It's a shitty move, but...since when is Piers Fucking Morgan a "CNN anchor"? He's just Larry King's replacement, a chat show host.

I saw about half of this so-called "debate" before giving up and switching the channel. This bullshit "balance" obsession in American journalism that says Nye's informed scientific opinion is just as important as Morano's ignorance has to stop.

Any segment referring to the climate change "debate" or "controversy" is a PR victory for the fossil fuel industry. It doesn't even matter what their shill says -- his mere presence conveys the intended message: that the jury is still out.

If they wanted "balance" they should have had another 98 scientists for every corporate shill.

CNN needs to ditch Morgan and wake up and smell the chai. Pronto.

@4 for Insightful Math Based Win of the Day.

Newsflash: PIERS MORGAN IS A CONTEMPTIBLE PIECE OF HUMAN EXCREMENT.

Since you're criticizing the CV of the lying hack, it's worth pointing out that while Bill Nye is a professional science educator and communicator with decades of experience, and is the one on the side of the facts, he is also perhaps less qualified as a scientist than would be best for a meaningful debate.

How many decades did it take to finish off the cigarette / cancer 'debate'?

Unlike Nye, who earned his science credentials on Almost Live!

Goddamit, Paul, you KNOW better: it's "not every voice deserves a microphone", not "every voice does not deserve a microphone".

And of course, you're right: the same thing is true when one sees "debates" between proponents of "Intelligent Design" or other creationists versus, you know, REAL scientists. The act of saying something doesn't lend it credence.

CNN is just insulating itself against the Denial Industry. "We gave you a microphone! Go pick on MSNBC!"

It's not just CNN, it's all of American TV. The History channel gives the impression that UFOs and Bigfoots are real, with virtually no other side to the argument. I'm endlessly amazed at how one sided everything is here, on TV.

@7 No one's really gonna disagree with that. At this point, I think Paul is just posting PM crap to piss you off.

For lack of anything else on TV, I happened to catch that segment last night. And that was one impressive performance by Marc Morano. This guy could have shouted down Copernicus back in the day when there was still some question whether the earth revolved around the sun.

But what really struck me about his schmucky schtick was how the climate change deniers have now seamlessly gone from denying that climate change is happening to acknowledging, "Duh, it's getting hotter, but you're nuts to think it has anything to do with human activity or that government could do anything to curtail it."

So they were totally full of shit back when they were denying climate change, and now we're supposed to just conveniently forget their past BS and suddenly start believing them.

That eminent Climatologist, Bill Nye:

He studied mechanical engineering at Cornell Universityand graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977.

Yep, he has all the accolades needed...35 year old knowledge as a Mechie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye

While Nye admittedly isn't a "scientist" in the academic sense, six years producing & appearing in television programs devoted to explaining scientific principals, and several more years researching and lecturing on the subject of Global Climate Change nevertheless puts him miles and miles above a corporate shill and unabashed prevaricator like Morano when it comes to having a qualified opinion on the subject.

#19

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts0XG6qDI…

Seriously, I challenge the entire notion of a "Climate Expert".

First of all there are almost no doctorates given in "Climatology", nor are there departments of same at any accredited major university.

There is atmospheric science, but that is a far, far cry from being able to forecast weather a century or millennium hence. There is the computer modelling and that in and of itself requires expertise in math, science, programming, statistics.

Even if a person is learned in some aspect of these sciences and arts, one has to be of supreme hubris to be able to firmly state what the weather is going to be like in 2112.

@18: A mechanical engineer is not someone who fixes cars.
@20: Most major universities don't have departments of paleontology either, but are you going to claim that fossils aren't real?
Geosciences tend to just get lumped into geology.

Paleontology would be a subset or branch of a discipline like Evolutionary Biology or Geology.

However, the claimed expertise of Climatology would be a giant superset of many disciplines.

I actually agree with Supreme Ruler to the extent that Bill Nye is probably not a climate expert, so far as being a researcher who studies climate history and dynamics (they exist), so he's as qualified for his role in this silly CNN debate as the industry shill. However, in the interest of full disclosure, it should have read "Industry Shill" under that guy's name on the TV screen.

@22, no. It happens that I am an evolutionary biologist, and believe me, paleontology is not a "subset or branch" of my discipline. Sheesh.

