009 1:44 Dick Lindzen
1:44
Dick Lindzen: The temperature anomaly for 2008 was not statistically significantly different from 1987.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:44 Dick Lindzen
1:45
Mark Maslin: Antarctica is an excellent example of the skeptics taing excellent science done at UCL and twisting it. Scientist report the facts. The fact reported in scinetific papers are that Greenland is shrinking and so is the Western Antarctic ice sheet. But because of warmer conditions and more snow the Eastern Anatrctic ice sheet is in fact thickening. So you have to read all the facts not just the ones put out by the skeptcis!
Friday December 11, 2009 1:45 Mark Maslin
Follow live debate
here.
Web-chat is now over, but the remainder of the discussion is copied below:
Friday December 11, 2009 1:45 Mark Maslin
1:46
[Comment From Nick J Nick J: ]
I don't think anyone questions that man is indeed contributing to the global temperature, we should reduce waste and cut emissions where possible, however, figures show that the earth is in fact cooling (when you rule out the hockey stick 'trick'), so how can man be the sole blame for this? The planet runs through its course of cycles, we're tired of being blamed when we are not the single cause.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:46 Nick J
1:46
Dick Lindzen: And still the conclusion is that no one knows because the changes argued about would take thousands of years to raise sea levels discernibly.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:46 Dick Lindzen
1:47
Dick Lindzen: To Nick: Exactly
Friday December 11, 2009 1:47 Dick Lindzen
1:47
Mark Maslin: The problem is under no climate scenario does the East Antarctic ice sheet melt, it contains over 60 m of global sea level. But the small greenland and Western Antarctic ice sheets are much more vulnerable and could contribute up to 13 m. But most scientists believe that it could be next century before these really start to melt and most of us hope we can reduce co2 before we trigger this melting
Friday December 11, 2009 1:47 Mark Maslin
1:48
Dick Lindzen: Could, might, etc. Who are these 'most scientists?' Glaciology is a really small field.
[Well said!]Friday December 11, 2009 1:48 Dick Lindzen
1:48
Friday December 11, 2009 1:48
1:50
Mark Maslin: Dick, you were an author of the IPCC 3rd report. You know who these scientist are. You know the peer review process and you know the length that NASA and other groups go to get the best and most infomred data.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:50 Mark Maslin
1:50
[Comment From darren darren: ]
When Greenland was last ice free in the lowlands what was the level of CO2 and when was this?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:50 darren
1:51
[Comment From Paul Paul: ]
Does Mark accep that the temparature anomaly is not statistically different from 1987?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:51 Paul
1:51
Dick Lindzen: Mark: In many cases yes. The question as always is what does it mean. Also, the IPCC review process is a bit farcical. And, there was pressure to avoid criticizing models.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:51 Dick Lindzen
1:51
Times Online: Leading on from Paul's comment - is it meaningful to compare anomalys from individual years?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:51 Times Online
1:53
Mark Maslin: I think the Met Office apporach of looking at decades is the best way to looking at the data, Because we all know that there can be large varaiation between years. So picking 1987 as year to compare this decade would not work. So you must look at the data over the last 100 years to see the clear trend which Dick has mentioned.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:53 Mark Maslin
1:53
Dick Lindzen: Paul: This was the case over most of the earth's history. CO 2 however is believed to have varied. Sure, as long as it is carefully stated, the comparison is meaningful. Trend analysis is as most statisticians will confirm a dicey business.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:53 Dick Lindzen
1:54
Dick Lindzen: Mark,
Then you agree that the stock market is currently at an all time high.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:54 Dick Lindzen
1:55
[Comment From Mike Mike: ]
you cite peer-review process. Is that the same scientists reviewing each other work?
Friday December 11, 2009 1:55 Mike
1:55
Mark Maslin: Dick if you count in terms of dollars flowing through the system and you use this decade as a comparison to all the others for the last 100 years. Then yes I would be right.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:55 Mark Maslin
1:56
[Comment From Junkk Male Junkk Male: ]
Why are the choices we are presented with always so clear cut, either/or? Do I think man is largely the cause of GW? Don't know. Yet. Do I think it's natural only? No.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:56 Junkk Male
1:56
Dick Lindzen: Mike,
That's right. But usually an editor determines whether comments have been answere. In the case of the IPCC, it is the authors who do this.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:56 Dick Lindzen
1:57
Mark Maslin: Science is a self correcting process. This is why it is a solide mechanism which has allowed us to build the technological society we have at the moment. Peer review is the process by which competing scientists review peoples work before it is published. Also once a paper is published scientist rush out to prove or disprove people newest data or idea. It is very solid system
Friday December 11, 2009 1:57 Mark Maslin
1:57
Dick Lindzen: Junkk,
Yes and no answers are a sure way to indicate that politics are at play.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:57 Dick Lindzen
1:58
Times Online: In her Washington Post op-ed this week Sarah Palin described the climate community as a “highly politicised scientific circle”. Would you agree with this characterisation?
[Oh for heaven's sake, is it necessary to draw Palin into this serious debate!!!!]Friday December 11, 2009 1:58 Times Online
1:59
Dick Lindzen: There is quite a lot of evidence towards this conclusion. However, it isn't always the case.
Friday December 11, 2009 1:59 Dick Lindzen
2:00
Mark Maslin: I would. When you are trying to present science in a balanced way and you have lobby groups funded by oil and gas companies ... you have to try and counter that. For example the smoking indutry used to employ scientists to tell you it is safe to smoke. If the scientists and doctors had understood the weight of indutrial money being thrown against them we may have known about this sooner. In this case scientist found out from day one what they were up against to get the truth out. This is why we are still having these discussion with people funded by the energy companies.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:00 Mark Maslin
2:00
Friday December 11, 2009 2:00
2:01
Dick Lindzen: Mark,
I think you will find that energy companies are far outspent by environmental NGOs.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:01 Dick Lindzen
2:01
[Comment From David Sutherland David Sutherland: ]
Do the 'climate change deniers' including some countries with a vested interest in selling fossil based energy have any chance of derailing the progress to getting this issue to the top of everyone's agenda.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:01 David Sutherland
2:02
Dick Lindzen:
Not if the banks that have an even bigger interest in cap and trade have their way.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:02 Dick Lindzen
2:03
[Comment From DAVINA PEACE DAVINA PEACE: ]
Absolutely - and it's time we take responsibility for our actions
Friday December 11, 2009 2:03 DAVINA PEACE
2:03
Mark Maslin: why would you not trust climate scientists. That is lik saying I do not trust doctors who told me about AIDS. Just because you do not like the message does not mean the messenger is lying to you. I also do not understand what the motivation for climate scientists to ly to you .... I get paid by a University and can do any work I like. Why would i just follow the courd?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:03 Mark Maslin
2:03
[Comment From Amy N Amy N: ]
Go Mark!
[Oh, please!]Friday December 11, 2009 2:03 Amy N
2:04
Dick Lindzen: Actually there are licensing requirements for MDs. Virtually anyone can be listed as a climate scientist.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:04 Dick Lindzen
2:04
Mark Maslin: sorry that should have been crowd in the last message ..!
Friday December 11, 2009 2:04 Mark Maslin
2:04
[Comment From Mike Mike: ]
Why use the term denier i thnk that is deeply offensive.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:04 Mike
2:04
Times Online: Dick, would you describe yourself as a "denier"?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:04 Times Online
2:04
Mark Maslin: Dick does that include you them?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:04 Mark Maslin
2:05
Dick Lindzen: In a sense. Skeptic presumes that there is a good case to begin with. I don't.
[Well put!]Friday December 11, 2009 2:05 Dick Lindzen
2:05
[Comment From James Kirkpatrick James Kirkpatrick: ]
How do Mike and Dick explain the fact that even though the majority of climate scientists believe global warming is mostly man mad, the opinion of the readers of this blog are divided almost 50/50?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:05 James Kirkpatrick
2:06
Dick Lindzen: The readers can read behind the propaganda? Remember, it was claimed that all scientists agreed about this in 1988, and yet 100 billion euros have been spent since then trying to establish this.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:06 Dick Lindzen
2:07
Mark Maslin: Because climate change ... means we have to re-assess what we do and how we do it. And many people dislike change. There is also a growing anti-intellecual movement in America and UK over the last few decades and so the trust in experts is dropping. It is also because the public through the media is never given the balance picture. Look here on skeptic verses me. Whereas behind me are over 5000 scientists involved in the IPCC. While Dick has Exonn (is this correct Dick?). So relly in a fair fight this is 5000 to 1.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:07 Mark Maslin
2:08
[Comment From patter patter: ]
mark how much are you being paid for your views such as attending this web chat
Friday December 11, 2009 2:08 patter
2:08
Dick Lindzen: What are the rules on slander in the UK?
