James Cameron backs out of debate with climate-change skeptics

posted at 8:58 pm on August 23, 2010 by Allahpundit

Verrry curious. The excuse, I’m sure, will be that he didn’t want to “legitimize” skeptics by sharing a stage with them. But (a) it’s odd that that didn’t occur to him when he agreed to the debate initially, promising to “call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads,” and (b) given the sliding support for global-warming legislation in the western world, he’s almost uniquely positioned to turn the tide. If you want to convince Joe Public that skeptics are cranks, what better way than for the tool who directed “Avatar” to thrash them at a public debate? The media’s dying to see it happen, I promise. Why, we might even get MSNBC to interrupt live coverage.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to “a roundtable”. We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out…

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

A real shame. Would have been fun to watch the reaction to him calling skeptics “swine” to their faces, for once. Exit question: Forgive and forget? C’mon — he has important things to do this week!

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

guys like this …. hmmmm.

Cameron, that is.

BowHuntingTexas on August 24, 2010 at 12:23 AM

IIRC, Lord Monckton had invited Al Gore for a debate on global warming too. That didn’t happen either.
Cameron and Gore, hollywierd pu$$ies

macncheez on August 23, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Dam#….

It’s like all liberals are nothing but a group of pusillanimous.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postrock/moby.JPG

Baxter Greene on August 24, 2010 at 12:32 AM

Here ya go:

Avatards

justltl on August 24, 2010 at 12:41 AM

Cameron’s another preachy Hollywood airhead.

Fact is, though, he’s at a confab of drones. Some number of them can be counted on to misbehave, and even if the thing managed to go off sanely there’s nothing to be gained.

JEM on August 24, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but AP, your guess as to the presumed excuse for backing out of debate seems strikingly similar to stated reasons in the whole Intelligent Design arena.

In fact… seems like the left are very pre-occupied about “legitimizing” anything they differ with. Traditional marriage, conservative ideas in general, American exceptionalism…. the tea parties.

Pretty reflective of the cultural imperialism that comes with owning all the authoritative cultural institutions in the U.S.

Alexander on August 24, 2010 at 12:55 AM

As opposed to those who don’t know what they are talking about. After all anyone with a 10th grade edumacation can be a brain surgeon, you just need a bit of faith and some good old fashined elbow grease.

harry on August 23, 2010 at 9:23 PM

If we’re talking about science, then facts are determined by evidence, not by weighing the credentials of the experts on either side of the issue.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 24, 2010 at 1:25 AM

Typical liberal intellectual cowardice.

Army Brat on August 24, 2010 at 3:06 AM

Why should we care what a dealer in fantasy thinks, anyway?

OldEnglish on August 24, 2010 at 3:17 AM

ted c on August 23, 2010 at 9:36 PM

Sorry, Ted. Didn’t refresh.

OldEnglish on August 24, 2010 at 3:20 AM

I’m sure he’s very busy directing other silly cartoons.

Just like David Axelrod.

NoDonkey on August 24, 2010 at 4:08 AM

I am sure someone else has already asked this…but if the Na’vi is the ideal society, then why doesn’t Jimmy give up his material goods put on a loin cloth and move into a tree?

lwssdd on August 24, 2010 at 6:23 AM

lwssdd on August 24, 2010 at 6:23 AM

You actually expect liberals to lead by example?

Now you’re being unreasonable.

Being liberal is about talking the talk, not walking the walk.

They have brilliant ideas they hold dear on how YOU should live.

How they live is their own private bidness, you see.

NoDonkey on August 24, 2010 at 6:39 AM

We don’t need a debate. The climate is speaking for itself.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 6:40 AM

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 6:40 AM

The fact the GW data had to be faked to come out the way they wanted it says a great deal also.

dogsoldier on August 24, 2010 at 6:44 AM

NoDonkey on August 24, 2010 at 6:39 AM

I must have forgotten myself
I should know better than to expect a dem to live by their own rules. I think we should call it ‘Demo-astocracy’. Anyone who is not a Democrat is not smart enough to be accountable for their own decissions. We need the dems to tell us what tree we are aloud to live in.

lwssdd on August 24, 2010 at 6:58 AM

lwssdd on August 24, 2010 at 6:58 AM

Liberals are our modern-day aristocrats.

They rule by divine right as they have been chosen by Harvard, Yale or some other highly overrated university.

It’s not for the common man to question them. To do so is impertinent. We do not “know our place”.

They fancy themselves benevolent dictators who know what’s best for us and it’s time we all just STFU and let them order us about.

And we would, if we only knew what’s best for us and didn’t listen to evil-mongering racists artificially ginning us up.

NoDonkey on August 24, 2010 at 7:12 AM

We don’t need a debate. The climate is speaking for itself.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 6:40 AM

Yes Ms. Ancedotal summers are hot. Don’t get upset when someone points out that winters are cold.

CWforFreedom on August 24, 2010 at 7:21 AM

I sense a House Committee on Climate Change Denial coming up.

“Have you ever denied the happenstance of anthropogenic global warming?”

Yes, kids, McCarthyism isn’t dead yet. Soon there will be a Hollywood blacklist too. What a farcical age we live in.

KillerKane on August 24, 2010 at 7:44 AM

I wouldn’t expect anything more out of today’s leftist Democrat trash.

MNHawk on August 24, 2010 at 7:50 AM

I heard that Cameron is too busy because he is shooting 3D Version of Sense and Sensibilities.

kregg on August 24, 2010 at 7:53 AM

We don’t need a debate. The climate is speaking for itself.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 6:40 AM

oakland is a climate hypochondriac.

darwin on August 24, 2010 at 7:54 AM

The guy is a massive fraud.
Remember the Obama quickly grabing him to spearhead the BP oil catastrophy? He lasted 20 min w/ the BP engineers, allPhDs in engineering and physics.
He left saying they didn’t know what the F*** they were doing.
truth is, he didn’t know what te F*** he was doing in the same room as people who actually make the stuff with which he plays and garners enormous wealth.
Jerk!!

gonnjos on August 24, 2010 at 8:05 AM

If we’re talking about science, then facts are determined by evidence, not by weighing the credentials of the experts on either side of the issue.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 24, 2010 at 1:25 AM

+100
If you can understand the scientific method, then ANYONE intelligent enough can read another person’t research method, analyze their data, & make their own conclusion.
ANYONE with these few qualities can make a decent interpretation whne everything is laid out upon the table.
Now I wouldn’t want those people necessarily doing the research, but anyone especially with a BS in ANY science, or even a few college science classes, can generally interpret a scientist’s work.
If you have to make something so compicated that a person with average intelligence can’t make heads nor tails about, then you are probably hiding something.
Lawyers & judges do this all time.
Tellling us we’re too stupid to get what the Constitution says bcs we’re not lawyers.

Badger40 on August 24, 2010 at 8:21 AM

The brave cameron ran away..

the_nile on August 24, 2010 at 8:22 AM

“Cameron was probably learned the science while he was preparing for the debate.
…”
blink on August 24, 2010 at 12:49 AM

I think this is the reason. Anyone that looks at the science realizes that Anthropogenic Climate change is no where near ‘settled science.’ It is certainly possible, but to call it probable or definite is an outrageous lie, it is a maybe. A theory. A Possibility. There are no weather models that match up with empiracle data, and in the end, science without supporting evidence isn’t science, it’s voodoo magic.

I think Cameron realized he’d be going into a gunfight with a rubber band and he ran.

WashingtonsWake on August 24, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Nice to see us standing up to them, rather than the usual cowering. Bravo, Andrew Breitbart et al.

Not evil just wrong. Not just wrong, but also evil. As evil as fraud itself.

petefrt on August 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM

Brave, brave, Sir Cameron.

teacherman on August 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM

For guys like CAmeron and Gore, and whoever else, it has never been about the facts, it has always been about the emotion. You cannot debate your feelings and deep down they know this.

That is why Gore will not ever run for office again, because he will be forced to debate global warming in a debate and not only lose an election, but a multimillion dollar carbon credit scam.

jeffn21 on August 24, 2010 at 8:43 AM

I wonder if all Cameron’s earlier demands were attempts to find a demand that his opponents would refuse, so that he could blame them for the debate not happening.

Steven Den Beste on August 23, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Of course they were. I could tell that by halfway through the list of changes.

Unfortunately for moronic libs, people with the truth aren’t wusses. Although it just goes to show that if they really had any solid evidence at all they shouldn’t need to make any special demands and just concentrate on making their points.

MobileVideoEngineer on August 24, 2010 at 8:45 AM

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet, but AP, your guess as to the presumed excuse for backing out of debate seems strikingly similar to stated reasons in the whole Intelligent Design arena.

