2
Feb
Feb
Nigel Lawson vs Bob Watson on C4 News (UK)
Channel 4 in the United Kingdom ran a story on climategate and then had on Nigel Lawson and Bob Watson in a debate. Watch them go at it.
H/T: It’s Fair Comment
Channel 4 in the United Kingdom ran a story on climategate and then had on Nigel Lawson and Bob Watson in a debate. Watch them go at it.
H/T: It’s Fair Comment
Nice vid, well spotted
They’re trying desperately to rehabilitate the UEA CRU now that Dr Pachauri is making the IPCC look more and more unsteady.
No matter what the result of the enquiry is, they can not invent them a new reputation.
Excellent discussion.
Bob Watson said: “We’ve look verry carefully to the full temperature record over the fifty to a hundred years. The only way we can explain that temperature increase is due to human activities.”
I think if it is the only way for him to explain the temperature record in regard to the past hundred years, he should better look at what has happend the past thousand years. How does he explain the past fast variation in the past? Sometimes the global temperature has risen up faster than they have in the 20th century. Look for a little bit perspective:
in french:
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/oceans.html#mino
or here in english
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
Ummm……Bob……can we say phony temperature data fast 3 times?
Lason kicked his cliche muttering butt. The constant appeal to authority is enough to trigger the gag reflex. Isn’t it just a little ironic that the old hippie greens have nothing better in their wrinkled bag of arguments than “trust us we’re the establishment” Well greenwieners we do not trust you on this anymore than we did on past occasions. I don’t know about others but the very liberal university I attended inoculated me for life against these scum. Yes scum.
Tom, I’m 56, I grew up in the SF Bay Area in the hippie heyday. You have it right (trust us we’re the establishment). Back in the day it was a bumper sticker with “Question Authority!” on it. Now when we question them, that is not the right thing to do! I refuse to be a braindead hypocrite like that. I may be an old fart, but I’m not stuck in my ways. An old dog can learn new tricks.
I too noticed him (and well the whole of alarmist group) making “argument from authority”. Anyone who has done any debating would know that such argument is nothing more than a fallacy.
Well done Nigel Lawson, 78 years strong and still genuinely caring for his country or maybe he is just debunking for the financial gain:). Bob Watson should learn to sneer less and reflect on the sins of the IPCC, they are going to come back to haunt him.
Bob Watson said: “We’ve looked very carefully to the full temperature record over the last fifty to a hundred years. The only way we can explain that temperature increase is due to human activities.
Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has pointed out many times, as have others I’m sure, this is argumentum ad ignorantiam. A classical logical fallacy that has no place in science. Just because they lack a sufficient imagination to think of some other cause does not show that it must therefore be caused by mankind.
Quite so.
Also – this points up the importance of the “hockey stick” in the debate. The Bob Watsons of this world could wheel that in to claim how “unusual” our present situation is. Of course a logical fallacy remains just that unless the form of the argument changes – but all the same the dramatic graph was so helpful to their “only way we can explain” mode of reasoning.
Perhaps all our Bob Watsons need to be sent to bed with Andrew Montford’s “Hockey Stick Illusion” as required reading.
Why is anyone still bothering with this nonsense ?
Do politicians get a kick out of humiliating themselves ?
“Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.
In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.”
You got thet – he finds NO INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. In that case man made (or any other CO2) CANNOT be responsible for Global Warming. It also debunks the theory of the greenhouse effect.
It is reported that warmists jumped all over Dr Knorr in a Galileo type operation and he then conceded that CO2 must be reduced, though for the life of me, I can’t imagine why.
We know that the IPCC and UEA CRU have problems with temperature records, but surely they checked the CO2 at least. If they can’t respond to this research, then the whole of the Global Warming argument is over and done with.
I can’t believe they have the audacity to defend any of it. Lord Nigel and Lord Monckton are like so many who speak out against this nonsense – they have no time for niceties.
Phil Jones and Dr. Pauchuri have blatantly lied, and need to be taken ruthlessly to task for these lies, for they are not owning up in the slightest. Keep up the heat, share petitions, etc., because complacency leaves us with business as usual, and we will watch in disbelief and horror as this absurd tax goes through even as people silently agree it’s probably unnecessary.
When did I wake up living in the movie “Brazil”?
They do not have audacity –they have fear that they have been found out compromising their training and ethics.They have coperated with their cronies- they want the Swiss Bank accouts safe.Their careers are stuffed.
The inconsistencies in the entire 2007 report are enough to force it to be abandoned and a new report put together by new people, All funding to such institutions should be withheld pending a new enquiry, all data should be available to any one wanting to see it, be they scientists or not, all current taxes based on climate change or global warming should be stopped until such science is proven that man made co2 emissions is the cause of the effect if any effect exists, and all or any of the so called scientists and any government people involved in the current report are found to be guilty of wrong doing, should be prosecuted and face full consequences of their actions. When all is said and done no other science would be given so much attention in light of it being so wrong, the only reason for the attention is money, and the amount they can make out of the worlds population.