[hehehehe!!]Friday December 11, 2009 2:08 Dick Lindzen
2:09
Dick Lindzen: There are currently several hundred physicists (including at least one Nobel laureate) who are protesting their societies endorsement of the iconic claim of attribution.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:09 Dick Lindzen
2:10
[Comment From Tom Wakeford Tom Wakeford: ]
What about the significant funding by those same Oil companies into climate research or are Shell BP and Exxon out of the oil business now then?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:10 Tom Wakeford
2:10
Mark Maslin: Dick I asked a question of who was funding you. Patter I am funded as a University professor at UCL, same as all the other. I am not being paid for this web chat and none of my other media work. I am paid by the University which like all UK Universities is a charity funded by the Government.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:10 Mark Maslin
2:10
Dick Lindzen: Moreover, the claim concerns only attribution of globally averaged temperature anomaly. The relation to catastrophes is impossible to establish.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:10 Dick Lindzen
2:11
Dick Lindzen: I am funded exclusively under the Dept of Energy's climate program. I have also been supported by NASA and NSF. I have never been supported by any private body.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:11 Dick Lindzen
2:12
[Comment From Paul Binns Paul Binns: ]
It's disingenuous to refer to "5000 scientists". The IPCC's reports may be based from the work of 5000, but they are selected and interpreted by a few.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:12 Paul Binns
2:12
[Comment From Max Tronske Max Tronske: ]
If atmospheric CO2 levels are critical then what would be more effective in countering this - reducing energy usage (most agreements simply look to moderate the growth) or looking at alternative ways to capture CO2?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:12 Max Tronske
2:13
Mark Maslin: I personally believe that oil, gas and oter energy companies have a huge and very positive role to play in the future. 70% of the global energy demand predicted for 2030 has yet to be built. But we need it as low carbon or carbon neutral as possible.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:13 Mark Maslin
2:13
Dick Lindzen: Paul,
The numbers are much smaller than 5000. Moreover the several hundred who write the reports do not all agree with the iconic statement. Many of the reviewers don't as well.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:13 Dick Lindzen
2:14
Dick Lindzen: Mark,
That is why the emails showed active interaction with BP and Shell?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:14 Dick Lindzen
2:15
[Comment From David Sutherland David Sutherland: ]
What tecnical research outcome can resolve this question one way or another to the satisfaction of the general public? Or has it become like 'evolution' almost religious in magnitude?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:15 David Sutherland
2:16
Mark Maslin: Max I believe we have lots of great ways of reducing our co2 pollution. 1. Stop deforestation and land use changes which cause about 20% of our emissions. We can go beyond this and start reforesting .... which not only helps climate change but also return vital ecological services. 2. Energy efficence ... why we can alreayd make a 100 mpg car why not give it to people, 3. Alternative energy ... even if you are not sure of Climate change what about energy security why when we can generate all our own do we want timport russian gas etc etc
Friday December 11, 2009 2:16 Mark Maslin
2:17
Dick Lindzen: David,
I actually think that careful analysis of satellite radiation data can resolve the issue of climate sensitivity sufficiently to eliminate 'dangerous' possibilities. However, there are few incentives to end this issue.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:17 Dick Lindzen
2:18
[Comment From Martin Martin: ]
Gordon Brown has just given away £750m of this country's money to other nations to "combat climate change".
Friday December 11, 2009 2:18 Martin
2:18
Dick Lindzen: Actually energy efficiency is likely to effectively reduce the cost of energy and increase its usage.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:18 Dick Lindzen
2:18
[Comment From Martin Martin: ]
By my calculations we could buy 2.5 million solar panels with that and start here, at home, ruducing our carbon footprint.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:18 Martin
2:18
Dick Lindzen: Brown's generosity is impressive. Perhaps it isn't his own money.
[Maybe it's the super-tax from the bankers' bonus?]Friday December 11, 2009 2:18 Dick Lindzen
2:19
Mark Maslin: Dear David, for the majority of scientist, leaving Dick on one side, we feel that we have sufficient science to clear show man made global warming. How we explain this to the pubic is another matter one that all of us have struggled with. Because the issue is not one that directly effect individuals the way that other threats do. So I think we need much better eduction on how science works, how "Weight" of evidence is so important. How verifying results and data is central to the whole process.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:19 Mark Maslin
2:19
Friday December 11, 2009 2:19
2:19
Dick Lindzen: Verification is certainly important but it must be rigorous rather than anecdotal.
[Solid point]Friday December 11, 2009 2:19 Dick Lindzen
2:20
Mark Maslin: I agree with Dick
Friday December 11, 2009 2:20 Mark Maslin
2:20
[Comment From John Graham-Cumming John Graham-Cumming: ]
Speaking of verifying results and data... why has it taken a major scandal for the UK Met Office to release something as simple as temperature measurements from around the world?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:20 John Graham-Cumming
2:21
Dick Lindzen: Mark,
So you agree that we should stop talking about polar bears, specific hurricanes, etc.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:21 Dick Lindzen
2:21
Mark Maslin: The UK Met Office and WMO release these data every year. It was not release in reponse to climate gate ... which in itself is a media storm in a tea cup.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:21 Mark Maslin
2:22
Hannah Devlin: Thanks for all your questions. We're posting as many as possible.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:22 Hannah Devlin
2:22
Dick Lindzen: John,
Good question. Also why was raw data destroyed?
[Yes, why? Please explain climate-doom mongers?]Friday December 11, 2009 2:22 Dick Lindzen
2:22
Dick Lindzen: Mark,
Cheating in science is not a tempest in a teapot.
[Nailed it!!!]Friday December 11, 2009 2:22 Dick Lindzen
2:23
[Comment From Mike Post Mike Post: ]
"How we explain this to the pubic is another matter one that all of us have struggled with." One for Private Eye, I think!
Friday December 11, 2009 2:23 Mike Post
2:23
[Comment From filosofee filosofee: ]
At last, agreement reached, on important issue of verifying data!
Friday December 11, 2009 2:23 filosofee
2:24
Mark Maslin: But I would argue that this has already happened as part of normal science and will continue long after this debate. Because this is how science works.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:24 Mark Maslin
2:24
[Comment From Plato Says Plato Says: ]
Mark is over 30m hits on Google a 'teacup' ?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:24 Plato Says
2:24
Mark Maslin: is that good or bad?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:24 Mark Maslin
2:25
Hannah Devlin: Do you think there needs to be more transparency about the codes used in computer simulations?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:25 Hannah Devlin
2:25
Dick Lindzen: Mark,
The released files show clearly that there are some scientists who are not happy with debate.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:25 Dick Lindzen
2:25
Dick Lindzen: Hannah,
Absolutely.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:25 Dick Lindzen
2:25
[Comment From apache apache: ]
climate gate, far from being a scandal is evidence of one of the biggest scams in mordern history, read the emails yourself
Friday December 11, 2009 2:25 apache
2:25
[Comment From Tom Birkert Tom Birkert: ]
If CO2 is so bad, why did 20,000 people fly to Copenhagen? What message does that send to the public? How about a video conference instead?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:25 Tom Birkert
2:26
[Comment From Alan. Alan.: ]
How many hits do you think Jordan gets on her webiste - is that significant in the global scheme of things too?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:26 Alan.
2:26
[Comment From John John: ]
It's dissapointing to see so many people don't trusts climate scientists. If we treated every profession like this we'd scrub politicians, doctors would be seen as voodoo shaymen (no scientist is yet to murder their patients!!!) and don't start on the priesthood and some nationalities
Friday December 11, 2009 2:26 John
2:26
Dick Lindzen: Tom,
I would recommend this for almost all meetings regardless of CO2.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:26 Dick Lindzen
2:27
Mark Maslin: Dear Tom, that is a silly comment that is thrown around when ever this debate comes up. You can not negotiate a major treaty without doing it face to face.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:27 Mark Maslin
2:27
Dick Lindzen: John,
Americans tend to have a different attitude toward authority. Suspicion is regarded as healthy.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:27 Dick Lindzen
2:27
[Comment From Graham Cresswell Graham Cresswell: ]
Surely the computer model algorithms used to underpin AGW should be in the public domain so that they can be tested agains everyone's data.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:27 Graham Cresswell
2:28
Dick Lindzen: Graham,
Some actually are, and they do badly.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:28 Dick Lindzen
2:29
Hannah Devlin: We're about to run out of time. But before you both go, what do you expect the outcomes to be from the Copenhagen Summit?
