Two radio interviews with Lord Monckton. Professor Andy Pitman chickened out of one.

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. Andrew Bolt 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. It’s interesting, too, that leftists applaud the widespread reluctance to debate Monckton, but then tune in anyway to see comrade Readfearn get belted. Where’s the solidarity, brothers?

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

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:

Lord Christopher Monckton, imperious and articulate, won yesterday’s climate change debate in straight sets…

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).

Readfearn has not commented on his ordeal, merely posting this audio extract and this.

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.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous

Climategate: "The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering"

Dr Tim Ball:

It’s beyond belief that the mainstream media can’t see the devastating importance of the emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) known as Climategate. The blindness cancels the claim they’re society’s watchdog. Left wing journalist Amy Goodman said when writing about the Bush administration, ”You know governments are going to lie, but not the media.” Now, with a new administration she is silent, proving there are lies of commission and omission.

Most haven’t read the emails or summarily dismiss them because of political bias. Journalist Clive Crook illustrated an open mind, albeit on second look. “In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back. The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”

Full article here.

Posted via email from Garth's posterous