Thursday, September 20, 2012
Scottish Public Debate On Scottish Windmillery
Andrew Montford, one of the speakers, and also one of the speakers in the upcoming Glasgow debate describes it on his Bishop Hill blog:
"Last night's Spectator debate produced a resounding victory for the forces of light. Votes were held on the motion "Scotland's energy policy is a load of hot air" before and after the debate. Struan Stevenson and I were ahead after the first vote, although not strongly so, but produced a strong swing during the course of the evening which left us with a resounding victory."
Mike Haseler, in the audience, has a thread on the SCEF site:
" For Against Don't know
Before 66 (58%) 36 (32%) 12 (11%)
After 126 (72%) 50 (28%) 0 (0%)
The debate sponsored by Brewin Dolphin was held in the National Museum of Scotland in a lecture theatre which was packed. As one would expect Andrew Neil was a superb chairman. He allowed the debate to flow freely even alternative the intended order of speakers to let the conversation follow the natural flow.
Point from Questions
We would have to flood all Scotland's valley with hydro
Why are receding glaciers showing villages (Andrew then talked about medieval warming, unaware that these were bronze age villages)
Niall 11GW interconnector needed
Shale gas - is a disaster because a drilling station is needed every 2km (so far fewer of them than windmills). There's a 1.2 level earthquake "I bet that's about what Alex Salmind causes each time he sits down", replied a nameless MEP.
Arctic ice - at all time low ... Andrew mentioned that Antarctic ice had just been at record high
Why are all the turbines stationary so often ... because they are misunderstood said Niall.
What about my spy's who inform me its all going to be sub sea turbines?
Where are 11,000 jobs
What about renewable heat?
We need interconnector to export
Has the prof read the hockey stick - it's too thick
Summary
It was a thoroughly enjoyable debate. The speakers all did well and none were dull and all had clearly put in effort. It seems churlish to criticise ... however, it would have been more interesting if Niall Stuart had been more on form. He sent too much time attacking the other speakers and not enough time developing his own case. It was as if he expected to have the audience on side and was unprepared to work to make his case with the result that Andrew Neil ended up having to ask some questions which might have come up in the debate if Niall had been more on the ball. Prof Haszeldine was lacking in much substance. What he had to say was said in the first few sentences after which it petered out into bland assertions. Andrew Monford I felt tried to pack an awful lot of detail into a very short speech which whilst I liked what he said, I felt much of it may have been missed by someone not familiar with the subject. Struan Stevenson did not have a lot to say but said it well.
--------------------------------
A very creditable win for the sceptics. Some years ago St Andrews University had a similar debate with a similar result. That time one of the alarmist speakers was Ross "anybody who disputes catastrophic warming is from Mars" Finnie the then Environment minister.
This time no real politicians willing to speak for alarmism. Niall Stuart, indeed anbody at all from Scottish Renewables, have already refused to speak in Glasgow. Stuart Haszeldine is an Edinburgh environmental scientist involved in the carbon capture programme. Stephen Bayley is a Guardian resident design and cutlural critic and seems to have no particular link to or knowledge of Scotland's windmillry and seems to have been there to fill out the numbers.
A conclusive result - one can see why the "consensus" are in hiding. Any bets on whether this gets censored by the BBC - even on Andrew Neil's own show?
"Last night's Spectator debate produced a resounding victory for the forces of light. Votes were held on the motion "Scotland's energy policy is a load of hot air" before and after the debate. Struan Stevenson and I were ahead after the first vote, although not strongly so, but produced a strong swing during the course of the evening which left us with a resounding victory."
Mike Haseler, in the audience, has a thread on the SCEF site:
" For Against Don't know
Before 66 (58%) 36 (32%) 12 (11%)
After 126 (72%) 50 (28%) 0 (0%)
The debate sponsored by Brewin Dolphin was held in the National Museum of Scotland in a lecture theatre which was packed. As one would expect Andrew Neil was a superb chairman. He allowed the debate to flow freely even alternative the intended order of speakers to let the conversation follow the natural flow.
Point from Questions
We would have to flood all Scotland's valley with hydro
Why are receding glaciers showing villages (Andrew then talked about medieval warming, unaware that these were bronze age villages)
Niall 11GW interconnector needed
Shale gas - is a disaster because a drilling station is needed every 2km (so far fewer of them than windmills). There's a 1.2 level earthquake "I bet that's about what Alex Salmind causes each time he sits down", replied a nameless MEP.
Arctic ice - at all time low ... Andrew mentioned that Antarctic ice had just been at record high
Why are all the turbines stationary so often ... because they are misunderstood said Niall.
What about my spy's who inform me its all going to be sub sea turbines?
Where are 11,000 jobs
What about renewable heat?
We need interconnector to export
Has the prof read the hockey stick - it's too thick
Summary
It was a thoroughly enjoyable debate. The speakers all did well and none were dull and all had clearly put in effort. It seems churlish to criticise ... however, it would have been more interesting if Niall Stuart had been more on form. He sent too much time attacking the other speakers and not enough time developing his own case. It was as if he expected to have the audience on side and was unprepared to work to make his case with the result that Andrew Neil ended up having to ask some questions which might have come up in the debate if Niall had been more on the ball. Prof Haszeldine was lacking in much substance. What he had to say was said in the first few sentences after which it petered out into bland assertions. Andrew Monford I felt tried to pack an awful lot of detail into a very short speech which whilst I liked what he said, I felt much of it may have been missed by someone not familiar with the subject. Struan Stevenson did not have a lot to say but said it well.
--------------------------------
A very creditable win for the sceptics. Some years ago St Andrews University had a similar debate with a similar result. That time one of the alarmist speakers was Ross "anybody who disputes catastrophic warming is from Mars" Finnie the then Environment minister.
This time no real politicians willing to speak for alarmism. Niall Stuart, indeed anbody at all from Scottish Renewables, have already refused to speak in Glasgow. Stuart Haszeldine is an Edinburgh environmental scientist involved in the carbon capture programme. Stephen Bayley is a Guardian resident design and cutlural critic and seems to have no particular link to or knowledge of Scotland's windmillry and seems to have been there to fill out the numbers.
A conclusive result - one can see why the "consensus" are in hiding. Any bets on whether this gets censored by the BBC - even on Andrew Neil's own show?
Labels: global warming, Media, Scottish politics
