The transcript to the debate is over here. It’s an OK debate– too constrained to really provide any new information. However, there is one thing that is obvious– the Global Warming presenters, especially Schmidt and Somerville, are big on saying “that data is bogus” without providing any scientific basis on why it’s bogus. Lindzen was the star of the show, providing good insight and analysis while trying to engage in scientific discussion on the matter.
Low point of the evening? It’s this:
Well let‘s use an engineer, I don‘t think I‘d want to cross Brooklyn
Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of
the forces on that bridge.
—I, we, we…I think we might have a solution to the energy crisis,
we just need to tap Philip Stott.
While it’s funny on its face, it’s an ad hominem attack and does nothing to advance the debate. Nor does Schmidt explain why Stott is full of hot air, he just says he is. And that was typical of the evening.
I recommend you read it if you get a chance.