Those who saw the televised climate debate between Lord Monckton and Richard Denniss would notice these points.
Lord Monckton gave actual names of scientists (Lindzen and Spencer) who have shown the planet will not overheat from CO2 increasing in the atmosphere.
Richard Denniss gave no actual science, no reference to scientific papers – just appealing to ‘The supposed Consensus’.
Monckton attacked consensus as just opinion and not real science – saying science is data and analysis and quoted his own peer reviewed paper as an example.
Denniss had no peer reviewed paper to quote but asked how can a majority opinion of politicians and science groups (groups that rely on taxpayer or alarmists leaning funds) be wrong?
If the press were doing their job, they should have asked what groups that are truly independent of alarmist leaning funds, support his view?
Monckton explained how a carbon tax will cost our economy billions and reduce the temperature of the planet by almost zero.
Denniss claimed it will be a wonderful insurance policy despite Australian industries and workers having to endure economic pain to achieve very little.
For digging questions by the press, it was bland. For facts and logic, Monckton was far better. For entertainment, Monckton was again superior and, since alarmists like Flannery and Bob Brown have not commented on the debate, shows how badly Richard Denniss was beaten on the science and economics, but at least he had a go at a debate (which is more than Tim Flannery will do).
Leon Ashby,
Mt Gambier SA
