Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Anyone at the Oxford Big Energy Debate?

Alas, it seems that the result of this May 28 debate, sponsored by the Oxford Energy Society was that ...

The motion:
"This House Would Stop the Annual UN Climate Summits."

was defeated. And not by a narrow margin, notwithstanding the fact that Benny Peiser, David Rose and Myles Allen were on the side of the angels?!

Did anyone attend, who could give us a report on this (IMHO) unfathomable result?

Jun 4, 2013 at 6:23 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

Myles went out of the No's side !!

His speech was interesting. IPCC is dead, no worse than that, a zombie process..

to be fair, he did say it had achived a lot, but now run it's course

only a 100 people there, 2/3 yes 1/3 no

Jun 4, 2013 at 8:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Thanks, Barry ... I think ;-) You aren't in twitter-land, here, so you could have been a little less terse or taciturn ... take your pick!

Not sure what you mean by "Myles went out of the No's side" ... According to my reading, he was supposed to be speaking in favour of the motion, along with Peiser and Rose.

Also, I think your "results" are somewhat reversed. The reported results were:

Ayes: 31 Noes: 66 (which is why the motion was defeated!)

Jun 4, 2013 at 9:42 AM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

oops, wrong way round ~2/3 rds no, 1/3 yes

and Myles did go out on the no's side. !

Where did you see it reported, do you have a link.

Jun 4, 2013 at 11:38 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Of course I have a link ... it was hidden in plain view as hyper-linked "debate" in my first post :-) But here it is, again:

http://energysoc.org/index.php?page=energy-debate

And I don't mean to be obtuse, but how does your "and Myles did go out on [or your previous "of"] the no's side" contradict - or shed additional light on - the fact that he was "advertised" as one of three who were speaking in favour of the motion?!

Anyway - considering the context and "framing" of the motion - I was more curious about what might have persuaded the voting audience to so resoundingly defeat a motion that should have been a no-brainer (unless the "overwhelming" majority of the audience was drawn from the ranks of the brain-washed greenies)!

Jun 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov