the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

McIntyre on CNN

Posted by Jeff Id on December 7, 2009

Well folks, sometime in the next 10 minutes. SteveM is part of a panel on CNN. Campbell Brown if you get a chance. I’ll probably just delete this post in 20 minutes depending on my mood so comments might not last.

Click to play

Steve’s post on this:

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/cnn/


59 Responses to “McIntyre on CNN”

  1. Ryan O said

    Turned the TV on . . . hopefully I didn’t miss it.

  2. Jeff Id said

    It’s still going for a few minutes. If someone can get the youtube I’ll leave the post.

  3. Ryan O said

    Caught all of it.

    Oppenheimer is a doof.

  4. Ryan O said

    Oh, and that “break it down” moment where they had their dumbass reporter “explain the science” almost made me puke.

  5. John F. Pittman said

    But Steve looked good.

  6. John F. Pittman said

    Oppenheimer was wrong. China has repeatedly stated it will increase emissions in order to achieve a better economy for its people.

  7. Ryan O said

    Yep.

    Going back to Oppenheimer . . . China’s going to commit to reducing emissions? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Doof.

  8. Jeff Id said

    Oppenhimer flat lied on that point. Just flat lied.

  9. Ryan O said

    Damn. We cross posted.

  10. John F. Pittman said

    He also is doing the meme NOT to answer the questions asked. Only the nut jobs don’t recognize that it has ben warming since the LIA, and the lawyer was correct. Climate changes. They are using the argument that there are so many papers must be right. Followed by how great peer reveiw is. Bet you know all about that Ryano, JeffID? lol

  11. random guy said

    just saw this. i appreciate how the other commentators refrained from interrupting mr mcintiyre when he was speaking. Perhaps this was because he actually has an unbiased position..

  12. Ryan O said

    Hehe

  13. ed Samsel, Ph. D. said

    Two lies/coverups: water vapor is the key to this hypothesis, CO2 is secondary, fact unmentioned. The average lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~ 10 yrs or less by about 30 peered geochemical papers, the 100 yrs average lifetime was made up by UN without any evidence. Now they’re saying millenia, disgraceful lies. Ed

  14. Jeff Id said

    We’re going to have the policy shoved down our throats eventually. Like free health care, socialism has too easy a message.

  15. Ryan O said

    Hence the nearly puking.

    Because I watched him do it with his own words, of his own volition, I feel perfectly comfortable in saying the following:

    Oppenheimer = fraud

  16. Jeff Id said

    #14 very strong words for you.

    He’s as corrupt as Jones as he openly demonstrated. [self snip]

  17. lucia said

    Don’t get cable! (I would have missed it anyway. ) Let us know when it’s on youtube!

  18. Jeff Id said

    As random guy pointed out, it was interesting that nobody spoke when Steve did.

  19. Jason said

    the chinese and indians “committed” but not really to cuts but cuts in “intensity”

    But Obama will make it his own, china and india working for him, and the media will police itself into conformance of view

  20. turkeylurkey said

    Well, I can’t find Steve McI, but I found a segment with Wegman.
    It is called Cloud over Climate.
    He is being super careful, as we might expect.
    Over at CNN.com videos
    Besides the story of the stick,
    he covers the lack of independence, and is cut off in mid sentence.
    TL

  21. RomanM said

    Hate to admit it, but I agree with almost all of the above comments.😉

    Enjoyed the show. Thought Steve done good. Waiting for his personal assessment.

  22. Bryan H. said

    Don’t have cable so awaiting a youtube video of it. Hopefully somebody recorded it and it goes up soon. The commends on CA are pretty positive and looks like they didn’t try to abuse Steve in any fashion, thats a good start at least🙂

    As a side note I’m really waiting for somebody, anybody, to get on the news show and talk about the actual articles in peer-reviewed physics journals that show that the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even exist. That would make my day, climate-science is so much cargo-cult science its maddening.

  23. random guy said

    I also agree with Dr Samsel that the outright lies about the lifetime of carbon in the atmosphere were appalling.

  24. VG said

    Internet is changing everything. Hope the paper media realize this. They must realize surely that 50% more or less are skeptical that’s 3 billion people. Also google should cop on quick smart! LOL

  25. Jeff C. said

    Sorry, I missed Steve. If anyone hears of a re-broadcast, please post it.

