Lord Monckton wins National Press Club debate on climate

I caught a link over at Joanne Nova’s site and watched it. Lord Monckton is very good. I was impressed with the civility of the press in Oz however (with one exception), but mostly with the way Monckton turned the discussion back to the issues every time. He is not easily sidetracked. I respect Denniss for agreeing to participate, but it is obvious he was in way over his head.

Is that all Denniss has ? Analogies rather than evidence..
Unless he was at the wrong debate.

to SteveE, Please give an example of one of Monckton’s flawed arguments and also one that is false one. Other wise your comment is rubbish.
Jim

The Sydney Morning Herald has their own take on the debate – and don’t disclose the results http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oh-lord-theres-a-climate-sceptic-in-the-house-20110720-1hnvz.html

It was interesting that Denniss used the rather corny analogy of having to consult a doctor if you’re sick and having to accept his expertise. Of course the thing about remedies for curing illness is that they have to work and be seen to work. Most treatments depend upon a high percentage of successful outcomes which have been previously established by trials. I mean who’s going to accept a treatment where you have to wait, say, until long after your dead before it’s deemed successful?

SteveE says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:39 am
The reason most people refuse to debate with him is because he talks rubbish. Admittedly he’s very good at presenting, but rubbish is rubbish whichever way you look at it. Most of his arguments are deeply flawed or just plain false.
==============================================================
You have the video…… show your assertion. Go for it! Or are you just talking out of your posterior?

Steve E. Really what for example is rubbish?

Baxter 75: Good point if I went to a doctor and he said “computer models show you will get cancer in 30 years you better have an operation today,” I don’t think I would have that operation, at least not now.

SteveE says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:39 am
The reason most people refuse to debate with him is because he talks rubbish. Admittedly he’s very good at presenting, but rubbish is rubbish whichever way you look at it. Most of his arguments are deeply flawed or just plain false.

SteveE you could not be more wrong. You can spout rubbish in a speech (or 30 second sound bite), but not in a debate. That is the beauty of a “real” debate is that you cannot get away with BS, you have to be ready and armed. The reason they do not debate him is because he is.
Perhaps you want to point out the rubbish he spouted in that debate? It is only an hour long, long enough to get lots of sound bites, but short enough to actually listen to.

I think this by Melaine Phillips, a British author and journalists says it all and directly relates to the “consensus” argument used by Lord Monckton opponent.
Melanie Phillips
I am open-mouthed. The BBC Trust is recommending that its journalists ditch balance for propaganda.
A report being published today has apparently decided that the BBC no longer needs to interview man-made global warming sceptics because there is a consensus on this issue that the theory is true.
Its conclusions are said to be based in part on recommendations by the geneticist Professor Steve Jones. Astonishingly, he is said not only to have found no evidence of bias in the BBC’s output on climate change, but suggests that on issues like this where he says there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR vaccination and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.
This is as terrifying as it is outrageous. First of all, the claim that there is a consensus on man-made global warming is itself false. The wickedly cynical propaganda strategy to promote this false belief in a consensus was described in an eye-opening blog post by James Delingpole in the Telegraph last year:
The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.
Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:
Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.
To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

Well, Lord Monckton decisively won this debate while facing an obviously hostile audience. Quite an achievement in itself.
The fundamental problem, though, that went unmentioned during this exchange of words, is that the whole “climate change” hype (as well as the taxation related to this invented problem) is not a “debate” at all. It is an armed robbery, plain and simple, perpetrated by the worldwide political mafia in dire need of more and more funds to pay for the irresponsible promises they made to their parasite electorate.
Another frightening and appalling thing is that virtually every one of these ambitious and very self-important young people calling themselves “journalists” see their role as being elite educators and instructors of the humanity, not in finding and revealing the truth. Having not enough knowledge and experience to play the first role, they abandon the latter, therefore becoming subservient tools in the hands of most unscrupulous and dishonest representatives of the human kind.

Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society, claimed that he never lost a debate.