"Universal arsehole" George Monbiot, bottles debate...scared....
True Blue
of their litany is a desire to avoid coming face to face with academics or
scientists who are specialists in their subject and might be able to debunk
their prejudices. I actually didn't put George Monbiot in that category,
regarding him as an "informed" opponent of what I regard as global warming
realism. One of the things I inherited as editor was an invitation for him
to come and debate Ian Plimer, whom James Delingpole interviewed for our
cover recently. Today, in what is an act of desperation for any columnist,
he has published private emails showing an exchange he had with Matthew d'Ancona,
my predecessor, asking if he might come to a Spectator debate. Rod Liddle
has his own take here, on his new blog. But I'd like to add my
tuppenceworth.
Monbiot seems to assume he is somehow exposing Matt - who comes across
rather well, telling Monbiot that he may well be right but what's the harm
in debating? Monbiot doesn't really have an answer, setting prissy
conditions for him to come on the debating floor. Grown-ups who are
confident about their facts don't send a list of demands before turning up
on a public platform. They just debate. The problem, I suspect, is that the
very notion of a debate offends Monbiot who seriously believes that only
crackpots disagree with him. I wonder what he makes about this US Senate
list of 700 scientists who dissent over man-made global warming - are they
all bonkers? Monbiot has written a book about the subject and, even for
those who disagree with him (myself very much included), it's quite a good
book. This, I suspect, is why Matt invited him. So surely he can handle
himself on a debating floor?
If he hoped to scuttle our debate, and prevent anyone from hearing what
Plimer has to say, then he can think again. The Spectator's debate will go
ahead - nothing surer. But what should we do about Monbiot? I'm tempted to
plonk an empty chair on the platform, to signify part of this 'debate' which
only dares to make its point from behind the shelter of newsprint.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5332261/an-empty-chair-for-monbiot.thtml
Good links in the article, not least Monbiot's own publication of emails
with recent Speccie editor d'Anacona. He doesn't seem to realise what a
pompous ass he makes himself look in this exchange. Expect them to disappear
when he *does* realise.
Apt comment from Liddle here;
abelard
<garyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why do the high priests of climate change alarmism fear debate so much? Part
>of their litany is a desire to avoid coming face to face with academics or
>scientists who are specialists in their subject and might be able to debunk
>their prejudices. I actually didn't put George Monbiot in that category,
>regarding him as an "informed" opponent of what I regard as global warming
>realism. One of the things I inherited as editor was an invitation for him
>to come and debate Ian Plimer, whom James Delingpole interviewed for our
>cover recently. Today, in what is an act of desperation for any columnist,
>he has published private emails showing an exchange he had with Matthew d'Ancona,
>my predecessor, asking if he might come to a Spectator debate. Rod Liddle
>has his own take here, on his new blog. But I'd like to add my
>tuppenceworth.
why would anyone want to 'debate' with the director of three mining
companies...
his comment are larded with rhetoric and irrelevancies...
and you'll still run out of fossil fuels...
and you'll still have filthy air and one of the more dangerous
and ecologically damaging technology...
the article is just a pile of crap...
"...They�re only interested in the last 150 years. Our time frame is
4,567 million years. So what they�re doing is the equivalent of trying
to extrapolate the plot of Casablanca from one tiny bit of the love
scene. And you can�t. It doesn't work.�...
no person can argue like that and be expect to be taken seriously
let me rewrite it for you
"They�re only interested in the next 20 seconds. Our time frame is
4,567 million years. So what they�re doing is the equivalent of trying
to extrapolate what will happen by watching a person putting match
to a barrel of gunpowder....you can�t. It doesn't work.� "
it's worse than a plot from a kid's comic...and the rest is no better
of course if you want to buy his book...don't even hesitate!
regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Svenne
<garyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Monbiot seems to assume he is somehow exposing Matt - who comes across
>rather well, telling Monbiot that he may well be right but what's the harm
>in debating? Monbiot doesn't really have an answer, setting prissy
>conditions for him to come on the debating floor. Grown-ups who are
>confident about their facts don't send a list of demands before turning up
>on a public platform. They just debate. The problem, I suspect, is that the
>very notion of a debate offends Monbiot who seriously believes that only
>crackpots disagree with him. I wonder what he makes about this US Senate
>list of 700 scientists who dissent over man-made global warming
Stop right there.
"US Senate list of 700 scientists"
Unreliable source. No credibility.
Svenne
abelard
it's a crap list that has been circulating for years....
it's the baby of some coal mad rep...imhof i believe
the deniers are continually rehashing less than half-a-dozen
bits of rubbish that has already long since been dismissed...
