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...
Be nice if it’s put on video and posted on the web.
Meanwhile in Australia, the following TV interview was held jus a few minutes ago.
Hot off the airwaves:
Chris Ulman is the new joint presenter on the Australian ABC 7.30 pm news review program.
Chris really got stuck into Julia Gillard, the Austrailian PM who is touring the USA.
He told her, very directly, that the world is moving away from taxing carbon (read CO2 emissions), particularly in the USA.
After the interview, he subsequently went into some detail on this.
He also challenged the PM on the record low rating of her Labor government in the latest public opinion polls.
He commented that the government were doing just as bad a job as did former PM Kevin Rudd.
KR lost his position as PM in large part because he had lost the debate on CO2 taxes.
This is the first time that anybody on the ABC TV has come clean about the real position.
I agree with much of the sentiment already noted. Wish I could be there. Why is there no scientist on the pro side? Why were people like Lord Monkton, Stephen Wilde, Piers Corbyn, Richard Lindzen, etc., not invited to speak, & why was Albert $4M on San Francisco sea front property despite 20ft sea-level rises Gore, not also, if only to publicise his decline to enter into debate?
I agree with Ron Cram on his general point. The BBC often pits an alarmist scientist against a skeptical politician or journalist and more often than not the scientist comes across more convincingly, but not always.
However Graham Stringer studied chemistry etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Stringer
I’d trust Andrew Neill to be impartial. The debate may or may not be strictly about science but surely the For side would benefit from one more scientist and one less politician.
Ken Hall 12:31:
Andrew Neil is decidedly sceptical. He won’t let alarmists get away with any of their usual rubbish.
It is good to see that at long last a debate is actually taking place. However, the wording of the motion is rather unsatisfactory and does not necessarily lead to a detailed argument on the scence; it may direct argument more towards examination of policy response.
Andrew Neil will be fair and impartial, you just have to look at a couple of his other small debates he had on his own program, regarding climate issues, to recognise this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d23B-R2-qw
The first of The Spectator’s questions is begged, in that to answer, there has to be an assumption that there is a “war against science”, which of course, there isn’t.
The ‘war’ is against science which is “Betrüger”…
This is what is going to be debated:
“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?”
So it isn’t about AGW as such, but about ‘anti-science’ v ‘common sense’.
Having Graham Stringer, MP, participating is a stroke of genius. He is a Labour MP, but he also is a scientist and was the only one in the various Parliamentary Special Committee meetings about the whitewashes to ask the pertinent scientific questions which infallibly had the likes of Jones, Oxburgh etc squirm.
Can’t go meself, so am hoping for a video. Perhaps someone will do a liveblog, e.g. here: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
I was First Speaker in many successful debating teams. Defining the terms lays the ground for what follows. What is the structure of this ‘debate’?
There are so many aspects to this controversy that there ought to be half a dozen debates scheduled, one on each.
This is what is going to be debated:
“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?”
———————————————————————–
Back again as a First Speaker of some experience. Weasel words abound, like implying that common sense and ‘science’ are somehow opposed, and that they are the only alternatives. I would almost kill to get this gig. They would not know what hit them.
And, yes, look forward to it being available as widely as possible.
As nearly everyone has mentioned: What is the specific question? There is no clarity in the announcement. It may be only a debate over the poll results, and what would be the point of that?
Steven Mosher says:
March 7, 2011 at 11:18 pm
The debate is not about the science.
It would also be carry more value if it had any basis in fact. I too would prefer more illustrious scientists from the for side of the discussion. Cristy, Lindzen, Spencer. But they are all american because the discussion has been squashed in the UK. It really is a dirty little socialist dictatorship these days. Fortunately, evryone knows that the great bit has long since gone. I would not pay 10€ to see this debate. I cannot see any value in it at all. The speakers are not the main protaganists. We need Jones, Mann, Hansen and Hune with Cristy et al. Shame really a great opportunity blown.
I smell a setup. This will just be an attempt to “whitewash” the “Debate” the same as they whitewashed Climategate.
The Royal Society on the “Against” side?
Come on.
Well, by reading Lawson’s wikipage, it would appear I may be mistaken. Maybe.
It looks like the skeptic arguement will be on the “For” side not the “Against”.
@Joanna
From your experience, how would you expect this debate to pan out?
Amongst political commentators in the UK Andrew Neil is the biggest beast in the jungle. He will be a good chairman. I’m looking forward to the event and am also looking forward to enjoying a few glasses of Rioja with other WUWT appreciators.
I would love to watch this and throw in with all the others for a webcast or DVD.
Personally I hope this is about the politics as IMHO the science is not the crux: in the ‘which came first’ debate the politics or the science the resounding winner and inescapable conclusion is the politics.
I mean really, what hard science are they going to promote? Two beakers with thermometers, one with a higher ppm of CO2 and a couple of 100watt bulbs? The only “science” they have is model based. Or maybe they’ll bring up a century dead hypothesis by Arrhenius, that he later recanted?
It is no longer possible even to say with a straight face that CO2 drives global temps due to the fact that CO2 has risen 40% and the temp has gone up in tenths of a degree C (0.7C)…really? That’s going to be their argument?
Whe it sounds like, smells like, tastes like, looks like, and feels like natural variability to anyone with common sense and even a surperfluous knowledge of historical climate, then that’s what it is and that is why they can’t get their message across. No, they will keep it as political as possible with just sound bites of science from the AGW camp (stick and jab, then run away).
Hopefully (assuredly?) Stringer et al will be on their game. Politics is what started this mess (again, IMO) and hopefully that’s where it will end. As soon as all the enabling / motivating / corrupting grants dry up so will the charlatan “scientists” leave town. Who knows? After all the harm they’ve done maybe a few will even be tarred & feathered while others will end up in the pokey. 🙂
“Number of people who BELIEVE in Global Warming?????
Try this on for size –
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell. [See Calvin]
The third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.
Amen.
———————–
That’s called “Faith”, that is called RELIGION!
But that is NOT science, or “verifiable” or testable.
The fact that people are using the phrase, “Believe in Global Warming”…shows that it is NOT, REPEAT….NOT!!!!!! Science. But a religion.
And the amazing thing is the “true believers” can’t see it.
One talks about “civility” in the debeat. How about this. I REFUSE to be “civil” to ANYONE who couches things in terms of “belief”.
If I can find someone who THINKS THAT THE ENERGY BALANCE OF THE ATMOSPHERE HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO A NET INWARD (until the black body re-radiation matches the input) by “CO2” changes since WWII… and wants to argue facts, figures, analysis, etc. FINE.
But arguing with a ‘believer’…well, ALLAH ACKBAR!
Max
The Spectator has been the most critical part of the mainstream British media. The editor Fraser Nelson went head to head with Bob Ward on Climategate and a recent article by Matt Ridley explained the significance of the O’Donnell refutation of Steig.
Some doubts have been expressed about the impartiality of Andrew Neil. If anything he has shown his colours more for the sceptic side of debate both in his blog and interviewing true believers.
Graham Stringer, though a politician now was a scientist: the only one on the Commons Select committee and the only one to have read The Hockey Stick Illusion.
Expect a good debate.
Excellent!
Sorry to disagree with Max, but belief is an inevitable factor in all spheres. The idea that science itself is outside of “belief” is a false belief in itself, one of the biggest delusions of the day, and falsified by many examples from history. Indeed, any poll of opinions is about beliefs – the way someone is thinking based upon their particular received/interpreted knowledge, and is integrated into their world view usually to support it.
It is hard to separate two belief systems (AGW and non-AGW in this case), so both sides wish to take the “pure science” high ground, pretending that belief has nothing to do with it. In both cases it is not true, but neither side can afford to admit it.
On many fronts, from Berkley’s BEST, to Lisbon, to the sweet reason running rampant at the Curry blog, and now this rigged debate, the sceptic camp is being co-opted. Trust but verify. Negotiate but keep your powder dry.
If this were a military situation sceptics would be about as prepared as Poland in 1939. The first ploy of a foe who faces or has suffered a defeat is to negotiate so that he can gain time to rearm and redeploy. I give you Stalin’s redeployment of his manufacturing base to east of the Urals while under treaty to help Hitler dissect Poland.
Sceptics have presented a real threat to Alarmists. Alarmists have at least a modicum of organization and leadership and a lot to lose. They are not done fighting and have no intention of giving up their sinecures. It is apparent from Climategate that the Alarmist camp is coherent enough to accomplish some actions to protect itself. Indeed, there now appears to be a monolithic response to every attack on Alarmism.
Sceptics need leadership, goals and a plan. Rants are fun, but they don’t really impress the bad guys.