Alexander on August 24, 2010 at 12:55 AM

I thought the same thing.

shick on August 24, 2010 at 9:04 AM

Everything to do with Global Warming is for one reason only. To subjugate American Sovereignty to the U.N. global government that Obamalinsky so desperately wants. The biggest group in control at the U.N. is the OIC, the collective states in Muslim hands.

Hmmmmm….President Obama visited 57 states during his ’08 campaign. Everyone laughed at how stupid he was for that. I wonder if it was just a slip up, good thing he didn’t mention that the OIC has 57 Muslim countries in their special club. This guy is a Jihadist in the White House. I hope Darrell Issa will go after him after the Dems are evicted in November. I think trying to destroy the Republic would be grounds for impeachment…..

adamsmith on August 24, 2010 at 9:12 AM

Incompetent cowards usually will find a way to escape the corner they put themselves into. Being intellectually bankrupt becomes obvious when the cameras are rolling. At least Cameron has proven even he is not too stupid to know that.

volsense on August 24, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Winning headline at Climate Depot:

From King of the World to Chicken of the Sea: Director James Cameron challenges climate skeptics to debate and then bails out at last minute

petefrt on August 24, 2010 at 9:23 AM

Run away!! Run away!!!

Jeffersonian on August 24, 2010 at 9:29 AM

34 degrees in the great NW this morning. Had to turn on the furnace. Say, isn’t he the guy who plugged the hole?

Kissmygrits on August 24, 2010 at 9:38 AM

He discovered that evidence for Global Warming was Unobtainium.

Steve Z on August 24, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Let’s see; James Cameron:
.
– Used the plot from “Duck Dodgers in the 24-1/2 Century” for his magnum opus;
.
– Identified his victims (the Navi) as such by making them users of colloidal silver (or a Ty-D-Bowl experiment gone horribly wrong, not sure which);
.
– has apparently done only one original movie in his life, the rest being re-makes;
.
– dropped out of Fullerton College, a 2-year community college, in 1974 ……
.
.
With such credentials, why is anyone surprised that there is no debate?
.

Arbalest on August 24, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Everything to do with Global Warming is for one reason only. To subjugate American Sovereignty to the U.N. global government that Obamalinsky so desperately wants. The biggest group in control at the U.N. is the OIC, the collective states in Muslim hands.

adamsmith on August 24, 2010 at 9:12 AM

There is another reason you missed: GRANT MONEY. Most of these Global Warming Researchers get the money to do their research from government grants (you know our money). This way they really don’t have to produce anything other then speculation and can still afford a Porsche.

Tommy_G on August 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM

“Exit question: Forgive and forget? C’mon — he has important things to do this week!”

Ha. He’ll be back. He’s probably working a new movie where ACGW’ers kick the cr$p out of Deniers in a debate so Cameron can tootle around doing a victory dance, chanting, “We won!”

As Thomas Homer-Dixon would say, it’s “easy to imagine …”

Dusty on August 24, 2010 at 10:17 AM

If you have to make something so compicated that a person with average intelligence can’t make heads nor tails about, then you are probably hiding something

Badger – what area of scientific study isn’t “complicated”?

The person with “average intelligence” cannot fathom the immense complexity of the convective, conductive and radiative heat interactions between the sun and the various components of the earth’s composition (ocean, land, atmosphere).

The fact the GW data had to be faked to come out the way they wanted it says a great deal also.

dogsoldier on August 24, 2010 at 6:44 AM

To claim that data are “faked” would imply that the “real” data are out there somewhere, and can be compared to the “faked” data. I wonder who will publish this “real” data, and when.
However, the basics are simple, and have been known for many decades. Greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) tend to hold on to heat longer than oxygen and nitrogen. The greater the quantity of these gases in the atmosphere, the longer it takes heat to transmit back out into space.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Cameron’s climate debate cop-out caught on tape.

The Zoo Keeper on August 24, 2010 at 10:28 AM

FINALLY watched his stupid Oscar-flop movie on Netflix.

Cameron’s a pompous imbecile along with the MFM presuming that gimmicks amount to anything but B-ratings. Worst movie ever? No. Best movie ever? No. Predictable? Yes.

maverick muse on August 24, 2010 at 10:47 AM

There is another reason you missed: GRANT MONEY. Most of these Global Warming Researchers get the money to do their research from government grants (you know our money). This way they really don’t have to produce anything other then speculation and can still afford a Porsche.