Catherwood:

You're an evolutionary biologist?

@8 Seriously. I had a completely different image in mind (How the heck do you strap a dildo onto a committee, anyway?), and was very disappointed

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

@23

It's like having a debate between a fireman and an equestrian show jumper on the best bulbs to plant during winter and saying the fireman is more qualified because he has a union card.

That segment is why I happily boycott TV.

Bill Nye is a popular science communicator. Morano is a political operative for the industry of denial.

I like this guy...

Global Warming On CNN -- Morgan to Morano: 'How do you explain that we're getting so many of these freakish weather patterns...?'

'You're looking at anecdotal evidence,' Morano shot back, before taking a shot at Nye: 'This is now the level of your daily horoscope. Basically global warmists like Bill Nye say [AGW] will cause many bad weather events & guess what? Bad weather events happen all the time so people look & they say look, there's more proof, there's a bad weather event.'

http://climatedepot.com/

@28 - Extreme weather events (like temperature extremes) have been occurring much more frequently than 50years ago, you moron. We can certainly trust you to spew denialist garbage. Sheesh.

@30 Really? Or perhaps the ability to communicate events has gotten more technologically advanced. Internet, satellite TV, satellite phones, world-wide news services, cellular phones, etc. etc. Heard of them? Do you think in , oh I dunno, 1882, a person West Virginia knew of a typhoon in Bombay? As it was happening? Well there was one and it killed 100,000+ people! And ALL THIS OCCURRED before the widespread use of fossil fuels! How? Or how about 1867 typhoon? Ot 1737? Or 1881? Look them up!!! Those events occurred!

I'm not sure why so many on this blog are upset about the program, I thought it was a very interesting debate. I'm also not sure why the lack of personal credentials is considered damaging to the oppositions position. He is quoting information from peer reviewed scientific literature.

There are 31 earlier comments, not one of which has anything to do with climate science. Liberals generally love the concept of anthropogenic warming, and conservatives are just the opposite. But that has nothing to do with the facts. Morano, or anyone, for that matter doesn't have to have a PhD in climate science to understand broad concepts and quote what other PhDs are saying.

Then there's the "appeal to authority" argument, when it should be clear to all that it's "authority" which is being questioned. There are shortage of credible scientists who are skeptics, whether more or less than their opponents hardly matters. Science isn't determined by a vote count.

Morano says there's been no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA and scientists at other organizations agree. There are arguments about whether one recent year is warmer than another, but it turns out that the difference in temperature betwixt the two is a few hundredths of a degree. By the time one collects temperature data across an entire planet for one year the only thing you can be sure of is that .. it ain't accurate to hundredths of a degree. (Two thermometers, one just a foot or two above the other can give you a much bigger difference than a few hundredths of a degree!

There were hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm,likely warmer than it is now. Along came Mann, supported with lots of bucks from the UN, and already in control of many of the periodicals covering climate science, and claims the MWP was merely a regional phenomenon. How many people know that hundreds MORE peer-reviewed studies have shown up since Mann's hockey stick which continue to show that the MWP was global, not regional, and as warm,likely warmer than now? (If one were to argue about a consensus, it would in this example, not be favoring Mann's claim. (Also, these peer-reviewed studies were conducted in 40+ different countries, basically a scientific investigation in most parts of the globe. Mann, on the other hand was much more limited. Then there's the fact that his "study" was rebutted, both because of the data he used, and the process he used to arrive at his conclusions.

Now we have the silliness of claiming every hurricane, tornado, or drought is proof that co2 (because it has increased, and man's activities are causing at least some of that increase) has caused the "climate change". Even NASA's Hansen, a zealot, says that's crazy.

Do any of the people on this site understand that ALL the computer models predicting catastrophic global warming assume that water vapor is the real culprit? Their models assume that the temperature increase brought on by co2 increase brings on a positive feedback from water vapor which, in response, increases the temperature 2 to 3 times more than the temp increase brought on by the co2 increase. NOBODY understands feedback, neither all the possible feedbacks or whether the net result is positive or negative. In fact, there are scientists who argue that cloud cover (that would be water vapor) actually provide a negative feedback, and the computer models inadvertently verify this because their projections are always too high. The climate models have not yet dealt with the more recent satellite data which shows that when the earth is warmer, more heat escapes to space!

