After listening to this debate, it was clear to me that the right of reply was not given to Lord Monckton. I hate debates like this when one person says one thing the other says… ‘That simply is not true’, then the moderator goes on to the next point without giving the right to reply!
Oh, and questioning Lord Monckton’s credentials was hilarous considering that Rupert Posner falls short of any credentials himself:
Rupert holds a Commerce Degree from the University of Western Australia and a Graduate Diploma in Journalism from Murdoch University. In 2007, he was elected to the Council of the Australian Conservation Foundation. [source]
Currently in Australia on a speaking tour, Lord Christopher Monckton is a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, architect, mathematician and climate change sceptic.
He says that recent criminal charges against the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cast doubt on the motives of those involved.
"There is now growing doubt as to whether one can trust the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," says Lord Monckton.
The Climate Group’s Rupert Posner says Lord Monckton is the one who is not to be trusted.
"The world knows that [climate change] is an issue," says Rupert Posner.
Lord Christopher Monckton and Rupert Posner engaged in a lively and at times heated debate, chaired by Jon Faine. Climate Change skeptic Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner from the Climate Group – ABC Melbourne – Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Some comments on the debate:
Lord Monckton, as always, a true gentlemen.
Jon Faine, as always, pushing the old barrow. Not one call supporting Monkton Jon? Really?
Jon you do realise that a debate moderator is one who moderates, not supports one debater and interrupts the other one during every answer?
Debate? What debate? This was a laughable piece of advocate journalism cloaked as a debate. In a real debate, the moderator allows both parties to follow logic and point. In this piece, both Jon and Rupert were childish, petulant, and obviously tag-teamed all the while.
The only saving point that made this "interview" bearable enough to listen to was Monckton’s standing out as the respected adult with clear and concise points in the face of such grade school antics. Moncton won the debate simply by exposing the fallacy of Jon and Rupert’s constant appeals to authority punctuated with brattishness. This was a fairly typical example of why sceptical scientists are winning the debate.
And speaking about debate, I found this youtube which shows a ‘climate alarmist’ standing outside a conference where Lord Monckton was due to attend inferring that anyone who doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming belongs to the flat earth society! What a great point.
Al Gore said the same thing of his sceptics when he last came to Australia last. He bundled creationists and climate sceptics into one neat little package and called them in the most mocking way “modern day flat earth believers”. Al Gore has been noted as saying that the debate on Global Warming is over! Clearly it is NOT! Saying it is over Mr Gore, does not make it go away. In fact more and more people are becoming aware that this issue is NOT done and dusted, far from it!
On a side note… have you heard that biofuels which are supposedly good for the environment may not be good for the poor people! The farming needed to produce biofuels to placate the West’s energy needs actually pushed food prices up by 75% therefore has caused food riots and starvation around the globe! So, when I see headlines like THIS, I wonder if they understand that it is the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Alarmists’ that have underpinned the need to change from fossil fuel to biofuel which resulted in pushing the food prices up which in turn has caused foot riots and starvation around the globe!