Tommy_G on August 24, 2010 at 10:14 AM

I take it, then, that you don’t trust any scientists who gets government money. Why not distrust all scientists, then; they all take money.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Cameron’s strictly a rider on the global warming hoax bandwagon. So long as everyone’s on board the Algorical, he’s comfortable as “prophetic spokesman for profit”. But he cringes under critique, melting under empirical scrutiny.

maverick muse on August 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM

To claim that data are “faked” would imply that the “real” data are out there somewhere, and can be compared to the “faked” data. I wonder who will publish this “real” data, and when.
However, the basics are simple, and have been known for many decades. Greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) tend to hold on to heat longer than oxygen and nitrogen. The greater the quantity of these gases in the atmosphere, the longer it takes heat to transmit back out into space.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Look, people have been around the block with you countless times. Evidence has been shown to you and you ignore it and continue with your climate hysteria crusade.

You believe what you want, we’ll just stick to the facts.

darwin on August 24, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Some of America’s leading scientists are now openly organizing a challenge to Global Warming Theologians, such as Cameron. Perhaps he got wind of it, and needed to brush up on real science!

Mutnodjmet on August 24, 2010 at 10:57 AM

I take it, then, that you don’t trust any scientists who gets government money. Why not distrust all scientists, then; they all take money.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Good point, let’s distrust them all unless they can prove otherwise.

darwin on August 24, 2010 at 10:57 AM

You believe what you want, we’ll just stick to the facts.

Please, show me those “facts”.

Good point, let’s distrust them all unless they can prove otherwise.

So, what constitutes “proof” in your mind?

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 10:50 AM

Why fork out any tax funds out of “trust” in a dogma because it has support from corrupt sources intent on fraud?

Dogmas need no verification. Indeed, they can not stand up to scrutiny. A fool trusts in dogma. And fraudsters exploit dogmas for profit.

Not all research verifies empirical science. Not all scientific work is based upon empirical research. “Science” as a label is exploited according to its sponsors’ edicts. Gore’s “Global Warming” is whole cloth false science.

I don’t want to pay taxes to support false science. It isn’t as if Global Warming hucksters didn’t know they were wrong. But you would redeem them in the name of “science” covering fraud for profiteering power with the “right” to tax for funds necessary to monopolize global authoritarian power.

maverick muse on August 24, 2010 at 11:03 AM

So, what constitutes “proof” in your mind?

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

I’m not playing. You’re either a paid climate troll or true hysterical fanatic that closes your eyes to everything that’s been happening to your vaunted climate gods and their “evidence”.

Best you just believe what you want and leave the rest to us and honest scientists who don’t mind people reviewing their work.

darwin on August 24, 2010 at 11:06 AM

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

For starters, link to American Thinker that exposed the fraudulent “scientific” Global Warming “research” propaganda.

Lord Monckton references everything. He even directed everything in sheer clarity of John McCain, too dense a politician to rely on veracity. Go figure.

maverick muse on August 24, 2010 at 11:08 AM

So, what constitutes “proof” in your mind?

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Scientific study, with emperical data and results, the data of which is released in its raw form so that others can review and analyze it and see if the results from the empirical study can be replicated.

None of the above has been done by any “scientist” in the various global warming claims. All of the raw data relied upon by almost every single global warming alarmist comes from CRU, which has “lost” all of the raw data.

the fact that you claim to believe in science but push this nonsense is ridiculous. Either you don’t know what science is, or you are completely dishonest.

Monkeytoe on August 24, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Maybe now he’ll have more time to prove that Jesus didn’t exist

greggriffith on August 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM

Heh.

I’d forgotten about that travesty of “scholarship” known as “The Jesus Tombs.”

They really got spanked hard by the REAL experts on that one.

You would have thought he’d have learned from that experience not to wander into areas that are over his “pay grade”.

Religious_Zealot on August 24, 2010 at 11:10 AM

oakland – the problem is that neither can the climate scientists.

They postulate something is happening, but their ability to model all the solar, ocean, etc. interactions is limited.

So they just leave them out, or make assumptions.

When their model results do not correspond to what’s been observed in the real world, they ‘adjust’ the historical data to conform to the model. So we have large swaths of the world where actual, measured ‘historical’ temperature from the 1850s to 1960 has been fudged downward very significantly. And, of course, in geologic terms 160 years is about one gnat’s eyelash on the historical timeline anyway.

