Somewhere meaning you must know something about the talk whether as an enthusiast or someone who has a scant interest but knowledgeable enough to know what the topic is.
I come from the "observation of my surroundings and history of living" place as a start for listening to a speaker on this topic. I also come to this with the thought - man did not create dramatic climate change or Global Warming - but through observations of my own, over a long period of time I do believe this is more than an occurrence in daily weather and that man does have a strong influence in the movement of climate, ie: extended hot weather/cold weather.
One of the better ways to begin your argument as a speaker is to be self effacing/humble while tearing away at the side you disagree with, demean the other, belittle their work, call it incompetent work, disparage a scholar's level of education and so on, just like Lindzkin's beginning here - 20 plus minutes however, it's a big turn off. (from the sound of his audiences responses to his quips, I'm under the understanding this audience pretty much knew where he's coming from and has a strong idea of where his talk will lead. Hence my opening statement)
A few tenths of a degree is a big difference, even if he says it isn't (basic science). As an example - at 31 degrees f, snow is still snow - at 32 degrees f snow is still snow - at 32.1 degrees snow is now liquid water. Taken his mark on the graph of dots, he blatantly says the mean temp goes from -2 to +2 from beginning to end of graph taking away the scattered high and low marks. Clearly the graph shows the mass stretches from approx. -1.8 to +1.7 and increases steadily to -1.7 to +2.2 with fluctuations all along the way over the years. I'm assuming this is the rise in global temps from the 1860's to 1988.
It has always been known the equator hasn't changed in temps by all that much. It's the pole temps down to the equators temps where the big changes are taking place with the least change the closer you come to the equator. This means that, though the temps globally don't seem to move all that much it's the - closer you get to the poles where the greatest changes (largest most noticeable changes) happen, hence the melting of the ice sheets and polar caps. The greatest amount of the population on the globe is in the northern hemisphere which probably gives the reason why the Arctic Circle or North Pole is melting at a much greater rate than the Southern Pole.
What is damaging to science is guys like this speaking to people who already agree with his conclusions and aren't interested in learning something new (or learning something at all). He's speaking to his choir. He offers nothing in science rather he goes after other scientists and calls them the charlatans.
I was so looking forward to hearing this guy speak. I thought he would offer science and reason and logic. He offered nothing but disappointment.
This is not the other side of an argument (the argument of Global Warming/Climate change), it is a Sarah Palin like rebuttal vs qualified thought and academics.
If this is all you have to offer on this science, you have nothing. I'm so very disappointed.