The US has spent on the order of 100 billion dollars, all in support of studies claiming anthropogenic global warming, and there is still no evidence supporting that hypothesis. Hardly a nickel of our government (same goes for some other governments) is allocated to investigating whether man's activities and/or increasing co2 have anything to do with our current warming.

Incidentally, the general notion that our current warming began about the time our industrial revolution came along is also bogus. Our current warming did not begin at the end of the Little Ice Age (generally identified as in the 1800s). That end date is arbitrary and not relevant. Our current warming began when the LIA started warming; that would begin at its lowest temperature which is (according to Dr. Evans, Aussie climatologist) around 1630, some 200 years before our industrial revolution. That's 200 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. But, there's more... co2 would have had to increase for decades before it could possibly have had any impact on climate, perhaps even centuries. That's 300 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing.

Whether we are having some impact on our climate is always a possibility. Practically anything is possible, but there is not one iota of evidence. EVERYTHING points in another direction, and can best be summed up with a simple question. Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a UN based organization "The International Panel on Climate Change"(IPCC) would do a study of climate research (supposedly performed under contract by others) and come away with the conclusion that "it's just mother nature at work".?

Sounds like TV entertainment to me and not a serious debate. The climate is changing but giving money to Goldman to trade carbon credits or in the form of a tax to some government to redistribute wealth without addressing the underlying issues that the population has doubled and are using up our water and are living in areas where even normal weather will affect us more dramatically negatively only makes sense if you are looking to profit from a bogey man.

However, I am still wondering what medieval human caused activity produced the warming that allowed the Vikings to settle Greenland.....but they must have solved the problem as the glaciers came back and drove them out.

As a reformed geologist I am more worried about the coming ice age as we have reached or 10,000 cycle - maybe climate change is just the precursor...

There earlier comments have nothing to do with climate science. Liberals generally love the concept of anthropogenic warming, and conservatives are just the opposite. But neither position has anything to do with the science.. Morano, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't need a PhD in climate science to understand the broad concepts and be able to quote what other credible PhDs have stated (or done.)

Then there's the "appeal to authority" argument, when it should be clear to all that it's "authority" which is being questione so that is a non-starter. There is no shortage of credible scientists who are skeptics, whether the total number is more or less than their opponents hardly matters. Science isn't determined by a vote count.

Morano says there's been no warming for the past 16 years. NOAA and scientists at other organizations agree. There have been vigorous arguments about whether one recent year is warmer than another, but it turns out that the difference in temperature betwixt the two years invariably involves a few hundredths of a degree. By the time one collects temperature data across an entire planet for one year the only thing you can be sure of is that .. it ain't accurate to hundredths of a degree. Two thermometers, one just a foot or two above another can give a much bigger difference than a few hundredths of a degree! (and how many do you think can even measure to an accuracy of hundredths of a degree?)

There were hundreds of peer reviewed studies showing that the Medieval Warming Period was as warm,likely warmer than it is now. Along came Michael Mann, supported with lots of bucks from the UN, and already in control of many of the periodicals covering climate science, and claims that the MWP was merely a regional phenomenon. How many people know that hundreds MORE peer-reviewed studies have shown up since Mann's hockey stick study which continue to show that the MWP was global, not regional, and as warm,likely warmer than now? If one wants to argue about a scientific consensus, it would in this example, not be favoring Mann's claim. (Also, these peer-reviewed studies were conducted in 40+ different countries, scientific investigations carried out basically across the globe. Mann's data, on the other hand, was much more limited. Then there's the fact that his "study" was rebutted, both because of the data he used, and the process he used to arrive at his conclusions.

Now we have the silliness of claiming every hurricane, tornado, or drought is proof that co2 (because it has increased, and man's activities are causing at least some of that increase) has caused the "climate change". Even NASA's Hansen, a zealot, runs away from that claim.

Do any of the people who visit this site understand that ALL the computer models predicting catastrophic global warming assume that water vapor is the real culprit? Their models assume that the temperature increase brought on by co2 increase brings on a positive feedback from water vapor which, in response, increases the temperature 2 to 3 times more than the temp increase brought on by co2. NOBODY understands feedback, neither all the possible feedbacks or whether the net result in this case is positive or negative. In fact, there are scientists who argue that cloud cover (that would be water vapor) actually provides a negative feedback. Ironically,the computer models inadvertently verify this because their projections are always too high. Neither have the climate yet dealt with what more recent satellite data shows - that when the earth is warmer, more heat escapes to space!

