Well, actually he was tearing it out, or he had a strong desire to. Why? Because Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen and Phillip Stott managed to win a debate against Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard Somerville.
He becomes totally unhinged, and it’s really kind of fun to read. Here he is taking the words of Gavin Schmidt and explaining why they lost the debate:
The organisers asked us afterwards whether we’d have done much different in hindsight. Looking back, the answer is mostly no. We are scientists, and we talk about science and we’re not going start getting into questions of personal morality and wider political agendas – and obviously that put us at a sharp disadvantage …
Yeah, that sounds like what went wrong. When Gavin says “questions of personal morality and wider political agendas,” I think he just means, “all that stuff that’s not science.” He knows science, he’s trained in science, he’s confident in the accuracy of his scientific judgments, so that’s what he’s sticking with — even if it means losing a debate, and with it a chance to change some minds.
So David Roberts is upset that the scientists used scientific reasoning to present their argument, and people believed the other side’s scientific arguments over that of Schmidt, Ekwurzel and Somerville. So what’s David’s explanation that they lost?
But listen, once and for all: people just don’t f**king work that way. Science is a rarified language, a way of thinking that requires focus and intellectual training. It is unnatural for human beings to think purely in terms of empirical observation, testable theory, and replicable results. We spent the vast majority of our evolutionary history bereft of statistics and probabilities. To think in a completely open and unbiased way, unaffected by tribe or predilection, by emotion or subconscious impulse, is a difficult skill that almost by definition will not be widespread among the public. Many who apply themselves to it fail; most never make the effort.
Translation: People are stupid! Stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid, and they can’t be trusted to understand what a scientist tells them! Even though more than 50% of the country thinks Global Warming is caused by manmade activities, they still we muddleheaded enough to believe the anti-Global Warming Denier Nazis!
And this is where it gets really good:
There seems to be a presumption among greens that there’s something wrong with the other 95% of human communication. As though narrative, humor, mockery, surprise, outrage, seduction, fear, wonder, envy, braggadocio, love of family and country, physicality, altruism — as though all of these tools of persuasion are to be clumped under the rubric “irrational” while facts and facts alone qualify as “rational.”
Man, you don’t argue science with facts! You mock the opponent, you outrage them by calling them names, you invoke patriotism, and you make them fear they’re going to lose their children or their children’s children if they don’t immediately stop driving an SUV and switch out to compact fluorescent light bulbs!
So, David is saying that arguing science and facts is not going to win the debate.
And, of course, he’s dead wrong because he’s totally bought into the Global Warming Swindle. He lost the debate because the evidence support anthropogenic Global Warming are tenuous and the only real evidence that problems lay down the line are from horribly innacurate computer models, computer models that two of the panel from the Global Warming trio were model and predictive scientists!
When treated to a diet of the facts, these scientists had nothing to counter it with. Especially with Lindzen on the panel, a man who could singlehandedly destroy the anthropogenic Global Warming myth with a 30 minute ad on national television.
The reason you lost, David, is that most people aren’t so stupid as to believe driving you car to work will destroy the planet. And it’s clear that you and your ilk have nothing but contempt for the common man.