We know the world has been considerably warmer within human history – Greenland was farmland in the Viking days, and we have historical records of ships sailing well within the Arctic Circle a hundred-plus years ago.

Fact: we have to start over. We need an open, reliable temperature dataset where no one is making sub-rosa ‘adjustments’.

That’s step one, but until we can at least get agreement on that, we will have nothing.

JEM on August 24, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Gore’s “Global Warming” is whole cloth false science.

Try to ignore Gore. Stick to the science rather than Gore’s hype.

Best you just believe what you want and leave the rest to us and honest scientists who don’t mind people reviewing their work.

I see. The only “honest” scientists are those who have proof of no AGW (?). Like I say, I’m all ears. Just point me to them.

Lord Monckton references everything.

Ah yes, Monckton. Didn’t he claim to be a member of Parliament? To have a cure for AIDS? To have won a “Nobel Prize”? I’m sure he references everything, and just about all he has asserted has been roundly debunked. If you object to Gore (which I also do), why do you listen to Monckton; he is just as much the fraud.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:15 AM

All of the raw data relied upon by almost every single global warming alarmist comes from CRU, which has “lost” all of the raw data.

I would suggest a wider reading of the literature.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Like I say, I’m all ears. Just point me to them.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:15 AM

No you’re not. People have pointed you to them. Face it, you simply don’t believe anything unless it says what you want it say.

darwin on August 24, 2010 at 11:20 AM

They postulate something is happening, but their ability to model all the solar, ocean, etc. interactions is limited.

So they just leave them out, or make assumptions.

What science isn’t “limited”? Assumptions are very important to the scientific method, and are known as “postulates”.

We know the world has been considerably warmer within human history – Greenland was farmland in the Viking days, and we have historical records of ships sailing well within the Arctic Circle a hundred-plus years ago.”

If any of this is true, so what?

Also, equating what might have been happening in Greenland with what was going on globally at that time is problematic in the extreme.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:22 AM

How come all celebtards are experts on climate change?

Akzed on August 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Maybe he’s to busy emulating Gore, and making the moves on a massuese in a hotel room somewhere?

capejasmine on August 24, 2010 at 11:25 AM

So, what constitutes “proof” in your mind?
oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM

Read it and weep, ya catamite.

Akzed on August 24, 2010 at 11:26 AM

No you’re not. People have pointed you to them. Face it, you simply don’t believe anything unless it says what you want it say

I have read more literature that would be considered as denialist than I have read in support of AGW, and that would be quite a large volume. I have read what people on this site have “pointed” me to, and precious little of it is based on scientific methodology, and is of little conclusive value.

I think that it all boils down to a matter of trust. In whom does one put one’s faith? I have studied AGW issues for forty years now (and, yes, it was an issue even in the 70s). I have read technical literature that either supports or refutes AGW theory. The vast majority of scientific based work in the area of climate supports the assertion that humans are playing a major role in climate change. As I feel that most scientists are competent and honest (including those in my family), I have little reason to doubt that they are doing their work well.

I respect your decision not to trust such scientists and their work. I know that you respect my inclinations as well. We will just agree to disagree.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:30 AM

If we’re talking about implicit trust of people with post graduate degrees, let me just throw three names for you -

Barack Obama
Michael Mann (PhD)
Deb Frisch (PhD)

There are many more.

I’d like to implicitly trust people who are educated, but there does not appear to be any correlation between education and morality (or even education and intelligence).

Thus it is always a good thing to be a little cynical about science.

Religious_Zealot on August 24, 2010 at 11:44 AM

Does Cameron actually have any expertise in climate science? I didn’t think so…

zoyclem on August 24, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Angry villagers drive ManBearPig out of town.

Jerricho68 on August 24, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I think that it all boils down to a matter of trust. In whom does one put one’s faith? I have studied AGW issues for forty years now (and, yes, it was an issue even in the 70s). I have read technical literature that either supports or refutes AGW theory. The vast majority of scientific based work in the area of climate supports the assertion that humans are playing a major role in climate change. As I feel that most scientists are competent and honest (including those in my family), I have little reason to doubt that they are doing their work well.

Once again – point to an empirical study supporting AGW that has released its raw data to anyone who asked for it and that such raw data supports the study’s conclusion. It doesn’t exist.

You can talk about the competency of “scientists” – a term we will have to leave for definition to later, as many AGW scientists are not scientists in the traditional meannig of the word, having no scientific background or degree in anything remotely relevant – but that is a statement of pure faith – not science.

