Who won this debate and why?

First I think it's important to note that Chisty believes that the IPCC is correct about human-caused global warming. What he disputes is that the consequences of global warming will be as bad as most climate scientists think.

It's important to note that because frankly from his debate performance, it was difficult to determine what he was trying to argue. He made some very intentionally deceptive arguments. For example, comparing Hansen's 1988 climate model predictions to the UAH temperature data. The UAH data is the outlier, while the RSS, Hadley Centre, NOAA, and GISS data all show warming on the order of Hansen's predictions.

Most of the rest of his arguments were cherrypicked local weather examples rather than global climate changes. Frankly I think Schlesinger demolished Christy in the debate, but at least both scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.

No one did. Both parties agree that the earth is warming and that mankind is causing much of that warming.

I love references to John Christy. His sworn testimony in court establishes that he believes the earth is warming and that mankind is a contributing factor. His testimony was crystal clear, as summarized by the judge: "Dr. Christy, agrees... most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/VermontDecision...

What part of that is unclear to some people?

Contrary to the misleading statements in many responses, surveys sent to researchers do show a strong consensus among actual working scientists, especially the most knowledgeable climatologists, that global warming is occuring and that mankind is a leading factor in that warming:

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2 (human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures).

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.p...

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what people believe or debate though, or whether or not developed countries reduce emissions.

Physics dictates that the planet will keep warming, regardless of what we believe, until we can convince the largest emitters with the highest growth rates, such as China and India, to set emissions limits so emissions can be rediced on a global basis. There is no international treaty of that sort being discussed, let alone negotiated, so the earth's warming will continue to accelerate for the forseeable future.

Drive your SUV as much as you want; that'll help bring on the obvious effects as fast as possible so we can get the 80% of the world's population with the largest greenhouse gas and black soot problems (and the highest population and emission growth rates by far) into the discussion.

I can't even get past the first speaker's "given" list - the climate has NOT been stable during human civilization - the pendulum has swung from much cooler than today to modestly warmer, for intermittent multi-century periods. That was the understanding, the universally held understanding, until well after the present warm period became a political issue, and that understanding was based on physical evidence that has yet to be otherwise explained. He can speak of birds migrating earlier - but there are countless similar examples a thousand years ago, examples that have never been explained as having been caused by anything but higher temperatures, and yet they deny the MWP. If they're going to deny a historical fact, then I can't believe their unproven hypothesis concerning the present and future.

bucket22

"...general consensus..."

Umm, wrong. Watch less liberal media. There isn't a consensus.

But, to satisfy your brainwashed mind, let's assume for a moment that there WAS a consensus.

Science isn't about consensus. Let's look at some history.

1)The Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun rotates around it-

Consensus for years

2)The Earth was created by a bunch of random gods (take your pick, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, they're all the same)-

Consensus for years

3)McCarthyism was accepted by the public for years. Skeptics were dismissed and had their lives ruined.

So, whether or not there is a consensus is irrelevant.

Here's the thing that most people have forgotten:

THE BASIS FOR SCIENCE IS SKEPTICISM. Consensus is nothing.

Nobody:

1) People are still passionately arguing about it both in and out of the scientific community. There is no consensus.

2) The policies that the proponents of AGW pander, have not yet been implemented, but neither are they off the table.

The debate goes on without a winner.

LOL, I've seen creationist/evolution "debates" where the creationist clearly won. So what? The audience at these things generally doesn't have 1/10th the knowledge to be able to detect errors and BS by either speaker. And since it's real-time, it's generally impossible for either person to correct blatant factual errors made by each other.

This was sponsored by a partisan group with a well known agenda. Science is properly communicated in the scientific journals, not propaganda spreading events like this. If Christy has anything of significance to add to climate science, then he'll publish it in the peer reviewed literature.

I think Christy won hands down. Schlesinger showed that the only proof of man made global warming is based on hypothetical computer models. He did not offer any proof that those models are accurate. Christy was able to demolish Schlesinger's argument by presenting study after study that shows that the empirical evidence are not behaving the way the models say they should. We are not getting an increase in Hurricane activity, tornadoes, droughts, floods, sea level rise.

What is also interesting is that during Schlesinger's rebuttal he did not offer one piece of evidence that Christy was misleading people (as the alarmist say he, and all other skeptics are.)

Richard: What part of his statement causes the confusion. The one that says increase in greenhouse gases will cause some warming, but not cause a catastrophe? Isn't that what your hypothesis is? That human increases in greenhouse gases will cause CATASTROPHIC warming. (not minor warming)

Eric C - why didn't you mention that Christy helped draft and is a signatory to the AGU position on climate change. Here's a translation...he believes in AGW! See the 8th part of the YouTube videos about 40 seconds in.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climat...

EDIT - my point is, Eric C, that you along with the other AGW deniers celebrate a preceived debate victory of a scientist who is an AGW proponent. Ironic to say the least!

The liberal sounded like a TV evangelists. He was nearly brain dead and seemed to have no comprehension of reality. The conservative stated a good argument that pretty much destroyed the propaganda of the left from a genuine scientific perspective. I would be genuinely embarrassed if I were a leftist or AGW supporter. They have lost all respectability. .

<edit to add>I can't believe that brain dead idiot managed to make a bigger fool out of himself. He implied that a 50 percent increase would cause plant cells to explode. I happen to know from actual data that It continues to increase photosynthetic efficiency until about 5 times current levels if I remember correctly. This guy is an idiotic political propagandist that has no actual comprehension about what he is talking about. I am not surprised they used an idiot politician since no scientist wants to make an obvious idiot out of himself.

Keep in mind the event was sponsored by the John Locke Foundation, which is an ideological organization opposed to government solutions to global warming. It's their goal to spread doubt about an issue that has reached a general consensus.

"The John Locke Foundation is a 'free market' think tank in North Carolina started in 1990. The organization advocates lowering taxes, decreasing spending on social support programs, and encouraging free markets. John Hood is its current president.

The Foundation is concerned primarily with state and local issues. The greater part of its funding comes from North Carolina and national conservative grantmaking foundations, some led by Republican party activists."

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

EDIT:

Kepi:

"Umm, wrong. Watch less liberal media. There isn't a consensus. "

I don't watch liberal media. I pay attention to what the experts have to say, however. Perhaps you should to.

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

The rest of your post is rhetoric.

"1)The Earth is the center of the universe and the Sun rotates around it-

Consensus for years"

Those who doubt global warming are similar to those who still think the Sun rotates around the Earth.

"2)The Earth was created by a bunch of random gods (take your pick, Greek, Norse, Egyptian, they're all the same)-

Consensus for years"

Which scientists thought that? You'll find that those who think the Earth was created in a few thousand years and doubt evolution are the same crowd who thinks global warming is a hoax. Think about it.

"3)McCarthyism was accepted by the public for years. Skeptics were dismissed and had their lives ruined."

See above.

I think Christy won.