Stossel’s “Science Wars”, Tomorrow 8 p.m. EDT on Fox Business

June 18th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

WMON_STOSSEL_science_wars2

I’ll be on tommorow’s Stossel Show (Fox Business Channel, 8 p.m. EDT Friday), where John gets my reactions to global warming climate change Climate Crisis™ statements made by Al Gore, Bill Nye, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

It will be interesing to see if I get bleeped. 😉


41 Responses to “Stossel’s “Science Wars”, Tomorrow 8 p.m. EDT on Fox Business”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. RW says:

    Who else is supposed to be on the show?

    • I’m the only one on the subject of climate, although I think Reason magazine’s Matt Welch might touch on it in his segment.

      • Jim Dean says:

        John Stossel is pragmatic concerning his views on subjects covered on his show and seems to be a great host. I’ve always thoroughly enjoyed his program. Have fun, we’ll all be watching.

        • Roy, I just watched you and Stossel this am. You are frggin’ awesome! Your comment saying ‘bullshit ‘ about Al Gore saying big storms are 100x more than last century. Great! Loved it. Keep up the fight for the truth! I hope you can get the message out more. My professor at Fort Lewis College, Durango CO in 1981 said what you said! He said just NOTHING has changed , only that there are too many people and WAY more living in places never before and there’s documentation compared to before that obvious ‘fossil’ evidence was all we have to know the previous activities. Gore and the other clowns need education in climatology, environmental geology, geomorphology for 2-3 years, then they could comment.
          Steven K. Jones
          Registered Professional a Geologist
          Mercerville,NJ

  2. Alan says:

    “where John gets my reactions to global warming climate change Climate Crisis™ statements made by Al Gore, Bill Nye, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.”

    Maybe he should have had you address the Pope’s comments too. The Pope is probably closer to being a scientist than most of the people on your list… 🙂

  3. CDR D says:

    If it is on anything with the letters F,O,and X, the libtards will dismiss it as nothing but lies funded by Murdoch and the Koch brothers.

  4. Tom Waeghe says:

    Dear Roy, Please speak your mind and try to spell out what’s known about climate history and refute some of the recent claims. The pope has no business commenting about global climate change. I doubt he consulted people on both sides of the issues.

    • Lewis says:

      Obviously the Pope is a politician also. Worried about membership he is!

      • Mark Luhman says:

        If he was worried about membership he would not be going left, most churches that have in the last 50 years have almost dried up and blown away.

      • Manfred says:

        In that case, poking the Papal oar into an ideological war proxied by the quagmire of the so called climate ‘debate’ may be an epic and grievous mistake that will only serve to further divide the faithful and which the Vatican may well come to rue.

      • David A says:

        Of course the Pope is a politician — matters of morality are inevitably matters of politics, as the same-sex marriage opponents and anti-choice opponents show.

        • WizGeek says:

          @DavidA: Your assertion is inaccurate. Matters of morality are not matters of politics until such time as moral matters get politicized by those intending to use it as propaganda–pro or anti; both sides are guilty of politicizing for propaganda.

    • Tom says:

      Perhaps the Pope communed with Pachamama before he commented on global climate. After all, he could well see it as his duty to be the protector of Mother Earth if he happened to have been a Pachamama acolyte before he was Pope, don’t you know? He came from the right part of the world that it could have been a strong possibility.

      ************************************************************
      (Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous people of the Andes. She is also known as the earth/time mother. [1] In Inca mythology, Pachamama is a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting. She causes earthquakes and is typically in the form of a dragon. She is also an ever present and independent deity who has her own self-sufficient and creative power to sustain life on this earth.)

      ************************************************************
      Gaia’s favorite aunt, maybe?

  5. Keijo says:

    Re’ the Pope’s comments.
    The church taking sides!
    Takes us back to the times when science had to fight tooth and nail with the church in order to advance our understanding of the real world.

    • Dan says:

      Actually, it takes us back to a time when the church allowed itself to be persuaded by so-called expert scientists to take a stand on something that scripture had little to say about. In Galileo’s day, it was scientists who believed in the Ptolemaic system. They tried, successfully for a time, to convince the church that the Bible supported their system, which was based on a faulty, literal interpretation of poetic and phenomenological language.

      But Galileo’s endorsed a flawed system as well. The Copernican system of circular orbits around the sun did not work mathematically and in fact its opponents were able to tweak the Ptolemaic epicycle system so that it was closer, mathematically to the observations.

      It is a shame that in his arrogance Galileo rejected Kepler’s theory of elliptical orbits and 3 laws of planetary motion. Had he considered Kepler more seriously, he might have been able to prove heliocentric theory observationally correct and been successful defending himself during his own trial.

      Today, we again have a Pope being influenced by scientists who not only claim AGW is true but who significantly exagerate its possible effects and who ridicule and attempt to censor anyone who disagrees. But at least the Pope made this statement “On many concrete questions, the Church has no reason to offer a definitive opinion; she knows that honest debate must be encouraged among experts, while respecting divergent views.”

      • lewis says:

        I find it humorous how the advocates make much of the Pope’s statement. Would these same people jump on a, say, anti-abortion statement? Or does it depend on whether or not he is saying what they want to hear?

        (Rhetorical question)

        • Phyte_On says:

          Uhhh, lewis…can’t discern the difference? The Bible has a lot to say about life and the womb where life begins. I can’t find anything in the Bible about CO2 – except it is self-evident as necessary to life, prosperity, productivity and blessing for humanity.

          lewis, try to step up your critical thinking skills.

          What we want to hear from the Pope is more about what the Bible actually teaches.

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi Dan,

        Just read your comments and probably no one will read my comments. But I take the opportunity to correct so of your fundamental words and quote a bit of what Galileo wrote.

        You wrote: “Kepler’s theory of elliptical orbits and 3 laws of planetary motion.” Kepler offered no theory. His mathematical analysis of Tycho Brahe’s careful naked-eye observations led to his discovery of three mathematical law of planetary motion in our solar system.

        So, you are right when you wrote: “But Galileo’s endorsed a flawed system as well. The Copernican system of circular orbits around the sun did not work mathematically.” And I for awhile I faulted Galileo not rejecting circular orbits once he learned of Brahe’s and Kepler’s work.

        However, then I read in Crew and de Salvio’s English translation of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences: “I am quite convinced; and believe me, if I were again beginning my studies, I should follow the advice of Plato and start with mathematics, a science which proceeds very cautiously and admits nothing as established until it has been rigidly demonstrated.” We have learned that in science, based upon observation, there always remains some doubt, because observational science, unlike mathematics cannot prove anything as absolutely true. Richard Feynman addressed this issue in his address, The Value of Science, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences.

        Have a good day, Jerry

      • jerry l krause says:

        Hi Dan,

        I will not correct my goofs (you should be able to work them out) but I will add what I should have. At the minimum science requires that an observation be reproducible before there is a rush to declare the first is observed truth. Which it is never is because our ability to observe is always limited one way or another.

        Have a good day, Jerry

  6. ossqss says:

    What! No musical chairs with Gavin this time? 😉

    All the best Doc! We look forward to it.

  7. ossqss says:

    You got bleeped! LOL

    Nice job Doc. Stossel needs to devote an entire show to this subject.

  8. Mark Leskovar says:

    Good showing and your points were well made! Gavin Schmidt came across as an arrogant drum beater. Ridley also did well. I think Stossel tried his best to bring out both sides with probing questions. Matt’s information should be made available to more people.

  9. Skeptikal says:

    Is there anywhere that your international readers can view it? I’ve looked through the fox business website but can’t find it.

  10. Alicia says:

    I’m in the US and cannot find a link to it either. The only video from June 19 easily found is the one about ‘eating local.’ I’ll check Fox Business again Monday afternoon.

  11. John Galipeau says:

    Sir, have you seen the Physics.org post that again,
    “Last month marked the hottest May in modern history”?
    How do I explain to friends that it’s a very misleading title?
    Thank you,
    John

    http://phys.org/news/2015-06-month-hottest-modern-history-noaa.html?utm_source=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu

  12. Charles says:

    As Dr. Spencer has stated, we can’t distinguish the natural signal from the human with regard to climate change, therefore, we don’t know if co2 is “causing” 10% or 90% of observed warming, but the attitude of Gavin Schmidt seems to be that he won’t even dignify this question with an answer. Yes, GHGs cause warming, but the real question is “By how much?”. I would think this is a most relevant question in light of the IPCC’s predictions, which range from as little as .5C to 4.2C by the year 2100. Doesn’t that range of temps., in and of itself, admit that the IPCC doesn’t know “if co2 is “causing” 10% or 90%” and that questions of “sensitivity” are still far from being settled? When I hear predictions, no sorry, “projections” that range from .5 to 4.2, a factor of more than 8X, that doesn’t say “uncertainty”; it screams it. Please correct me where I am wrong.

  13. Alon says:

    How about sharing a link to the video for your international followers

  14. David Lee says:

    I watched it. Great job. Very well spoken. You completely flattened the “extreme weather events” lie like a Mack truck.

  15. On again right now on Fox News Channel. My segment will be about 4:25 p.m. CDT.

  16. Aaron S says:

    Roy or whoever, In AGW theory global warming increases from a feedback loop where increased co2 from burning fossil fuels increases temp and water vapor that further increases co2 from oceanic release. The thing I cant find is what is the negative component (in the agw theory) that prevents runaway climate change in natural or anthropogenic gw. Does anyone know how the brakes work in the models the ipcc uses? Obviously the models are capable of very rapid warming (and the earth is capable of higher co2 and greater temperature in geologic past), so there has to be brakes on the system or natural pre man ice age cycles would not be possible. It just seems this put a ceiling on co2 sensitivity values for models so I am trying to understand.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=153

    • Steve Case says:

      As long as the coefficient remains below unity it won’t run away:

      CO2 all by itself should run the temperature up 1.2°C. If there’s a positive feedback, with a coefficient of say 0.625 then 1.2 x 0.625 = 1.95 So now it’s going to feed back on the increase to 1.95 which was 1.95 – 1.2 = 0.75. So then 0.75 x 0.625 = 0.469. The addition of 0.469 is a decrease from 0.75. Repeating the process forward results in ever smaller additions approaching zero. It will finally reach 3.2°C and no further.

      This can set this up on an Excel spreadsheet with different coefficients to prove the point.

    • MikeB says:

      The Sceptical Science link you refer to gives a rather bad example.
      If, as it says, a one degree rise in temperature results in more water vapour and that in turn causes a further one degree rise in temperature (and so on), then you can see this will very rapidly get out of control. Furthermore, it would not depend on what caused the initial one degree rise, be it CO2 or any other natural or unknown forcing. The response must be the same!

      Such a feedback would lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. As you say, temperatures have already been much more than one degree warmer in the past and, as you can see, it didn’t happen. It will not happen in the future either.

      So, the feedback effect on this planet (if any) is obviously much smaller than this.

      Here’s how the brakes work:-

      Let’s say that a rise of one degree will cause a further rise of half a degree. That half degree will cause a rise of another quarter of a degree, and so on. This is still a positive feedback, since the original input (one degree) has been amplified, but the process will terminate when the total temperature rise is just 2 degrees.
      i.e. 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16 ….. ad infinitum …adds up to 2

      The amount that temperatures will rise for a doubling of CO2 is called the Climate Sensitivity. The ‘pause’ in global temperature rise this century (when CO2 emissions have risen by 30%) suggests that Climate Sensitivity is much lower than first thought. Many recent studies have produced very low values for Climate Sensitivity.

      In the latest IPCC report (AR5), the IPCC acknowledge this, saying…

      “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies”

  17. Pete Finnegan says:

    You got bleeped.

  18. Ron Kopa says:

    This was an outstanding segment that spotlighted how some of the biggest superstars of man-made global warming have almost no qualifications when it comes to forecasting climate change. I’m anxious to obtain a video so I can share it with others.

    Meanwhile, here is a link to another good video by John Coleman that shows how liberals have corrupted the science. I’ve sent it to all my friends and family and like to call it “Global Warming for Dummies.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRQS5RhrwLA

Leave a Reply