You can talk about the “honesty” of these “scientists” – but again, that is an argument based on faith, not science.

Thus, your very argument refutes that your opinions ni this matter have anything to do with science.

You assert 1) to having read more and for a longer periof of time than us (again, an argument wherein you are appealing to alleged “expertise” not scientific studies or results);

You assert that you believe the AGW proponents are “honest” – an argument to your faith in those you agree with, not science;

You assert that you believe that AGW proponents are “competent” – an argument to your faith in those you agree with – not science.

where exactly, in your mind , does science play any role in your faith in AGW?

Why is it so difficult to link to a study that proves scientifically that AGW is real, with the raw data relied upon for the study available for us to review? You, and any other AGW proponent, simply refuse to do this. Instead you again and again talk about “consensus” and “competence” and “honesty” and how much you have read, etc., etc., etc.

Yet you never cite any actual, you know, science. You cite to magazine articles that quote “scientists” who agree with what you say. that is not citing to a scientific study with raw data that we can analyze.

You cite to computer models. I can create a computer model that says I am 20 feet tall and look like George Cloony. Taht is not science.

What you fail to do is cite to any actual science. YOu use the word science quite often. I’m not sure you know what it means.

Monkeytoe on August 24, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I think that it all boils down to a matter of trust. In whom does one put one’s faith? I have studied AGW issues for forty years now (and, yes, it was an issue even in the 70s).

Also, there was no AGW issue in the 70s. In the 70s liberal scientific consensus was that we were going to have the next ice age. I’m sure you believed whole heartedly in that as well.

Monkeytoe on August 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM

To claim that data are “faked” would imply that the “real” data are out there somewhere, and can be compared to the “faked” data. I wonder who will publish this “real” data, and when.

However, the basics are simple, and have been known for many decades. Greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) tend to hold on to heat longer than oxygen and nitrogen. The greater the quantity of these gases in the atmosphere, the longer it takes heat to transmit back out into space.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 10:27 AM

If you followed the data stories, you would know that the original data was destroyed after modification, so that it couldn’t be examined to understand their modifications. This is considered FRAUD in the scientific community.

If you stick to the basics, of course it looks simple. Because you are extrapolating a simple variable into a multi-variable equation. It’s the same approach that liberals do with taxes and the economy. They ASSUME that when raising taxes, it only increases revenue collected and does not change the equation with how the economy is working. From observations, we know that business react to changing tax levels, and that revenues can decrease from an increase in taxes.

In the Global Warming equation, here are some missing variables, conveniently ignored by liberals…

1) The green house gasses listed by liberals almost ALWAYS ignore water vapor, even though over 97% of heat retention is due to water vapor, not carbon dioxide or methane. Those are tiny percents compared to the overall system.

2) Increases in carbon dioxide are scientifically proven to increase growth rates in plants. Increased growth rates in plants consume more carbon dioxide, and the environmental system tends to return to a stable state.

3) If you compare cyclic temperatures with solar cycles, you get a much stronger argument than with AGW. We have hundreds of years of solar cycle and temperature observations, and can see demonstrated relationship.

4) Liberals point to ice core carbon dioxide levels to attempt to create a historical chart related to temperature readings… but have not made the case that carbon dioxide is a cause, instead of result, of warming cycles.

dominigan on August 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM

I have read what people on this site have “pointed” me to, and precious little of it is based on scientific methodology, and is of little conclusive value.

You’re a hack, idiot and liar. Take your crap somewhere else.

darwin on August 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM

I think that it all boils down to a matter of trust. In whom does one put one’s faith? I have studied AGW issues for forty years now (and, yes, it was an issue even in the 70s). I have read technical literature that either supports or refutes AGW theory. The vast majority of scientific based work in the area of climate supports the assertion that humans are playing a major role in climate change.

And I live in reality. When researchers receive grants to find causation in AGW, “scientific results” tend to lean in that direction…

…because humans are by nature, greedy and immoral creatures, condemned through original sin.

“Scientists” are human.

If grants were given out to AGW dissenters also, you might have a case. But based on my observations on human nature, I have no faith in your assertion.

dominigan on August 24, 2010 at 12:28 PM

As I feel that most scientists are competent and honest (including those in my family), I have little reason to doubt that they are doing their work well.

