Friday
Nov022012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill UKIP debate report
Nov 2, 2012 Climate: Sceptics UKIP Mike Haseler has written a report on the UKIP Glasgow debate the other night. It can be seen here.
At the Glasgow debate on Catastrophic Global warming, despite the presence of Jim Sillars, Lord Monckton and Andrew Montford, not one MSP had the guts to attend. Given the quality of the speakers we can understand why. But even so, for not one of dozens of politicians, NGOs & quangos who have profited from this nonsense in the past, to be willing to stand up for it now, speaks more volume than their silence at the debate. The sole representative of the doomsday cult was a one brave individual from the wind industry who did a valiant job making the case which all those others now aren't prepared to do.
Reader Comments (75)
What puzzles me about the debate, is the organisation. I mean if I were going to organise a debate, I'd find a proposer and an opposer, make sure they were happy with their opponent(s) and the proposition, agree a venue, date and time and then publicise the event. And yet the announcement on BH was that there was a debate organised with no opposition...
If UKIP had opposers arranged who then all pulled out, then who were they? If not, what a strange way of going about things. It's almost as if they didn't want any opposition.
Not really BB, it is anathema to the CAGW mindset to even countenance the idea of debate with 'deniers'. After all, there is nothing to debate, is there?
Chris, AM has debated at least twice this year at the Spectator, maybe elsewhere too. Are you saying there was no opposition at those debates either?
"Making the case" - for what perchance?
Indeed, is it possible to make any sort of intelligent case or rationale for the construction of wind propelled, rotating blade, avian killing machines?
Funny one this, for the RSPB is it not? Reminiscent of - just like grandly extravagant equivocator, the graun's Toynbee, today compromised by her love of the EU and Tuscany set against her beloved Labour party, who, much to her extreme consternation are seemingly falling out of luv wiv the EU - oooh the pain, can you feel it?
Where can a TV Viewer like me find a video of this Debate ???
a belly laugh with every line. enjoy it:
2 Nov: Daily Mail: Quentin Letts: Hayes sprang to the despatch box with all the bounce of Basil Brush
As many a field marshal (and mother-in-law) knows when in trouble – attack brazenly! This was the approach taken yesterday by Energy Minister John Hayes.
Mr Hayes is the feisty fellow who this week gave bien-pensant liberals an attack of the vapours by saying he did not think much of wind farms. His comments were taken to mean that no more wind farm projects will be built.
His pronouncements, in an interview with the Daily Mail, caused such intakes of breath in London’s Left-wing Islington district that flags outside King’s Cross railway terminus were almost sucked off their moorings…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226517/Energy-Minister-John-Hayes-sprang-despatch-box-bounce-Basil-Brush.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
almost as funny, the delegate list:
RenewablesUK Delegate List
http://www.renewable-uk.com/events/annual-conference/pdfs/ACE2012%20Delegate%20list.pdf
I know some people - actually, I don't know them and it may just be one. Let's start again. Someone unknown to me has pronounced that the first page of this thread turned "obviously and nastily off-topic" with "hobby horses, megaphones and mounting hysteria" present.
I disagree. I think it's one of the really interesting threads on Bishop Hill, where a number of us calling ourselves sceptics disagreed with each another, in a very constructive and civilised way, with the additional spur of one clever anonymous critic who was not obliterated, as has sometimes happened. And all this led to a superb statement by Jonathan Jones:
Obviously people will have their differences on the first sentence. But the last two for me constitute one of the most important things ever said on Bishop Hill. Thank you Jonathan.
We know that Spanier was willing to carry water of despots to keep the reputation of the old school safe. What else do we need to know now that we know that water carrying included covering up a pedophile and a climate extremist?
Two data points form a trend. There won't be a third. Thankfully.
pat: that is a brilliant parliamentary sketch by Quentin Letts yesterday, one of the best I've ever read. Thank you. Some other highlights from it:
"Hayes the pilot of destiny, speaking truth to a deaf elite."
Well done Quentin. I hope you'll forgive me that this long extract is on the very thread where I'd decided to cast doubt on your verdict that an earlier prime minister was vindictive towards her enemies. Monckton disagrees and on that I'm with Monckton. But I'm sure you, like many here, can cope with honest disagreement between friends. We need more of it.
Pointman's comments on the lack of debate in climate science is very apposite. The alarmist case is based on a mutually reinforcing set of axioms which individually are wrong so have to be supported as a whole, otherwise the religion ceases to be. Hence they will not debate, instead resorting like Caroline Lucas did in her recent Politics' Show confrontation with Delingpole, to not even looking at her opponent!
Nov 3, 2012 at 4:30 AM | pat
There are about 4 or 5 thousand people on that list. There is a scary amount of money riding on (supposedly) hot air...
Has the debate been covered by the mainstream media at all? I couldn't find anything about it using Google News.
Re the attendee list ... it is amazing how many organisations sent so many. It's a pattern across most (?) of the organisations. Seems unusual that so many organisations would spend the money. Deliberate?
That was a good one, wasn't it pat?
I liked this:
True. And they say they won't debate the issue because it gives the other person credibility. That is true too. What is created by destroying others' credibility and the pursuit of secrecy, ... cannot survive debate.
yes, Letts nailed it. i haven't stopped laughing since i read it. good one to send to friends who may need a pick-me-up given all the doom and gloom preaching we're subjected to lately.
Shub: 'What is created by destroying others' credibility and the pursuit of secrecy, ... cannot survive debate.'
You see this whenever the 'consensus' is challenged. In normal debate, science can be challenged item by item but in this case, if you challenge just one part of the artificial construct, the response is to attack the messenger. That so many in science join in apparently because of political affiliation is worrying.
If the climate change debate were a boxing tournament - we'd have the self-proclaimed Heavyweight Champion of the World refusing to get in the ring by claiming that he has been weighed, measured and examined by boxing's highest authorities, who have unanimously declared that he is indeed the Heavyweight Champion of the World... so there's no need to prove it in an actual fight.
"If the climate change debate were a boxing tournament - we'd have the self-proclaimed Heavyweight Champion of the World refusing to get in the ring by claiming that he has been weighed, measured and examined by boxing's highest authorities, who have unanimously declared that he is indeed the Heavyweight Champion of the World... so there's no need to prove it in an actual fight."
Brilliant analogy, Peter.
Peter S: good one. However, the reality is that post-normal science was invented to support Scientific Marxism, the claim that Society should be controlled by scientific experts dictating what the rest of the population should do. This includes Eugenic Theory, now rapidly returning as we repeat the economic and political journey of the 1930s.
Comments off in the Rob Wilson post. Is this a sign of things to come?
RB: that's because tree growth is a proxy for CO2 concentration and rainfall, not temperature.......:o)
Comments on that thread work fine for me too!
PS- I applaud Rob Wilson for his innovative use of the InterWebby thing to enrich the learning experience for his students and fully endorse the call for respectful dialogue from our host