Yarmuth & Lally Debated Again Last Night

Last night, John Yarmuth and Todd Lally met for an hour-long debate at WAVE3’s studio in Louisville.

Lots of the same old stuff, lots of Lally claiming global warming is like Y2K fears. Pretty ripe.

Here’s the entire thing:

WAVE’s folks should be commended for putting the entire show on the web not long after it aired.

6 thoughts on “Yarmuth & Lally Debated Again Last Night

  1. I was working as a corporate systems programmer around the last turn of the century, and I can testify that the Year 2000 problem was a real problem.

    Businesses like the one I worked at worked in a frenzy to identify and fix all the bugs. And in my company, that’s exactly what we did. We inventoried all our software, whether it was developed in-house or purchased. We upgraded the purchased software as necessary, and our team of programmers fixed all the identified bugs.

    There wasn’t a catastrophe _because_ corporations and organizations took the problem seriously.

    Lally is just plain wrong with his comparison. And he’s speaking about a subject he knows nothing about.

  2. Lally was unintentionally correct in his comparison that we had no idea exactly how bad Y2K was going to be and we similarly have no idea exactly what impact mankind has on global temperatures.

    As an environmental consultant, I do know what I’m talking about when I say the the warming science is junk because the data we have to rely upon is junk.

    The reason we had Climategate and the pulling of the Hockey Stick Graph and a lot of the modeling predictions from the International Climate Panel findings, was due to people like Mann trying to take imperfect and hugely imprecise data and derive precise conclusions from it. When their models started to go wrong in the past few years, they were reluctant to give access to or allow contradictory scientists to critique their data.

    Now I will give them the benefit of the doubt in that they truly believe in anthropogenic global warming and that they don’t have a financial motive, and were simply frustrated that they couldn’t prove it and didn’t want their failures to be fodder for skeptics, but that isn’t science, that’s activism.

  3. Really? You’re an environmental scientist?

    Because it seems to me you’re just someone who thinks your opinion is the only accurate one.

  4. I am, but to the contrary….I don’t know and neither does anyone else.

    While I admit that I’m skeptical that our impact is as significant as many would make us believe, I have never stated that anthropogenic global warming doesn’t exist. From a scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no way we can prove or disprove our impact because we don’t have the data to 1) quantify all of the other potential dynamic factors, either currently or in the past, and 2) we have no way to predict what those are going to be in the future.

    So what is the sun going to do other the next 50 years? How many volcanoes are going to erupt? How are the ocean currents going to behave? Hell, we can’t even predict hurricane intensity a few months in advance and we have seen for the 4th or 5th year in a row now. These are incredibly dynamic and minimally understood systems that interact and react with each other. If temperatures rise for example, will there be greater atmospheric moisture and cloud cover which would have a counteractive influence? We don’t know.

    How can we possibly isolate a variable like CO2, when we have no idea how much impact each of the other factors.

  5. “Climategate” was investigated and it turned out to be nothing.

    Also, to say “warming science is junk” is to remove all credibility on the matter from the one who says it. The vast majority of climatologists, who agree on anthropological causes of global warming — they can’t be all wrong, and a non-climatologist who doesn’t want to believe it, right.

  6. The current models vary by 400%. That’s junk in my opinion.

    The consensus argument made by Al Gore is not science, duplication of analysis with similar results is science. I will grant you that there is a consensus in theory, but there certainly isn’t a consensus in the amount of effect.

    If many separate scientists were able to that a predict a similar rise would occur and then it really happened, that would be science proof. Instead we have predictions ranging all over the board and none of them have shown to be accurate to date.

    The true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing. You are mistaking my skepticism as a denial. My opinion is just that. It’s a little better than yours on global warming because of my background and yours is better than mine with regards to Y2K and other issues. I wouldn’t have commented had I thought I nothing to add to the discussion. I certainly don’t think that my opinion is the only accurate one, it’s just my opinion.

Comments are closed.