DVH
"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:lfpva5l0q6603gvkh...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:04:44 GMT, Svenne <tvaer...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:49:17 +0100, "True Blue"
>><garyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Monbiot seems to assume he is somehow exposing Matt - who comes across
>>>rather well, telling Monbiot that he may well be right but what's the
>>>harm
>>>in debating? Monbiot doesn't really have an answer, setting prissy
>>>conditions for him to come on the debating floor. Grown-ups who are
>>>confident about their facts don't send a list of demands before turning
>>>up
>>>on a public platform. They just debate. The problem, I suspect, is that
>>>the
>>>very notion of a debate offends Monbiot who seriously believes that only
>>>crackpots disagree with him. I wonder what he makes about this US Senate
>>>list of 700 scientists who dissent over man-made global warming
>>
>>Stop right there.
>>
>>"US Senate list of 700 scientists"
>>
>>Unreliable source. No credibility.
>
> it's a crap list that has been circulating for years....
> it's the baby of some coal mad rep...imhof i believe
>
> the deniers are continually rehashing less than half-a-dozen
It's been horrible weather in London today. How do you explain that, eh?
abelard
it's all the fossil fool filth shutting out the sun....
but worry not, it is being compensated by a particularly hot day
in kenya and tunbridge wells
the price of sin comes into it someplace
regards
Mike
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:29:44 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>
> >news:lfpva5l0q6603gvkh...@4ax.com...
> �energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
> � all that is necessary for � � � [] � � walk quietly and carry
> � the triumph of evil is that � � [] � � � � � a big stick.
> � good people do nothing � � [] � �trust actions not words
> � � � � � � � � � � only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just want more taxes.
Gordon Brown
True Blue
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:49:17 +0100, "True Blue"
> <garyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why do the high priests of climate change alarmism fear debate so much?
>>Part
>>of their litany is a desire to avoid coming face to face with academics or
>>scientists who are specialists in their subject and might be able to
>>debunk
>>their prejudices. I actually didn't put George Monbiot in that category,
>>regarding him as an "informed" opponent of what I regard as global warming
>>realism. One of the things I inherited as editor was an invitation for him
>>to come and debate Ian Plimer, whom James Delingpole interviewed for our
>>cover recently. Today, in what is an act of desperation for any columnist,
>>he has published private emails showing an exchange he had with Matthew
>>d'Ancona,
>>my predecessor, asking if he might come to a Spectator debate. Rod Liddle
>>has his own take here, on his new blog. But I'd like to add my
>>tuppenceworth.
>
> why would anyone want to 'debate' with the director of three mining
> companies...
Because being a director of a mining company does not bar you from knowing
the truth. You may *think* it does, if you're a wide-eyed moonbat.......
but that surely doesn't encompass you, does it??
abelard
<garyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
if i didn't know he was an idiot prior to reading the article...
i do know it now...
so i suppose i do now know that truth...
of course you could try your local vicar
abelard
wrote:
>On 15 Sep, 12:36, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 20:29:44 +0100, "DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"abelard" <abela...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>> >news:lfpva5l0q6603gvkh...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:04:44 GMT, Svenne <tvaerska...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:49:17 +0100, "True Blue"
>> >>><garybagg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>Monbiot seems to assume he is somehow exposing Matt - who comes across
>> >>>>rather well, telling ?Monbiot that he may well be right but what's the
>> >>>>harm
>> >>>>in debating? Monbiot doesn't really have an answer, setting prissy
>> >>>>conditions for him to come on the debating floor. Grown-ups who are
>> >>>>confident about their facts don't send a list of demands before turning
>> >>>>up
>> >>>>on a public platform. They just debate. The problem, I suspect, is that
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>very notion of a debate offends Monbiot who seriously believes that only
>> >>>>crackpots disagree with him. I wonder what he makes about this US Senate
>> >>>>list of 700 scientists who dissent over man-made global warming
>>
>> >>>Stop right there.
>>
>> >>>"US Senate list of 700 scientists"
>>
>> >>>Unreliable source. No credibility.
>>
>> >> it's a crap list that has been circulating for years....
>> >> it's the baby of some coal mad rep...imhof i believe
>>
>> >> the deniers are continually rehashing less than half-a-dozen
>>
>> >It's been horrible weather in London today. How do you explain that, eh?
>>
>> it's all the fossil fool filth shutting out the sun....
>> but worry not, it is being compensated by a particularly hot day
>> ? ? ?in kenya and tunbridge wells
>>
>> the price of sin comes into it someplace
>I just want more taxes.
>
>Gordon Brown
at least you're not being distracted from the clown realities
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Dewhurst
Try reading 'The Deniers' by Lawrence Solomon. You might learn
something, if your head is not so far up your arse that you are unable.
R
>
abelard
>Try reading 'The Deniers' by Lawrence Solomon. You might learn
>something, if your head is not so far up your arse that you are unable.
i've read everything i could lay my hands on from the deniers thanx...
the summary by booker and north is the only one that comes near to
coherent or organised
the rest is varying degrees of chaos and idiocy like the nonsense that
introduced this thread...
what motive is there to read more of the same constantly repeated
errors and dire excuses for 'reasoning'?
True Blue
Yet you still believe in fairy tales.