    Hope this isn’t too OT, but in response to #14 (Jeff Id)
    “We’re going to have the policy shoved down our throats eventually. Like free health care, socialism has too easy a message.”

    Maybe it’s naivety on my part, but I’m optimistic. Unlike health care, there is no perceived personal benefit to cap and trade or some similar scheme’s staggering cost. At least with health care, you supposedly get something.

    I don’t think Americans are willing to pony up for some nebulous, save-the-world cause. They will only go for it if the overall threat is obvious (e.g. shooting Nazis in WW2) or there is a tangible personal benefit (Medicare, Interstate Hwy System, etc.). Copenhagen is the type of thing that loses elections.

    Senator Webb (a Democrat elected in 2006) warned Obama not to make any promises in Copenhagen he couldn’t keep. That was a very good sign and I believe it reflects the political mood.

  26. Al S. said

    For Bryan H. and any others interested in the physics: Jeff just did an article a couple days ago on the reality of a heating effect; I intend to get back and study it more.
    I too was wondering whether there was something in the Gerlich/Tseuchner “Falsification…” article; several people have said that it had major flaws (on Physics.forums, I think). I cannot judge becuz I don’t do advanced thermodynamics.) I will have to take Lucia and Jeff at their word.
    Al S.

  27. Mark T said

    several people have said that it had major flaws

    I have hear that, too, and even Steve Milloy (or Chris Horner, not sure which replied) said the paper was over complicated when I asked for the Junkscience opinion (yes, they will respond to email on occasion).

    One thing worth noting, however, is that I’ve yet to see a good reason why it is flawed. Not that one doesn’t exist, just that I haven’t seen one.

    Hope Steve had fun on CNN. Whether or not his appearance has any impact on their viewership is, to me, an aside to the much greater importance that bigger media is taking his opinion seriously (or at least paying it lip service). That by itself is a rather large accomplishment.

    Mark

  28. Jeff Id said

    #24, I hope you’re right. Being wrong is a hobby, perhaps this time it will work to an advantage.

  29. Jeff Id said

    #25, the problem is in the math. I haven’t worked it myself yet but maybe it’s worth a bit of time. My point about AGW is that we don’t really know what the warming magnitude is and we ‘really’ don’t know if it causes any problems at all. Even more than that- not knowing – is the asinine attempts to stop CO2 production. The science has been corrupted by an attack on capitalism IMHO, and it’s foolish to an extreme.

  30. jef said

    I watched a little of the end of “aftermath: population zero” the other day. They said that after 200 years the CO2 would be back to where it should be.

    I think the show’s goal was to give people the idea that Humans are bad for Gaia (but I watched very little of it)

    But the end was pretty up-beat. After a while Gaia cleans herself up🙂 Two hundred years is nothing in the scheme of things (think 1800)…so therefore, stop all the AGW funding, transfer to advanced nuclear research.

    Spend 30, 40 years to perfect adv. nuke of some type, then in a couple hundred years the CO2 will be back to “normal” and everyone will be happy

    Say 2250, which is about the current length of the US…233 years.

  31. Jimmy Haigh said

    29.jef said
    December 7, 2009 at 11:59 pm

    “I think the show’s goal was to give people the idea that Humans are bad for Gaia”

    Ah. But if we humans weren’t here, would Gaia be here? If a tree falls in the forest…

  32. Jeff Id said

    Here’s the comment I left on climate mirror.

    I heard the comments by Schmidt and Mann on audio feed while I was waiting for my segment

    It had to be amazingly hard. The gave the sound feed, you’re waiting for your cue. They finally show your face live, you tense up, ready for the main event. The pretty girl with no knowledge describes all the names you’re called and then cuts to commercial. Stuck in a room. Two minutes later, all the ad hom’s are repeated, a question is asked and….SHOWTIME.

    Kinda like defending capitalism to Kim Jong Il.

    There was an intentional effort to put you off your game. It’s kind of awesome that it didn’t work but it’s hard to say they didn’t give it their best shot.

    I can’t watch CNN under non-waterboarding circumstances and actually recorded it this time. Maybe I’ll burn the DVR.

    ==========

    Do you think CNN was fair?

  33. RB said

    “Copenhagen is the type of thing that loses elections.”
    Absolutely right. And especially not when the developing world turns to cheap coal in the face of the end of cheap oil.

