Global Warming Debate - Philip Stott, part 6 of 10

Search Tags:

Categories:

Global Warming Debate - Philip Stott, part 6 of 10

Uploaded by: blackghost76
Video Description:
The goal of IQ2 US is to raise the level of public discourse on our most challenging issues. To provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis. To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological. To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views. To engage the live audience as active participants who will ask questions and decide which speakers have carried the day by voting on the motions both before and after the debate.

Tags for this video: brian climate crisis debate global intelligence IQ2 lehrer philip skeptics squared stott warming wnyc

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by blackghost76

Related Videos

Global Warming Debate - Richard Lindzen, part 2 of 10	Global Warming Debate - Michael Crichton, part 4 of 10	Global Warming Debate - Gavin Schmidt, part 5 of 10

SOAS Professor: 'Global warming is a myth'	Global Warming Debate - Q & A 1, part 8 of 10	Al Gore Debates Global Warming

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

Although I did ... ( 10 months ago by justtex1975)

Although I did enjoy seeing & hearing this debate again, sadly, for some unknown reason, blackghost76 chose not to post the last & most important segment of the debate, showing that Dr.s Linzen, Crichton & Stott had won the debate over the warminista alarmist. To hear the ENTIRE 93 minute debate, go to NPR & search "Lindzen". Be sure to scroll down & choose "Hear the full debate".

Ummm, what part of ... ( 10 months ago by esdel1955)

Ummm, what part of "climate ALWAYS changes" don't you get?

Simply stating that ... ( 10 months ago by art1vand3lay)

Simply stating that climate always changes does not effectively show that anthropogenic global warming is not a crisis. Yes, changes in Earth's orbit and solar intensity have significantly altered climate in the past, and will in the future, but it is clear that these factors are not responsible for the current warming trend. The earth and its species have adapted to climate chagne in the past, but human adaptations involved things like mass migrations, which would not be very realistic today.

First of all, the ... ( 10 months ago by esdel1955)

First of all, the data indicate a relatively stable climate over the past 10 years. Still, climate is a hugely complex, ever-changing system. Even if man-made GW is true and we manage to control it, the natural process of climate change will continue. Who knows, a natural cooling trend may come along and we'll wish we had kept pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. There's no way to control such a chaotic system or to know the ultimate consequences of any action we may take or fail to take.

Art1van3lay: Relax ... ( 10 months ago by banzaidawan)

Art1van3lay: Relax. The last Ice Age only ended 8000 years ago. Climate change and the rise and fall of sea level is the NORM in earth history.

Your statement ... ( 10 months ago by art1vand3lay)

Your statement about recent temperature stability is in direct opposition with instrumental data. Because '98 was so hot because of the El Nino, you may interpret it as appearing stable, but a noticeble increase is evident from 2000 onward. However, trends in temperature variablity over short periods of time, such as a few years, come with great uncertainty. Longer periods of time, such as 25 years, clearly show a rising temperature.

Part 2 - The ... ( 10 months ago by art1vand3lay)

Part 2 - The climate is indeed complex, but uncertainty is not a result of lack of knowlegde of factors which drive climate - I described some of these eariler - but a result of the complexity of these factors themselves. We know what natural factors cause climate change, and generally what we can expect from their behavior, but not exactly. Therefore, it is unlikely that some previously unknown factor will suddenly cause a cooling trend.

Yes, but you really ... ( 10 months ago by art1vand3lay)

Yes, but you really have not said anything I have not already addressed. Climate change today matters more than in the past, since populations of 6 billion are NOT the norm thorughout history. With more people depending on the Earth's land and resources than ever before, adapting to climate change today would be considerably more difficult than 8,000 years ago.

Where did you get ... ( 10 months ago by esdel1955)

Where did you get that I was saying that some unknown factor may cause a cooling trend? I simply said that WHATEVER factors cause climate change will continue to exist and may or may not drive the temps higher or lower, regardless of what man does.

You speak as if we ... ( 10 months ago by art1vand3lay)

You speak as if we know absolutly nothing about the climate and what external factors affect it. In fact, the natural factors which are known to drive climate change are fairly well understood, and we can make reasonably accurate predictions. For example, the next ice age to result from the Milankovitch cycles will not be for another 50,000 years.

And you speak as if ... ( 10 months ago by esdel1955)

And you speak as if we know far too much. Tell you what: 50,000 years from now, if you turn out to be right, I'll concede your point.

Climate change only ... ( 10 months ago by Gwynne66)

Climate change only "matters" if there is evidence to support the allegation that human activity is the primary *cause* of the change. There is not only no evidence to support this hypothesis but singificant evidence that explicitly refutes it. The changes we have seen over the last century are well within the range of natural variation and changes in solar activity are most likely the cause of these changes.

Wow. Tell me one ... ( 10 months ago by art1vand3lay)

Wow. Tell me one article in a peer-reveiwed science journal which supports your claims.

There are a great ... ( 10 months ago by Gwynne66)

There are a great many. Look for names like Svensmark, Friis-Christensen, Shaviv, Ian Clark, Jaworowski, Lindzen, John Christy, Baliunas, Veizer, etc., etc.
Those are just a handful of the more prominent names.
There are literally thousands of reputable scientists from all over the world who laugh in the fact of the ignorant alarmism being spread by people like Al Gore.

I agree with the ... ( 10 months ago by joebogarde)

I agree with the discussion of consensus. The majority of people can be wrong. Don't forget the principle of GIGO.
I remember motivational speakers coming to my school, saying: "Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice makes perfect."
The majority of people are misinformed by their ideologies, or even their religions. Why should science be different?

im really ... ( 9 months ago by ablytan)

im really disappointed at the quality of he arguments. shouldnt the point of discussion be (1) is c02 produced by human a large proportion of the avaible c02. (2) if yes, given that c02 is a greenhouse gas, what's its contribution to the overall temperature change. Spport those 2 with data...somehow the whole debate seems a polical one to win over unsustecting audience rather than giving hard data and conclusions supported by relevant data.

You totally missed ... ( 8 months ago by GTTofAK)

You totally missed the whole point. The topic for the debate was "is global warming a crisis" his entire line was that global warming is not a real crisis but a political crisis created being manipulated for political gain. You should have paid attention.

This isn't a global ... ( 7 months ago by bill0756)

This isn't a global warming debate like I had hoped. No science although they are scientists. Ad hominems and other crap.

...Oh wait, maybe I ... ( 7 months ago by bill0756)

...Oh wait, maybe I jumped the gun...seems there is also a DIFFERENT ten part series that gets into the science, called Q&A. I wish whoever posted this made it all into one video.

I love to hear ... ( 7 months ago by bighitter42)

I love to hear Philip Stott speak. Very entertaining...and right.

LOL! I agree. ( 5 months ago by apollo1268)

LOL! I agree.

Despite his ... ( 3 months ago by valcat9)

Despite his charisma, Stott cherry-picked two totally inaccurate newspaper stories from the 1970s to support his false claim that "global cooling" was the scientific CONSENSUS. But it never was. He's lying.
Gavin Schmidt was correct to advise that we keep track of the numerous fallacies used by greenhouse deniers.

Gavin Schmidt was ... ( 2 months ago by GorterPoss)

Gavin Schmidt was the worst speaker of all of them. He made no actual argument. However, your point is taken.

This guy kicks ass! ( 1 week ago by guadalun)

This guy kicks ass!

Tell a friend:

2MrNa.cOm Videos

Run your own youtube sharing site

Global Warming Debate - Philip Stott, part 6 of 10

URL
Embed Code