Friday December 11, 2009 2:29 Hannah Devlin
2:29
Mark Maslin: I believe science and scientific data should be as open and transparent as possible. But there should be clear protection and guidelines about the miss use of data.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:29 Mark Maslin
2:29
Dick Lindzen: Hannah,
I would suppose that they will agree to meet again.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:29 Dick Lindzen
2:30
Mark Maslin: I expect there to be key agreements on deforestation and clear limits which will be discussed at the next meeting and hopefully agreed in Mexico
Friday December 11, 2009 2:30 Mark Maslin
2:31
Mark Maslin:
last word and old fable
A long time ago a lazy man decided he could not be bothered to walk out of the village to empty is chamber pot. So he started to empty it in his back yard. A few weeks later his neighbours started to complain of a bad smell. The lazy man denied that it was anything to do with him. Their complaints continued so he paid an old charlatan to explain to the village that it was nothing to worry about as smells came and went with natural and it would soon all go away. The next day the lazy man slipped in his back yard and drowned in his own …….!
[How inappropriate and irrelevant!]Friday December 11, 2009 2:31 Mark Maslin
2:32
Hannah Devlin: Thank you very much to everyone who posted comments and to our panellists Mark Maslin and Dick Lindzen for a very lively debate.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:32 Hannah Devlin
2:32
Mark Maslin: pleasure Mark
Friday December 11, 2009 2:32 Mark Maslin
2:32
Dick Lindzen: So much for science v. anecdotes.
[Exactly!]Friday December 11, 2009 2:32 Dick Lindzen
2:32
Mark Maslin: like your paper in the Times!
Friday December 11, 2009 2:32 Mark Maslin
2:32
Dick Lindzen: Have a good weekend.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:32 Dick Lindzen
2:33
Mark Maslin: you too, see you soon
Mark
Friday December 11, 2009 2:33 Mark Maslin
2:34
Hannah Devlin: Any further thoughts on the debate? Please post below in the comments section.
Friday December 11, 2009 2:34 Hannah Devlin
2:35
Mark Maslin: thanks for hosting this Hannah
all the best
Mark
Friday December 11, 2009 2:35 Mark Maslin
2:35
Now how civilised was that debate, please note UEA Professor Andrew Watson!!!! Polls conducted during the web-chat showed MIT as clear winner over UCL! Professor Lindzen possessed the upper-hand, more than 50% don't feel the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit will amount to much, not trusting climate change scientists, and not believing man-made causes are to blame for climate change.
Good debate, comment on it by following the link below:
Times Online:
"We hope you enjoyed this live event - we're always trying to make them better, so if you've got a few seconds to tell us what you think we'd be very grateful"
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dGE1al9BMUlRQ1ZUTy1Dd0M1Qm55bWc6MA
Lastly, shouldn't the question be,
Is global warming largely Western-civilised, first-world nations made?Update, from
Martin Cohen's piece in the
Times Higher Education,
"go along with the crowd" syndrome:
Whether rational or not, global warming theory has become a political orthodoxy. So entrenched is it that those showing any resistance to it are described as "heretics" or even likened to "Holocaust deniers"........... How this situation came about says much about how science is co-opted to sway public opinion. The case is built, deliberately or not, on misleading images and interpretations that have been perpetuated by parties with a vested interest.... Indeed, much of what is presented as hard scientific evidence for the theory of global warming is false. ..... But call it what you will, as long as you don't think that by calling it "science" it becomes irrefutable. Because that it ain't...........Much of the argument for global warming is based on modelling. The mathematics is sophisticated and certainly intimidating to everyone but experts............Modellers have an inbuilt bias towards forced climate change because the causes and effect are clear." .....Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi's ........graph .. contradicted all the others ... based not on a model but on satellite measurements. It showed the Earth's oceans dampening the heating effect.
Rest of the article and comments
here.