  34. turkeylurkey said

    Whoops, just posted on the wrong thread.
    Yikes.
    Anyway, Hey Jeff, how did you get that clip to be on youtube?
    They had a Wegman segment on CNN, today I guess.
    TIA
    TL

  35. alf said

    Did Oppenheimer mention sea level change? I was wondering if Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner interviewed at
    http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html is on the level or is he just another crackpot?

  36. dearieme said

    Why do the networks use women with such ugly voices?

  37. SamG said

    I really dig McIntyre and his honest, straight shooter approach. Nothing superfluous , diversionary or bombastic in has wording.

    As always, so little time devoted to the important people and so much given to the most unremarkable people or to interviewers who probe the least.

  38. FrancisT said

    I thought that was an interesting attempt at reframing by Oppenehimer. I don’t think it helped though and I thought it odd that he brought up the CRU temperature code which wasn’t mentioned by anyone before as far as I can tell.

  39. Kondealer said

    Alf, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is everything he says he is and more. He is as far removed from the nut-jobs in the IPCC as you can get.
    Here is a quote of his about the Maldives;
    “In the IPCC scenarios, the Maldives were condemned to disappear in the sea in the near future (e.g. Hoffman et al., 1983; IPCC, 2001),” but that their own “documentation of actual field evidence contradicts this hypothesis”
    Morner, N.-A., Tooley, M. and Possnert, G.  2004.  New perspectives for the future of the Maldives.  Global and Planetary Change 40: 177-182.

  40. Rob said

    Let’s be very straight about what China is saying.

    Yesterday, they told the IPCC that they would try and curb CO2, but in their own time and without external monitoring.

    They make no bones about the fact that they will not be sucked in by the IPCC fraudsters. China has never hidden this fact.

  41. P Gosselin said

    The EPA pretty much slammed the book on it.
    It’s a pollutant, it causes catastrophic warming, we’re stepping in and we’re shoving what we want down your throats. Just shut up and take it.
    It’s going to take a bloody revolution to reinstate sanity I’m afraid.

  42. P Gosselin said

    Sorry, but Steve and Horner were taken to the cleaners.
    Steve should stick to blogging – where he can inflct real damage.

  43. P Gosselin said

    Concerning the EPA, welcome to the USSA!

    I guess a stupid populace eventually has to take one on the chin.

  44. boballab said

    #35
    Morner is the real deal as someone else said he is a former IPCC author that quit when the “Climalogist” kept making off the wall claims and ignoring th experts in the field (Also see the Landsea affair).

    He goes back a along ways and is one of the pioneers in the field he works in. You should go and find the story about his work in the Maldives and the lonely tree that Green Weenies hate. I not making that up, there was this one tree down near the ocean and it showed the problem of the IPCC’s water rise statements. I believe you can see Morner talk about it in the documentary “Great Global Warming Swindle”. When the Green Weenies try to kill a tree you know something isn’t kosher.

  45. Jeff Id said

    After a good night of rest, CNN did everything they could to ambush Steve. The introduced the lying scientists so perfectly and name called Steve two times before introducing him. After having to listen to mann and Schmidt give their sweep it under the rug BS, they put Steve’s head up, say you’ve been called a bozo and a moron… now to commercial.

    Let that sit in your head for a few then back to the ‘panel’.

    Bozo and moron again, McCarthy, then — go.

    I haven’t turned CNN on in probably a year now. Every time I do I’m reminded why. It’s nothing but a smear job to sweep the emails under the rug while giving some appearance of giving say to those who know what’s happening.

    How many times did they say Steve’s a skeptic?
    How many times did we get the impression that CA doesn’t beleive in global warming.

    Oppenheimer was given nice quiet introductions but when he received the question about – to a layperson such as myself it appears that the scientists —- She’s pretending to be too stupid to figure it out, which she may be but John Stuart figured it out just fine.

    When I think about the emails and the ‘conspiracy theory’ (booming voice), oppenheimer lying repeatedly about both the emails, China and the IPCC just made it look more likely.

    Advocates.

  46. Jeff Id said

    Oh yeah, don’t forget the big banner on SM in the image above. How does that seem?

  47. BraudRP said

    Unfortunately I have to agree with P Gosselin’s statement in #42.

