The Spectator Debate, Royal Geographical Society, London, 29 March 2011 sponsored by:
Details:
Signup to attend here
Spectator Debate: The Global Warming Hysteria Is Over. Time For A Return To Sanity
Tuesday, 01 March 2011 16:54 Spectator
 |
|
|
 |
| The number of people in the UK who do not believe in global warming has doubled in the last two years, according to a poll from the Office for National Statistics. Does this represent an alarming success in a war against science? Or the common sense of a British public who can see the claims of the climate alarmists dissolve before their eyes?
Join the Spectator debate, chaired by Andrew Neil, on Tuesday 29 March at the Royal Geographical Society, London, SW7 between 6 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. |
|
FOR the motion:
- Lord Nigel Lawson, Chairman, Global Warming Policy Foundation
- Dr Benny Peiser, Director, Global Warming Policy Foundation
- Graham Stringer MP,, Member of House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
AGAINST the motion:
- Professor Tim Palmer, Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, Oxford University
- Simon Singh, Science Writer
- Professor Sir David King, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, and former Government Chief Scientific Adviser
|
£30 ticket
£20 for Spectator subscribers
TO BOOK please contact the Spectator Events team:
 0207 961 0044
 events@spectator.co.ukThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or visit
 www.spectator.co.uk/events
Please quote: Debate 06
|
|
|
|
|
Like this:
Like Loading...
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Apparently the debate isn’t over.
Maybe it’s just beginning.
just resubscring
Can not be there but would love to see the debate, hopefully it will be taped, i for one would buy it. Why is the good Lord Monkton not in the debate, now that would really be worth the price of the plane ticket to see.
Roger i hope your right about it finally beginning
As the masses are educated, fewer and fewer of them buy the AGW fraud. The hysteria that once gripped them has been cleared. The con is over.
The warmist side hasn’t won a proper debate in ages. because in proper debates you have to follow the rules – no appeals to consensus or appeals to emotion.
All right !!! Finally a real debate !!!
Sign up soon Brits, seats are limited.
But what *was* the motion?
It is difficult to win a debate you already lost. Sort of like the fraud paying his barrister with a bad check.
Sarcasm = ON
Didn’t Al Gore tell us, “The debate is over!!!”
What need do we have for a debate.
In other news, as we have known, the debate was long over for the Earth being at the center of the Universe. The scientific consensus said that, so the debate is over!!!!
I would love to see a good debate. But this one makes it look like it is a debate between politicians and scientists.
Nigel Lawson and Graham Stringer may be good men, but they are politicians. Benny Peiser may be a good man, but he is not earth scientist or climate scientist.
Tim Palmer is professor of climate physics. David King is listed as former chief science advisor to the government, but he trained as a physical chemist and was even considered for a Nobel Prize. Simon Singh is a science writer… okay, that may not mean much.
Even if Lawson, Stringer and Peiser win people may say “They’re politicians! They’re good at talking. The real scientists are on the other side.”
I would rather see politicians debate politicians and scientists debate scientists. Are there no skeptical scientists in the UK willing to step up for a debate?
What exactly IS the motion?
K, carry the day, guys! Carry the day. There is much at stake. For this day, the world turns its weary eyes towards you. Do it right, and do it well.
Godspeed.
So the debate appears to be focused on the question of whether being unsupportive of AGW consensus climate science centered on the IPCC (which is the problematical science that society is distrusting more and more) is the same thing as being unsupportive of all science.
Well, if that is true, then the debate is not about the details of ongoing scientific advancement by skeptical scientists. It focuses on why is there the significant and growing distrust of the AGW consensus climate science. OK, that basically puts the pro AGW side initially on the defensive.
I notice the lack of a hard scientist on the Peisner, Lawson, Stringer team. So that would confirm to me that this is debate is focused on the reasons for the increasingly distrustful view by society of AGW consensus climate science rather than looking at the detailed science.
John
Would be fun to watch. I see some version of Dr. Strangelove pounding on a hockey stick chart and getting delirious. And some Dead Parrot moments.
But what’s this “Global Warming”? It thought “Climate Change” or “Climate Disruption” was the fuzzy new term. So, a weasel could say, yes, Global Warming Hysteria is over because now we need to shift to Climate Disruption Hysteria. The kind that fears warmcold, and keeps feeding the Green Pig.
Anyhow, it will be fun watching the spin come out of this.
I’d like to see a British climate physicist also on the “For” side. Maybe Duncan Wingham, University College, London.
Anthony – you absolutely must inform your readers how we can view this debate in its entirety. I live in the western U.S. and cannot afford the travel, but I, too, would be more than willing to buy a dvd of the debate. Where can we subscribe to it?
Ron Cram says:
March 7, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I agree. The “for” team needs another scientist to replace one of the politicians, preferably a specialist like Roy Spencer for Lord Lawson (who is a somewhat reserved, quietly spoken man). Sir Patrick Moore is another option. He is very well known, highly respected, immensely popular and his opinions would carry weight.
The debate is not about the science.
Will the debate be recorded by video for general consumption?
It could be made into a short series -if the will was there!
Would any network be courageous enough to show it?
As it seems that we are entering a cooler period, for possibly 20 years,would somebody ask the “against team” if they could explain’what weather events,temperature changes etc will be required in order that they would strongly reconsider their position .
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2011 at 11:18 pm
The debate is not about the science.>>>
That sentence would be of so much more value of it was followed by what the debate IS about…
Instead of Lawson I would have preferred to see one climate science sceptic. It seems the other side seems to have at least two people qualified to speak on climate science. Dr. Benny Peiser is a social scientist apparently.
Just as others have said here; the balance is wrong. Clearly the scientists in the opposition camp will make hay leaving all sorts of straw men around for the politicos to fall over. I’ve got really bad vibes about this.
The Brits don’t trust the AGW anymore becaue they feel manipulated by the scientific leaders. “Trust me I am a scientist” doesn’t work anymore. Since we Brits concocted the AGW proactive movement, and then undermined it with our own CRU, it would be fitting for the Brits to nail stand up, own up, and terminate what has become a scam.
Opinions can changed slightly by the most compelling presentations, but compelling doesn’t mean correct. We all wonder at the “magic” performed in front of our eyes by those who seem to do the impossible by sleight of hand, and we know scientists can do the same to us, just as politicians too.
A science debate would be welcome if the science was the issue, but it increasingly looks as though it is not the issue, and perhaps it never was.
I am not convinced that this will be an impartial debate and with Andrew Neil moderating, the chances of the alarmists winning this is quite high.
You cannot debate purely on a purely scientific basis, the ‘science’ of AGW is defenestrated.
This was always about politics, tax and control, that’s why the British have smelled the stink of corruption, the lies, deception and science fiction of drying Amazon basins and 35 year span – ice retreat in the Himalayas etc.
Recently they’ve become ever dafter, Rahmstorf, claiming the European Winters are the product of a ‘warming’ Arctic, and the more cyclones/tornadoes/heat waves/ mean climate change is down to MMCO2e = outrageous pap but the alarmists grow desperate as the [British and world] public grow weary of the hype and downright lies.
Pity Marc Morano wasn’t coming to town, how many of the ‘anti’s’ for this debate, will actually roll up??
I really hope that this is a bright light beginning to shine for the skeptics. Make sure that you write to your MP, a letter, not an email. MPs are obliged to answer letters addressed to them at the Houses of Parliament. The only way to get the “great and good” to listen to the rest of us is to be a real pain in the A**, in a nice polite way.
Good for the Spectator, good for common sense, good for true science. The current view of the Met Offfice in the UK is that they would give more accurate forecasts by checking pine cones every morning.