Lord Monckton Wins Global Warming Debate At Oxford Union

[PersianPaladin]

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that “global warming†is or could become a global crisis.

http://wattsupwithth...t-oxford-union/

Hmm....I think this will only serve to increase public confusion. I think the whole issue of "climate change" is now something that governments and the media should drop in terms of incentives/reasons for changes in public behaviour. PEAK OIL is a far more pressing and current issue and should be promoted now as the main issue and drive to wean off fossil-fuels. I do want to point out that the people at this debate were grossly irresponsible for suggesting that "economic growth" was the most important issue. There isn't going to be any economic growth. We're heading for a post-carbon future whether we like it or not. Lord Whitty made that point; but then damaged his credibility by mentioning it in the same-vein as a confused % figure associated with AGW.

I for one remain convinced of anthropogenic climate change. But I lack the ability to argue the issue in public, because it requires a certain level of expert knowledge that I do not have. Peak Oil is far easier for the public (including myself) to understand.

Edited May 26, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[pottyprof]

It'says "global warming", which is verging on being dead and buried ............ Climate change on the other hand is accepted by anyone with an ounce of sense..

[PersianPaladin]

It'says "global warming", which is verging on being dead and buried ............ Climate change on the other hand is accepted by anyone with an ounce of sense..

No, it's referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change - if you read it.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change†by 135 votes to 110.

Edited May 26, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[Solar Cycles]

http://wattsupwithth...t-oxford-union/

Hmm....I think this will only serve to increase public confusion. I think the whole issue of "climate change" is now something that governments and the media should drop in terms of incentives/reasons for changes in public behaviour. PEAK OIL is a far more pressing and current issue and should be promoted now as the main issue and drive to wean off fossil-fuels. I do want to point out that the people at this debate were grossly irresponsible for suggesting that "economic growth" was the most important issue. There isn't going to be any economic growth. We're heading for a post-carbon future whether we like it or not. Lord Whitty made that point; but then damaged his credibility by mentioning it in the same-vein as a confused % figure associated with AGW.

I for one remain convinced of anthropogenic climate change. But I lack the ability to argue the issue in public, because it requires a certain level of expert knowledge that I do not have. Peak Oil is far easier for the public (including myself) to understand.

I'll certainly agree with your first paragraph PP, the need to find an alternative to fossil fuels is paramount. If we take the comical AGW out of the equation, then I'm sure we would all be demanding action!

[Essan]

No, it's referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change - if you read it.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world’s premier debating society, carried the motion “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change†by 135 votes to 110.

So it was nothing at all to do with whether climate change - anthropogenically caused or otherwise - is happening.

It was a debate on whether we should give greater priority to economic growth or combatting cimate change (assuming - perhaps irrationally - that the two are mutally exclusive)

Of course, such debatse are about the debate not the truth. A really good debater could defeat the motion "this house believes the Earth is around 4.6 billlion years old". Winning the debate has no bearing on whether the motion is/is not correct.

[PersianPaladin]

So it was nothing at all to do with whether climate change - anthropogenically caused or otherwise - is happening.

It was a debate on whether we should give greater priority to economic growth or combatting cimate change (assuming - perhaps irrationally - that the two are mutally exclusive)

Of course, such debatse are about the debate not the truth. A really good debater could defeat the motion "this house believes the Earth is around 4.6 billlion years old". Winning the debate has no bearing on whether the motion is/is not correct.

Well, I made the point that this confuses the public.

The fact that they stated that climate-change is less important than economic growth; is quite telling. It shows that they are not seeing any process of "climate change" as something we are responsible for. They are not seeing that it is something we can or should do anything about. Nevertheless "they" are the majority, and it's obvious to point out that the majority (or minority) are not neccessarily right by default.

As for the actual nature of "climate change" in the context of time-frames and natural forcing; then people sometimes argue that climate-change that is occurring now is not a significant threat to human species and may be entirely natural. Thus they could argue that the label "climate change" is misleading because it presupposes a unique event rather than just the same continuum of natural cycles.

Edited May 26, 2010 by PersianPaladin

[Solar Cycles]

Well, I made the point that this confuses the public.

The fact that they stated that climate-change is less important than economic growth; is quite telling. It shows that they are not seeing any process of "climate change" as something we are responsible for. They are not seeing that it is something we can or should do anything about. Nevertheless "they" are the majority, and it's obvious to point out that the majority (or minority) are not neccessarily right by default.

