Monday, August 18, 2008 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Climate debate: realist Monckton beats alarmist Littlemore



Start with the bottom part (1/4) to listen to this radio debate on climate change. A podcast page dedicated to the event is available, too. The debate is a full-fledged war, starting with discussions of Littlemore's blog's financial connections to organized crime.

But Roy Green, the moderator, makes it sure that they return to the climate issues (the hockey stick graph, Bangladesh, warming on other planets etc.) soon.

As expected, Christopher Monckton who is not only a skeptic but who has become quite a complete climatologist defeated Richard Littlemore, a climate alarmist who has really no idea about the issues, rather easily.




Lord Monckton joined many other skeptics who have won over alarmists in the past, including the victorious Crichton-Lindzen-Stott team (against Schmidt et al.), Joe Kernen (against celebrities), Richard Lindzen (against Bill Nye), skeptics at TalkClimateChange forums, and many others. Congratulations!

Related: Tara Brown (pic) fairly and sensibly interviewed Kevin Rudd on climate change on the "60 minutes" show
Green activists at DeSmogBlog were impressed by Lord Monckton's performance:
Unfortunately... at the moment it seems Littlemore's being led around by Green and Monckton. Take back control! Take back control!

I'd have to say that Monckton "won" the debate. He came across as more prepared and had answers at his fingertips, whereas Richard appeared to verbally stumble on occasion...
Richard Littlemore admitted defeat here:
In hindsight, I played perfectly into the hands of Monckton and his happy radio host, Roy Green, who share the same goal... Score one for Monckton.
Another pro-Littlemore website thinks that Littlemore was completely unprepared, too.

I don't think it's really possible for alarmists to win a debate because their position doesn't hold much water.

If they want to succeed, they must build on human ignorance, fear, censorship, intimidation, ad hominem insults, and oversimplified slogans. Any format where nontrivial scientific facts and ideas can actually be presented and discussed is bound to be a failure for the alarmist movement.

Hat tip: Liberty News Central

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :