Y2Kyoto: This Is Awkward

Its funny how the truth eventually comes out about things, no matter how many talented liars try to stop it.

But that's probably hate speech, right?

A lesson for all of us.

When a person sticks to the facts and refuses to take any topic-shifting bait, the person who sticks to the facts wins.

When a person lacks confidence and believes the other side is winning, then the debate will go to expectation.

Logical.

He certainly did win that debate. He's also correct about the Green movement being taken over by marxists... People need to hear this stuff.

Interesting debate, I really liked the "free kicking" at around 52mins when Christopher disposes the journalist and brings the debate back to science. The irony of the question posed is stiff.

Christopher debated this scientific debate with science, and Richard Denniss kept answering the questions with "consensus" and no actual science.

That's funny.
Anthony "missed-by-a-million" Watts also has an entry in a poll to estimate the Arctic minimum ice extent for this September. [He has revised it downwards, but it's still one of the highest]
Unfortunately, they won't just be able to take a vote to decide the results -- that will be measured elsewhere, & as you say "reality is reality".

The titles of news articles crack me up: "Heat Wave Shows No Signs of Easing in Parts of Canada" (CTV)....It's *summer,* knuckleheads!

And did you know that the Bluesfest stage collapse was due to Climate Change? Yep, so saith one 'news' article.

It seemed like Denniss repeatedly needed the "overwhelming" science which is just another word for consensus. I doubt very much that there is overwhelming science on the side of the warmists. How can there be when it has been both warmer and colder in the past without any noticeable calamity. Read Solomon's "Deniers."

the key word there is "parts" of Canada...people's furnaces kicked in the other night here when there was a risk of frost..but then again, Canada stops at the Ontario border....

and as for the moonbat media squawking "apocalypse from unprecedented heat'...this 'heat map' of the US (which I lifted from here http://i.imwx.com/web/news/2011/july/apr-jun-noaa-temps-071911-440x297.jpg )pretty much tells it all...normal or colder than normal in most places except the south....funny that the south is the warmest...but moonbats only think in extremes and singularities

Bemused, here on the northeastern coast of Vancouver Island, we've had only a few days of real summer weather. Tourists, camping or on boats, are buying toques, earmuffs, down parkas, and anything else they can find to warm their shivering bodies. It's been a wet, miserable summer so far. Of course August and September will be balmy:)

I have no idea why it has taken this long for people to start to mention that it takes multiple decades or more to get a consensus that actually means anything. Competing research takes a long time to be done and published and filtered down to the masses.

While Lord Monckton wins the debates,and we here are confirmed in our skepticism,around the world governments are subsidizing more windmills and applying carbon taxes.

France has asked for tenders for a 1000 unit windmill farm to be built at Juno Beach,while at the same time accelerating their nuclear energy program.

Here in B.C., windmills are still being built in the North,and there's nary a whisper of rescinding that 5.8 cents/litre carbon tax.

Kelowna is experiencing a cool,wet Summer,after a long cold,wet Spring, hasn't been more than a couple of days with temperatures above 30.

But Toronto's having a heat wave,so AGW theory MUST be valid.

I was expecting a formal debate format with opening position statements, rebuttals, counter rebuttals, and closing statements.
Disappointing, but better than nothing.

I hope that this isn't the new universally accepted debate format because it seems to be missing the...debating part.

Thoroughly enjoyed the hour I spent watching this...not so much for the whooping Lord Monckton inflicted on Denniss, but rather how he put that woman from the Campus Review in her place particularly how he first seemed to feign a look of being uncomfortable with the question she asked, and then he let her have it. It was she who was then made to look uncomfortable. However, the best part was when that Hart guy challenged him on his Lordship status. Monckton proved his status, then ever so politely, yet devastingly made the questioner feel about 3 inches tall. He then took it as a free shot to bring the debate back to the subject, and landed another blow in his favour. The recurring theme he was trying to get across to the journalists in the audience was "Do your homework". It was masterful.

Lord Monkton is simply an amazing speaker. He is in possession of both facts and wit.

How the warmists must hate him!

In the comments section of the article I found this little nugget and I have to share, it is very well done.

emmenjayMichael J says:

A slight re-work of Dr Denniss’ cancer analogy.

Doctor: You have a melanoma on your arm, I need to amputate the arm.
Patient: Where is it?
Doctor: You can’t see it yet.
Patient: So how do you know I have it?
Doctor: I ran a computer model.
Patient: Has the model ever successfully identified a melanoma before?
Doctor: No, but this time we have it right. There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: How does it work?
Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: But how does it work?
Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
Patient: I think I need a second opinion.
Doctor: There are no other opinions, there is an overwhelming consensus.
Patient: I think I’ll go and see Dr Smith.
Doctor: You can’t trust him, he’s a denier.
Patient: He published a paper on chemotherapy treatment for melanoma.
Doctor: It wasn’t peer reviewed.
Patient: It was the Medical Review.
Doctor: Yes but the reviewers were all deniers and the editor was fired.
Patient: I think I’ll go now.
Doctor: It’s much worse than we thought.
Patient: I’m going.
Doctor: First pay me 4 trillion dollars.
Patient: Bye now.

// the best part was when that Hart guy challenged him on his Lordship status. Monckton proved his status, then ever so politely, yet devastingly made the questioner feel about 3 inches tall. //

If the The House of Lords may be permitted an opinion --

// My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. //

Monckton is the Charles K Johnson of climate science.

“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why? Because, Heuer says, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The unusual “gagging order” could have been issued because the results of CLOUD are really, really boring, muses Calder. Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate.

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/cern-gags-physicists-about-role-of-cosmic-rays-in-climate-change/

So a guy who disagrees with most of your talking-points won a debate with people who disagree with all of your talking-points.

VICTORY!!!

So a guy who disagrees with most of your talking-points won a debate

I have general unsupported non-specific disagreement with your general unsupported non-specific statement.

The medical analogy is even worse than Dwayne presents it. Melanoma is a known condition that has been diagnosed and treated countless times. It'd be more like coming down with "unknownitis", but only specialists in "unknownitis" think you have it. And of course the only cure is to amputate both arms and both legs.

When you ask for their data to get a second opinion from another doctor, they say "why should I give you my data when all he's going to do is find something wrong with it?"

Then you say "Wait a second, you have to give me the data, I'm legally entitled to it!" Then they say "Errrr, uh, no, actually some of it is copyrighted..."

Ridiculous how many times warmists get away with that awful medical analogy.

Thanks for the link Kate

the sky is falling the sky is falling if you don't concur then you are obviously a simple minded mental Mensa member.

won't you just agree and we can all go home and start a brand new anti-social movement

The write-up in the Sydney newspaper seems to have a different take on the debate,no surprise there.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oh-lord-theres-a-climate-sceptic-in-the-house-20110720-1hnvz.html

Good for Lord Monckton.

Heh. The headline writes itself for ABCNNBCBS and their dead-tree fellow travelers:

"Lord Monckton, Richard Denniss, and Journalists Score 1010 at Climate Debate!"

I simply don't get this whole "house of lords" thing. What are the membership requirements for that "august" chamber, anyway?

Why would anybody think that getting drummed out of a politicized organization somehow lowers one's credibility.

His jabs at the media were well-aimed, particularly when the Western Australian reporter called for civility all the while Australian journos call for the gassing of AGW skeptics. And rarely have I seen the shredding he gave the female journo who talked about peer review and science. Excellent.

I also suspect the journos were astounded at how many scientific articles are out there that stand against the ravings of the AGW believers. They aren't doing their homework, and Monckton called them on it. That took courage.

Monckton nailed the CO2 as pollutant argument as a non-starter too.

Too bad naught point 1 percent of Canadian journalists give two shytes about the information in that debate.

"So a guy who disagrees with most of your talking-points won a debate"

--------------

Actually it was a guy who based his points on science who won a debate against a guy who dodged all the science and continually retreated to "concensus".

He destroyed your AGW alarmism Alex. And you've admitted it. Can we now expect your posts on the subject to reflect your new point of view?

I have read hundreds of articles wailing about AGW, but not one of them has explained how increasing the costs to the clean industry in Canada and giving the much higher polluting factories in China a pass will reduce pollution.

Seems to me the so called solutions would increase real pollution and C02 emissions, not reduce them.

The Copenhagen treaty proposed imposing tougher regulations on our clean industry, and would have had Canada hand the UN billions a year in 'climate reparations'.
China's already higher polluting factories would not have tougher regulations and would get part of the money we would hand the UN.
Our already cleaner factories would become even less competitive with the higher polluting factories in China so more production would simply go there while ours closed.

More production from dirtier factories means more pollution, not less.

Isn't it time one of the AGW disciples explained how their so called solution would actually accomplish it's stated goal?
Generaly that is one of the first questions you have to answer....

"He destroyed your AGW alarmism Alex. And you've admitted it. Can we now expect your posts on the subject to reflect your new point of view?"

*sigh* Once an idiot, always an idiot.

You have no idea what my position on AGW is, you have no clue what the science behind it actually shows, you clearly don't realize that Monckton disagrees with all the science-denial which gets tossed around here on a regular basis, and you, apparently, think that a public debate is better than peer-reviewed science as a means of ascertaining the truth. You are, in short, ignorant and delusional and apparently proud of it. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.