As for the actual nature of "climate change" in the context of time-frames and natural forcing; then people sometimes argue that climate-change that is occurring now is not a significant threat to human species and may be entirely natural. Thus they could argue that the label "climate change" is misleading because it presupposes a unique event rather than just the same continuum of natural cycles.

We as in man's quest to better himself? Climate change is happening, but what we cannot determine is, who or what is the main cause of this. Personally I feel we will know the answer sooner rather than later, as for me I'm convinced I'm in the right camp.

[osmposm]

....Of course, such debates are about the debate not the truth. A really good debater could defeat the motion "this house believes the Earth is around 4.6 billlion years old". Winning the debate has no bearing on whether the motion is/is not correct.

You're quite right, Essan.

I'm sure many of you are aware of the famous Oxford Union debate of February 1933, when the motion "That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country" was passed by 275 votes to 153. A nationwide furore followed, and the undergraduates of Oxford were accused of sending a dangerous message to Europe's dictators — that Englishmen were soft and would not fight.

The proposer of the motion, Kenelm H. Digby, said after the debate: "I believe that the motion was representative neither of the majority of the undergraduates of Oxford nor of the youth of this country. I am certain if war broke out tomorrow the students of the university would flock to the recruiting office as their fathers and uncles did.". And so it proved: when World War Two broke out six-and-a-half years later, a recruiting board was organised at Oxford which invited undergraduates and resident postgraduates under 25 to enlist: nearly 90% of a possible 3,000 volunteered.

Years later Digby observed: "It was just a debate. I don't know what all the fuss was about. Frank Hardie had asked me to propose the motion and I agreed. That's all there was to it."

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.stthomas....ring/jpabraham/

Monktons 'Monk on'

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/07/lord-monckton-debunked-global-warming/

Poor TTVMOB, seems he's gone too far this time.....

http://www.guardian....-climate-change

Edited June 8, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

We as in man's quest to better himself? Climate change is happening, but what we cannot determine is, who or what is the main cause of this. Personally I feel we will know the answer sooner rather than later, as for me I'm convinced I'm in the right camp.

Stock up......its sound advice

BFTP

[PersianPaladin]

http://www.stthomas....ring/jpabraham/

Monktons 'Monk on'

http://climateprogre...global-warming/

Poor TTVMOB, seems he's gone too far this time.....

http://www.guardian....-climate-change

Great stuff. It looks like Monckton has been truly discredited.

[Solar Cycles]

Great stuff. It looks like Monckton has been truly discredited.

Much in the same way as Hansen then!!

[Essan]

From George Monbiot's piece in the Guardian:

The problem is that people like Lord Monckton, Ian Plimer, Christopher Booker and James Delingpole act as an echo-chamber for each other's discredited beliefs. However nutty their views are, they will be affirmed by other members of the closed circle.

This, of course, is the same tactic used by advocates of 'ancient advanced civilisations' and 'earth crust displacement' etal - and yes, he's right, it can sometimes take time to find the original source of claims in order to see how they have been misinterpreted (or even simply made up). The infamous 90ft fruit tree found in the Siberian permafrost being a good example. The story has been replicated time and time again - usually by one author who quotes a previous author who quotes another .... To those less knowledgeable on the subject - especially those who want the story to be true - the claims sound real and appear to seriously challenge orthodox science. Indeed they must be real - why else would so many authors state them as real? .........

Edited June 10, 2010 by Essan

[Gray-Wolf]

From George Monbiot's piece in the Guardian:

This, of course, is the same tactic used by advocates of 'ancient advanced civilisations' and 'earth crust displacement' etal - and yes, he's right, it can sometimes take time to find the original source of claims in order to see how they have been misinterpreted (or even simply made up). The infamous 90ft fruit tree found in the Siberian permafrost being a good example. The story has been replicated time and time again - usually by one author who quotes a previous author who quotes another .... To those less knowledgeable on the subject - especially those who want the story to be true - the claims sound real and appear to seriously challenge orthodox science. Indeed they must be real - why else would so many authors state them as real? .........

Thanks Essan. There are some folk who help maintain the 'urban myths' by constant re-telling of the tales and it needs some one ,like you, to show others that it is essential to 'hop outside the ring' and try and validate 'facts' from sources that do not rely upon one anothers latest tomes.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Gray-Wolf