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Well that is part of your problem oakland. My wife is now fully involved in the scum that is academia and the petty backstabbing and fraud that goes on simply to secure very profitable grants for universities is disgusting. Every university should be investigated in my opinion for the horrendous waste of taxpayer money they have exploited from the government.

So you have family that profits from this myth. I can understand wanting to defend family, but you are going to impose hardships on my family with this snake oil.

Simply look at all the scumbag leftists that are lining up to enrich themselves by creating a “carbon commodities” market. People like yourself are enabling them.

ClassicCon on August 24, 2010 at 12:38 PM

Heh. Cameron ran away huh? Out ‘chasing the blue monkey’ perhaps? Funny how cocksure the global warming people are on camera when nobody is around to respond to them directly. Keep f**king that chickenblue monkey, Jim.

austinnelly on August 24, 2010 at 12:46 PM

oakland on August 24, 2010 at 11:17 AM

I personally believe the earth is constantly changing. Now…whether one believes in global warming, or not….the bottom line is…what makes anyone think that buying solar panels, electric cars, special light bulbs, and spend an amount on heating, and cooling to a point no one can afford it will change anything? Can we stop this? I don’t think we can. It’s mother nature doing what she does.

We can’t stop it if it’s doom and gloom, anymore than the dinosaurs could. And in the end, man will end up destroying man long before gw does.

capejasmine on August 24, 2010 at 12:58 PM

And now, Morano’s claiming that Cameron’s spokesman said that for Cameron to debate him, Breitbart et al would be beneath him.

Oh my, Cameron steps in the Hollywood-elitist poopoo right up to his ankle.

A man of minimal formal education and no academic credentials, who’s made himself a buttload of money making pretty pictures of other peoples’ stories?

Scumbag.

JEM on August 24, 2010 at 1:41 PM

The climate is speaking for itself.

You mean, changing like ALWAYS has? Unless you think the Earth is the same as it is now as it was before we humans even walked upon it.

Has the Earth only ever had ONE STATE of climate? Surely it must have if I’m to believe in any of this. Otherwise, change is the key word here.

Sharr on August 24, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Some general rules of thumb:

- if they refuse to discuss/debate the matter with you, that’s because they know they’re wrong

- if a scientist refuses to show you the raw data (or “accidentally” destroys the data), that’s because the results are fraudulent and they are trying to hide that from you.

Religious_Zealot on August 24, 2010 at 3:23 PM

James Cameron speaking = global warming problem.

hawksruleva on August 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Much of what is taught in our science classrooms is science philosophy rather than theory that is based on reproducible empirical data and results. It would probably be useful and instructive to separate these two types of science, so that students could clearly see the difference. Too many modern scientists engage in gross extrapolation and manipulation of data and computer simulations to “prove” their pet scientific philosophies. This is what used to be called “bad science” by most reputable scientists. In realty, our academic scientists are not actually opposed to teaching scientific philosophies that have shoddy of no empirical backing. They are simply opposed to teaching scientific philosophies that they disagree with (e.g., Intelligent Design). I find this type of scientific hypocrisy to be disturbing and lacking in the scientific method. Open scientific philosophical discourse is a healthy and essential part of science. Whenever such discourse is closed down by scientific, religious, political, or any other types of zealots, it limits the creative processes that feed new ideas and innovations. Unfortunately, many current academic scientists have become the modern-day equivalent of the Catholic Church in their crusade against any philosophy that they don’t like or agree with. I look forward to the day when the current scientific dark-ages will give way to honest and open dialog rather than tactics that amount to burning scientific witches.

NuclearPhysicist on August 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Of course James Cameron is an authority on science because he’s been a hip hop science fiction producer/director for years. I’m soooo excited to hear this one man’s opinion on the subject, since he’s soooo qualified.

Rovin on August 23, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Kind of sounds like all the ‘experts’ up on crapitol hill – getting elected to congress = eating the fruit of knowledge

TheVer on August 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM

The electric space heater under my desk is pumping heat on my legs as I type. Man made global warming? Tell me about it, losers.

petefrt on August 24, 2010 at 8:51 PM

NuclearPhysicist on August 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Excellent points. I’m a doctoral student (working in marketing and analysis) which requires a masters in statistics, and the danger of “post-hoc” theorizing is rampant in a lot of the studies on global warming, where the data is collected and a theory is proposed. That’s not how scientific study is done. Theory development comes first, then collection of data which either supports or fails to support the hypothesis. Without a valid theoretical structure, data can be used to prove any point. Good science starts with good theory, and it seems like in this case it’s lacking.

itsspideyman on August 24, 2010 at 11:35 PM

From hence forth, it should be referred to as “Cameron-Caused Global Warming”. The guy has a carbon footprint the size of Luxembourg.