    Steve’s and Horner’s lack of effective responses to some of Oppenheimer’s dubious claims (including his suggestion that ALL 2500 “scientists” participating in the latest IPCC report agreed with the UN conclusions) will mean that the average joes who saw this program will conclude that Oppenheimer won the debate.

  48. Jeff Id said

    LPS – Lies per second.

  49. P Gosselin said

    Jeff Id
    Ambush is what I posted some hours ago, and you’ve reached the same conclusion.
    http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/cnn/#comment-4079
    I don’t mean to say Steve is incompetent on TV – he did as well as anyone could in an ambush situation. It was a trap. Yet, I do have to question Steve’s judgement on deciding to appear on a climate sceptic hostile network. That puzzles me.

  50. P Gosselin said

    47
    Won it?
    It was a propoganda alley-oop CNN-to-Oppenheimer slam dunk!

  51. P Gosselin said

    If Steve and Horner had been successful, I’d have watched the clip 10 times. But instead it was tough to watch it to the end. (I only did so hoping Steve or Horner would maybe land a punch).

  52. Mike said

    I think some comments here are too negative. Steve did a fine job – if only just by not biting on the slander and sticking to the facts. He came across as a sincere, likable, level-headed person – much more so than Oppenheimer with this used cars salesman grin.

  53. Mike said

    Oh and one other thing. These “scientists”, by initially denying wholesale, will only subject themselves to a long, grinding retreat – much more damaging in the long run than coming clean immediately. If CNN wants to give them a hand with this strategy, it’s fine by me.

  54. alf said

    Kondealer:
    Thanks for the response. It just seems odd that a person who has done as much research as Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner should be ignored. I have listen to a number of interviewed scientists and they all without explanation state that sea levels are rising at alarming rates. What is with the science that Knowledgeable people would misrepresent the data? What is the real truth of the matter?

  55. Mike said

    #54

    see http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

  56. edward said

    Obama can commit to anything he wants at Copenhagen via the EPA as his enforcement mechanism. Wasn’t it a great idea to take the power to legislate from Congress and give it to an Agency?

    Obama is showing up at the end of the Conference to announce historic reductions in US CO2 emissions. Why do you think they already gave him the Nobel?

    Enjoy your SUV’s while you have them. You’ll all be driving Chinese made electric cars within 10 years.

  57. Kenneth Fritsch said

    While I would have watched the C Brown show if I had stumbled onto to it, I would certainly not go out of my way to watch it.

    Why do we have such great expectations that the “next” round of interviews (and on TV particularly) will reveal something, that those of us who pride ourselves in being reasonably well informed by digging through the facts of the matter has not, and do it in the MTV moment that the modern media presents. I think those of us who participate in blogging these days become even more frustrated with these shows in that we cannot ask more relevant questions – like one can in blogging.

    I guess my interest in a C Brown like show would be to put a personality, body and face with a persona that has become familiar through other venues such as blogging . Most of these shows are staged with an end product in mind and the interviews are rather incidental to that product – and it does not take a climate (or rocket) scientist to figure that out. Now if TV interview shows started using a blog format with a neutral moderator, I might become interested.

  58. Here’s Wegman in a similarly hostile situation as Steve McI.
    Also posted at camirror.
    TL

  59. Jim Steele said

    I think the problem and fraud and insanity needs to be clearly presented but wasn’t. Sorry Steve

    The battle’s focus is how to interpret the proxies’ suggestions for temperature preserved in nature. Mann’s proxies made a nice hockey stick but starting in the 60’s suggested temperatures had declined. That was in direct contradiction to our instrumental record. So now the dilemma and the only three possible roads to take.

    1) If the proxies don’t match temperatures from our recent and most accurate observations, then discard this proxy and all interpretations based upon it. That would be my choice. Throw out the hockey stick and look for better proxies.

    2) Conversely we could discard all our instrumental data, because it doesn’t match the proxies. That suggests our improved direct measuring systems are wrong. I think that would border on insanity, wouldn’t you? But it leaves us wondering why CRU actually deleted all their raw data pre 1980’s.

    3) We can believe that the proxies were reliable when constructing the hockey stick up to the 60’s, but then for some unknown reason the laws of nature reversed themselves, and now those very same proxies are no longer reliable. I think that choice would be equally insane wouldn’t you? But it does make a dramatic scary hockey stick. So that is what Mike Mann chose. He just hid the decline with his trick to make the proxies look reliable and then denied requests that would allow others to replicate his work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: