Friday, November 02, 2012
Climate Debate - As You Would expect When We Have Uncensored Debate
At the Glasgow debate on Catastrophic Global warming, despite the presence of Jim Sillars, Lord Monckton and Andrew Montford, not one MSP had the guts to attend. Given the quality of the speakers we can understand why. But even so, for not one of dozens of politicians, NGOs & quangos who have profited from this nonsense in the past, to be willing to stand up for it now, speaks more volume than their silence at the debate.
The sole representative of the doomsday cult was a one brave individual from the wind industry -- it would be entirely inappropriate to criticise someone who did a valiant job making the case which all those others now aren't prepared to do.
For me the most pertinent comment of the whole debate was made by Jim Sillars when he highlighted the way that the old style politicians tended to come into politics through the trade unions or through industry in general and so they had a much more pragmatic view of life. I've commented that sceptics seem to be either engineers, or from engineering type jobs, or at least commercial in some way. In contrast, those who support global warming are predominantly from the public sector: academics, single-career politicians and NGOs. Likewise he made a very good point that "for science to claim absolute certainty, particularly in forecasting (for models) is particularly unscientific".
Andrew Montford was very cheerful in the debate. Possibly that was because he had finished his book "Hiding the Decline", or maybe he was sure of support from the audience. However it might just be that being amongst the greatest minds in Scotland if not world. There was no pressure on him. Anyone of these guys could have run rings around most warmists, let alone the sole representative who was there.
It was obvious why Lord Monckton is such compelling viewing. He dominates the discussion when he gets going. There is no excuse for the BBC failing to show this superstar debating. Whether you agree with him or not, he's great entertainment. Unfortunately, the serious lack of opposition meant it was rather like watching a panzer tank against a pop-gun. Indeed, if anything the kinder nature of Monckton shone through. Even though Lord Monckton totally out classed the opposition, he genuinely seemed more interested in balancing the debate and letting the other guy add to the debate than simply going in guns blazing against a much inferior and out-gunned opponent.
It turned out I knew the opposition speaker from my time in the wind industry (Demian Natakhan). A very credible speaker who clearly had done his research and made a very good presentation of the typical arguments made for being concerned with man-made global warming. He was also intelligent and passionate, which is more than I can say for Neil Stuart of Scottish Renewables at the Spectator debate. He did however mention the 97%, which didn't do much for his credibilty.
The other opposition was from the floor in the form of a member of Glasgow Sceptics and the green party. He made the point about going for Nuclear. That's a serious point which was well worth debating and very important to the future of Scotland. But it just highlighted the almost criminal way the present MSPs have abrogated their duty as MSPs. They have a duty (if they want to remain MSPs) to engage in this kind of debate about our future. It is almost as if they don't care.
By Mike Haseler
This press release has gone out to even more and sundry than normal. Let us see if the the mainstream media are, in any small part, sufficiently open to news from any not government funded PR source to report it or mention the concept of free debate:
At a public debate, involving people from across Scotland, in West George Street, Glasgow, coinciding with RenewablesUK's conference for "networking" for billions of £s of windmill business, this, very strongly worded motion was debated and passed by 80%.
"This meeting believe there is no evidence of catastrophic warming remotely as catastrophic as the regulations, taxes and other costs imposed to ameliorate it."
Though every single Scottish MSP was invited, as members of the Parliament which has produced the world's most expensive climate change legislation not one of them felt able to speak in support of their beliefs. Nor did anybody from the various state funded organisations, from Scottish Renewables, through Friends of the Earth, to the BBC. However renewable energy consultant Demian Natakhan did & was almost certainly far more knowledgeable than any of the MSPs.
On the other side was former SNP deputy leader Jim Sillars. From the other side of politics, Lord Monckton of UKIP. Also Andrew Montford author of Hiding the Decline and runner of the world renowned sceptic Bishop Hill blog. Audience comments were also generally well informed.
Jim Sillars spoke of the importance of scepticism whenever those in power claimed certainty and vehemently denounced the way windmill subsidies have driven a million Scots households into fuel poverty and are causing pensioner deaths. Lord Monckton dissected the alarmist case piece by piece including, in response to a claim that all glaciers are melting, asking how many glaciers the speaker thought there were in the world and then correcting his answer of "hundreds" with "hundreds of thousands".
While those alarmists who have claimed that 97% of the world's scientists support alarmism, on the basis that 75 out of out of a self selected 77 agreed to a far less decisive statement, will doubtless accept that this means 80% of Scots do not believe in catastrophic warming, the meeting's chair, Neil Craig of UKIP was more restrained.
"This is only a snapshot of the opinion of informed Scots. However with another recent debate in Edinburgh, chaired by Andrew Neil coming to a similar conclusion and a previous one run by Saint Andrew's University deciding the same, we now have a statistical trend.
Most worryingly is the refusal of politicians and even PR flacks paid billions to promote alarm to enter a debate. Free debate is a necessary condition of a free society.
The BBC, who have "given up any pretence of impartiality" still have a legal duty of "balance"and in light ot this series of results owe the people of Scotland and indeed Britain a free debate of this issue. Formal broadcast debate, or debates, in whch both sides are allowed to be represented."
Really, is that the best you can
offer up to informed debate?
How I wish you had attended the
meeting and put your erudite points so succinctly
in front of the assembled audience. Of course
you, yourself would require evidence,
to be successful in any rebuttal
of Christopher Monckton.
Let's analyse your case so far :
1. It is "complete and utter bollocks"
What is written is actually a
pretty accurate representation of
the proceedings as they took place,
and with some appropriate opinion
and editorial, so far as I can see.
2. It is "from the rejects and has beens of politics"
What the panel rely upon is not
solely based upon their own
opinion, and they are not the
source of the empirical evidence
which they do quote and rely upon.
3. You state "Monckton is a pop eyed".
This is an affliction known as
"Graves' ophthalmopathy" caused
by a disease which affects the
thyroid gland. Such Ad Hominem
remarks, and mocking the afflicted,
is not valid debate.
4. You further claim that Monckton
is a "fraud whose claims to titles
This is not the case in reality,
and in fact your assertions may
well be actionable [defamation of
character]. Lord Monckton sought
clarification and legal opinion,
which you might read here :
5. You claim that
"his views are those of an extremist".
By what criteria do you make this
assertion? In fact the reverse is
true, these views are held by
quite a large number from a broad
spectrum of society. Then you go
further still and also say that
"most of it is pish and lies".
Well that explains it all for me
then. How silly of me not to see
it. Let me see if I got this right.
We are supposed to believe that
this report is flawed, because you
claim that the members of the panel
in that meeting have retired from
politics, and because one panel
member has a medical affliction,
and has claimed that he holds a
title in the peerage which he
actually did inherit, and does
hold. On that basis you pronounce
that he is an extremist, and his
views are mostly "pish and lies".
It is those such as you who are extremist.
Just look at your ranting diatribe.
Mous (possibly Alex Salmond or Roger Harrabin in mufti) well demonstrates the level of intellectaual debate & indeed honesty to which warminsts, main party politicians and state owned media aspire.
I never mentioned the leader of the SNP
at all in my retorts. In fact my entire
comment was apolitical.
I object to your facile views
and vulgar diatribe. Frankly in my opinion,
you ought to seek medical advice, because
you are in danger of developing a serious
psychological illness, or in fact you may
well already be suffering from one.