The US has spent on the order of 100 billion dollars, all in support of studies claiming anthropogenic global warming, and there is still no evidence supporting that claim. Hardly a nickel of our government expenditures (same goes for some other governments) is allocated to investigating whether man's activities and/or increasing co2 have anything to do with our current warming.

Incidentally, the general notion that our current warming began about the time our industrial revolution came along is also dubious. Our current warming did not begin at the end of the Little Ice Age (generally identified as in the 1800s). That end date is arbitrary and not relevant in any event. Our current warming began when the LIA started warming; that would begin at its lowest temperature which is (according to Dr. Evans, Aussie climatologist) around 1630, some 200 years before our industrial revolution. That's 200 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. But, there's more... co2 would have had to increase for decades before it could possibly have had any impact on climate, perhaps even a century or two. That's 300 years of natural warming before co2 began increasing. Could just be a coincidence.

Whether we are having some impact on our climate is certainly a possibility. Practically anything is possible, but there is not one iota of evidence. EVERYTHING points in another direction, and can best be summed up with a simple question. Why would anyone be so naive as to believe that a UN based organization, with the title (and specific mission) called "The International Panel on Climate Change"(IPCC) would do a study of climate research (supposedly performed by others) and come away with the conclusion that "it's just mother nature at work".?

My favorite climate expert is Dr Patchuri himself. A railroad engineer by training in India (and we all know how well that bit of infrastructure works following his master strokes) and would be softporn "novelist". creepy, esp since his "novels" star him. No pun intended btw regarding strokes.

Every generation gets fooled by the change the weather/climate scam. Look at andy griffith when klinger comes to town and puts a hex.... of weather. andy discovers they just have a short wave radio and hear the weather forecast never making it to the mayberry-ites. He sends klinger packing. We should do the same with gore and company.

My favorite climate expert is Dr Patchuri himself. A railroad engineer by training in India (and we all know how well that bit of infrastructure works following his master strokes) and would be softporn "novelist". creepy, esp since his "novels" star him. No pun intended btw regarding strokes.

Every generation gets fooled by the change the weather/climate scam. Look at andy griffith when klinger comes to town and puts a hex.... of weather. andy discovers they just have a short wave radio and hear the weather forecast never making it to the mayberry-ites. He sends klinger packing. We should do the same with gore and company.

If you are really interested in BAD weather, this very long history of violent weather is worth reading:
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/Wea…

Morano is right: There are hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that cast doubt on the current alarmism.

The "warmists" and the oil companies scratch each others back and have been for years. All to keep oil artificially high! Yes, it's true. Oil is both plentiful and regenerative, and it will be plentiful as long as the planet exists. Both groups have an interest in making sure that this is not believed. It's common knowledge that oil fields that were once thought to be dry are now being found to have oil in them, again. Oil IS NOT a fossil fuel. Lenin said that "a lie told often enough becomes the truth". Soon after the end of the second world war, Stalin, realized that the USSR needed it's own substantial oil reserves if it was ever again called on to defend itself against another attack. At the time it's largest oil fields in Baku were considered to be depleting and nearing exhaustion. Stalin set up a task force of top scientists and engineers in a project similar to the Manhattan project. Charging them with the task of finding out what oil was, where it came from, and how to find, recover, and efficiently refine it. What they found is that oil is not a "fossil fuel" but is a natural product of planet earth. Formed by high temperature, high pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide. Two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth's crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of 100 km at a pressure of 50,000 atmospheres and a temperature of approx. 1500c and will continue on until the death of the planet! The high pressure, as well as centrifugal acceleration from the earth's rotation, causing oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth's crust into subterranean caverns, which are called oil fields. The Russians have found plentiful oil at depths greater than 13km. No fossils have ever been found at depths even close to this depth. If, indeed, oil is a "fossil fuel" how can this possibly be?

Mr. Constant should have phrased this as "Not every voice deserves a microphone." "Every Voice Does Not Deserve a Microphone" literally means "No voice deserves a microphone."

But yes, the concept of equal time should be weighted by the reliability and reputability of the source. Even Wikipedia does that.