The Zoo Keeper on August 25, 2010 at 10:13 AM

oakland-
Everyone here is correct. You have been found to be wanting.
Facts & evidence could hit you right on the bean & you would continue to spout your rhetoric.
One nugget-CO2 has never been proven or disproven to influence atmospheric temperatures.
No one has been able to prove or disprove this hypothesis.
But there is evidence pointing to the hypothesis that CO2 is influenced BY temperature.
So there you have it.
Go read up on this by buying some subscriptions to various research mags & actually go through & discover the actual experimentation set-ups that were used.
And you already shot yourself in the butt by claiming science is ‘complicated’ & then go on to simplify global temperature mechanisms by stating CO2 & greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.
You are so full of crap you’re eyes are brown.

Badger40 on August 25, 2010 at 2:17 PM

Your eyes.
And yes-they are nasty.

Badger40 on August 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM

I look forward to the day when the current scientific dark-ages will give way to honest and open dialog rather than tactics that amount to burning scientific witches.

NuclearPhysicist on August 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Well said.
I make it a huge point in my 9-12 HS science classes.
I take lots of time throughoutthe year to review the scientific method & how it should be applied.
Too many of today’s people like to take short-cuts when it suits them.
So many disciplines in science have been hijacked by greedy attention seekers & morons.
The real scientists need to start speaking louder.

Badger40 on August 25, 2010 at 2:21 PM

He discovered that evidence for Global Warming was Unobtainium.

Steve Z on August 24, 2010 at 9:52 AM

+10

Johnny 100 Pesos on August 25, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Oakland, without dealing with the actual arguments against man made global warming (others have done a great job there), I admit to distrusting the climate activists. Some of the reason is because I have a pretty good radar that detects when the cause is political but masked as scientific.

1: There is a lot of money to be had in promoting this stuff. Grants for scientists (with funds drying up if they publish evidence contrary to MMGW), carbon credit trading (which are stocks in nonexistent products), promotion of green technologies (as an example, if you buy a Volt, the US taxpayer pays almost as much as you do in subsidies… there is no way this car would have been built if created strictly on market needs), and so on. The disturbing thing about this is that these funds mostly come from taxpayers.

2: If I am right, and there is a lot of money to be had in this, then you can expect to see things like alarmism, exaggeration of the facts, manipulated data, sidelining of sceptics, scientific dogmatism, the hiding or masking of contrary evidence, scorn on sceptics, appeals to authority rather than a careful consideration of evidence, promoters who resort to underhanded tactics for the “greater good”, and so on. And guess what, all of these things are on display by the “true believers” of global warming!

3: The solution to this seems to be government control, and even a global authority (as suggested in Copenhagen Conference) to regulate all industry. This no doubt thrills socialists and other enemies of prosperity, but is worrisome to those who believe that governments are best when limited.

4: Because of the above, global warming has become the pet cause of many socialists who want to see the growth of government regulation and control over business. I suspect that they are not so much impressed by the arguments for global warming as they are warmed by how the solutions suggested furthers their cause. No doubt you have heard the alarmists referred to as watermelons: green on the outside and red on the inside. This also may explain why those who embrace this cause whole-heartedly tend to be on the left, and those with reservations tend to be on the right.

5: Of course many politicians and bureaucrats are also cheered by how fighting this “menace” increases their authority.

6: By concentrating on battling things like carbon dioxide, whose increase in our atmosphere is actually beneficial, they are ignoring real problems of pollution. Once again, I suspect that they prefer chasing imaginary monsters because it increases their wealth and authority and furthers their political cause… there is less benefit in actual environmentalism than there is in the fake environmentalism of fighting global warming.

7: I do not accuse most believers and promoters of man-made global warming alarmism of being dishonest. But we all know how one can justify any cause, especially if it is of personal benefit to him, and even believe those justifications. He might even do underhanded things “for the greater good”, and see his cause as so righteous, that the end justifies the means. After all, what’s a little exaggeration when the fate of the planet is at stake! Unfortunately, this does nothing to improve the credibility of the promoters of this cause.

Johnny 100 Pesos on August 25, 2010 at 5:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2