Mostly because we have actually HELD a debate, rather than just pretending to have a debate where Al Gore preaches and then shuts up anyone with facts that refute his preaching!http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/l ... ord-union/
Army of Light and Truth 135, Forces of Darkness 110
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.
But I thought all undergrads were required, by contract, to support the AGW hypothesis, even in the face of refuting evidence?
Ms. Zara McGlone, Secretary of the Oxford Union, opposed the motion, saying that greenhouse gases had an effect [they do, but it is very small]; that the precautionary principle required immediate action, just in case and regardless of expense [but one must also bear in mind the cost of the precautions themselves, which can and often do easily exceed the cost of inaction]; that Bangladesh was sinking beneath the waves [a recent study by Prof. Niklas Moerner shows that sea level in Bangladesh has actually fallen]; that the majority of scientists believed “global warming” was a problem [she offered no evidence for this]; and that “irreversible natural destruction” would occur if we did nothing [but she did not offer any evidence].
Interesting that the greenies will invoke "precautionary principle" for something that is clearly not proven and for which the science is FAR from settled, but they reject the same principle when a dictatorial tyrant is openly calling for another nation to be wiped off the map. When it is something THEY care about, the "precautionary principle" seems to work just fine. When it comes to removing the cockroaches of the world from power, it matters not.
Lord Monckton repeatedly interrupted Lord Whitty to ask him to give a reference in the scientific literature for his suggestion that 95% of scientists believed our influence on the climate was catastrophic. Lord Whitty was unable to provide the source for his figure, but said that everyone knew it was true. Under further pressure from Lord Monckton, Lord Whitty conceded that the figure should perhaps be 92%. Lord Monckton asked: “And your reference is?” Lord Whitty was unable to reply. Hon. Members began to join in, jeering “Your reference? Your reference?” Lord Whitty sat down looking baffled.
WOW! Really? I did not think such crass irreverence to proper debate ettiquette was ever permitted at Oxford!
I think Lord Whitty is losing his wits to fling such baseless generalizations out like that! "Everyone knows it is true" sounds a lot like something one hears on the playground.
Mr. Rajesh Makwana, executive director of “Share The World’s Resources”, speaking third for the opposition, said that climate change was manmade [but he did not produce any evidence for that assertion]; that CO2 emissions were growing at 3% a year [but it is concentrations, not emissions, that may in theory affect climate, and concentrations are rising at a harmless 0.5% a year]; that the UN’s climate panel had forecast a 7 F° “global warming” for the 21st century [it’s gotten off to a bad start, with a cooling of 0.2 F° so far]; and that the consequences of “global warming” would be dire [yet, in the audience, sat Mr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, whose landmark paper of 2008 had established that not one of 539 scientific papers on “global climate change” provided any evidence whatsoever that “global warming” would be catastrophic].
Strike 2. THIS is the kind of debate we have always needed. And as you see, when faced with the proper rules of debate, the AGW side cannot do anything but hurl platitudes and keep repeating the talking points. When faced with a need to actually support those talking points with facts, they simply cannot.
He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers].
That is how it is done! Citation is one thing, but to cite the oppositions own numbers to prove they are pissing in the wind...true debatesmanship!
Ya know, there are some of those British institutions that I can really get behind. But you can all keep your Spotted Dick, thank you very much!