Have a listen to Lord Monckton and make up your own minds. It has been clear what tactic the alarmists have decided to use against him, ie try to avoid his substantive arguments and instead paint him as some kind of wild-eyed crazy. (Perhaps made easier by the fact that a thyroid condition does give him very prominent eyes.) Two good radio interviews with Monckton. Here the ABC’s Karyn Wood notes that no warmist (including Professor Andy Pitman) would come on the show to debate Monckton, who then repudiates Pitman’s ludicrous claim about wicked corporations funding sceptics such as himself. They then discuss other scare claims. And here is 4BC’s Michael Smith and his listeners exploring the issues with Monckton. Tim Blair comments: Several readers credit Readfearn for having the courage to actually appear. By contrast, the latest to dodge Monckton is Professor Andy Pitman, who apparently declined a radio invitation. It’s a curious thing; Al Gore travels the world to speak at events closed to media and routinely declines debate challenges, while Monckton travels the world looking for debates but finds people running away. This may say something about the relative confidence they have in their arguments. |
Showing posts with label Christopher Monckton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christopher Monckton. Show all posts
Friday, January 29, 2010
Two radio interviews with Lord Monckton. Professor Andy Pitman chickened out of one.
The Courier Mail - Lord Monckton & Ian Plimer won the Brisbane debate "in straight sets"
This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody who has been paying attention these last few years.
It's the real reason why alarmists tend to run for cover when challenged to open debate. As the Intelligence Squared debate in New York a couple of years ago and the more recent one at the University of St Andrew's have shown, once people are exposed to the counter arguments they begin to question how strong the case for anthropogenic climate change is, or at least begin to question whether it is as pressing an issue as it has been made out to be.
From the Bolter:
Bruce McMahon of the Courier Mail shows no mercy to green colleague Graham Readfearn, who foolishly agreed to join a debate in Brisbane with climate sceptics:
Aided by Adelaide’s Professor Ian Plimer, Lord Monckton cruised to victory before a partisan crowd of suits and ties, movers and shakers.Hundreds of them were there for the sell-out, $130-a-head Brisbane Institute lunch – and scepticism was applauded.Climate change scientist Professor Barry Brook and teammate Graham Readfearn, The Courier-Mail’s environment blogger, were stoic in argument (even if Mr Readfearn may have foot-faulted once or twice and had to be pulled into line by moderator Ray Weeks).
Our alarmist friend Professor Barry Brook also took part in the debate, but he seems to have lost some of his old certainty.
In 2007 Brook claimed that while, yes, nature had been holding climate change at bay, ”all hell is about to break loose” from 2009, and he last month claimed ”2010 (is) looking likely to be the hottest ever”.
But in debate with Monckton and Plimer he conceded “we don’t know how much it (global temperature) is going to change in the future” (first audio clip), and urged instead that we cut our gases just in case.
Monckton’s retort to this citing of the “precautionary principle” is magisterial - that it is nonsense to consider only the risk of not Doing Something, without also considering the risks that Doing that Something involves.
Friday, October 30, 2009
I don't know if I buy this 'world government' claim, but...
...I do think people should at least watch Lord Christopher Monckton and John Bolton discuss the upcoming Copenhagen conference on climate change and what it may mean.
There is a killer arguement from Lord Monckton though to my scepticism on that point - Europe.
People in Europe, especially the British, have been told time and time again that claims that a particular treaty would cede sovereignty from a democratically elected government in Whitehall to unelected European officials were just right-wing or nationalist scaremongering.
And yet that is exactly what has happened. (Don't let the existence of a basically impotent and pointless European parliament fool you here.)
Treaties, just like charters of rights, are living documents that take on a life of their own once passed and very often have consequences that their framers never even imagined.
Mr Bolton is not as concerned as Lord Monckton about the particular significance of Copenhagen.
Part 7 seems to start with the same bit as part 5, but is longer.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Why sceptics must not exaggerate
Because any such exaggeration, whether witting or unwitting, will be used by the alarmists and their allies in the media as a tool to invalidate all criticisms of so-called "catastrophic" climate change.
And as the graph below makes clear, you don't have to exaggerate. Real world observations are still at variance to the projections of the IPCC's models. Actual recorded global temperatures are even below the projected ones assuming no growth in atmospheric carbon dioxide at all, (whereas levels have continued to increase without let up).
Mugged by cooling temperatures
Andrew Bolt
Friday, May 15, 2009 at 09:23am
Lucia’s Blackboard says the cooling climate does contradict the predictions of the IPCC alarmists, but not by as much as Christopher Monckton claims.
Hers is a needed reminder that in standing against serial exaggerators it is important not to exaggerate oneself. But this is also a good excuse to plug Lucia’s terrific line of presents for sceptics, like her famous mug:
Warming predictions are in red, and real world temperatures in blue and green. Hit the link for other gift ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)