This was a pretty good debate and even though the science was way over my head for a common dude like me, I think Denniss got owned by Monckton. I don't tend to favor people who usher the words I HOPE, or say WHAT IF's like the ones stated by Denniss throughout the debate. I'd rather have the opinion from 1 genius climate scientist than by 100 average climate scientist dudes, so the consensus argument doesn't fly with me. Cheers and thanks for posting.
Good debate; I agree that Monckton mopped the floor with the other guy.
I think Dennis' arguments were disingenuous at best. Putting aside the appeal to "consensus"---a canard for "warm mongers" abound---Dennis' made many emotional appeals via false analogies such as comparing climate change to skin cancer (among other dubious analogies such as climate/carbon policy being an insurance). I was disappointed that Monckton did not call Dennis out on his weak, emotion-tugging non-arguments. Also, because Monckton does not argue from an *explicitly* pro-individual rights, morally principled perspective, I fear that his otherwise cogent points are lost in the morass of warmist rhetoric that (to many laypersons) sounds reasonable (even though ALL action to mitigate climate change "catastrophe" is an assault on that which makes a flourishing and prosperous life and society possible: individual rights).
Good debate; I agree that Monckton mopped the floor with the other guy.
I think Dennis' arguments were disingenuous at best. Putting aside the appeal to "consensus"---a canard for "warm mongers" abound---Dennis' made many emotional appeals via false analogies such as comparing climate change to skin cancer (among other dubious analogies such as climate/carbon policy being an insurance). I was disappointed that Monckton did not call Dennis out on his weak, emotion-tugging non-arguments. Also, because Monckton does not argue from an *explicitly* pro-individual rights, morally principled perspective, I fear that his otherwise cogent points are lost in the morass of warmist rhetoric that (to many laypersons) sounds reasonable (even though ALL action to mitigate climate change "catastrophe" is an assault on that which makes a flourishing and prosperous life and society possible: individual rights).
I find it quite revealing that its the skeptic that is using real data and the global warming believer will not engage on any real data, all he does through the whole debate is list other believers and mock the skeptic.
It is amusing that now NASA is showing data to support the skeptics, it seems to turn Mr. Denniss weak arguement on its head.
Comments
I think Dennis' arguments were disingenuous at best. Putting aside the appeal to "consensus"---a canard for "warm mongers" abound---Dennis' made many emotional appeals via false analogies such as comparing climate change to skin cancer (among other dubious analogies such as climate/carbon policy being an insurance). I was disappointed that Monckton did not call Dennis out on his weak, emotion-tugging non-arguments. Also, because Monckton does not argue from an *explicitly* pro-individual rights, morally principled perspective, I fear that his otherwise cogent points are lost in the morass of warmist rhetoric that (to many laypersons) sounds reasonable (even though ALL action to mitigate climate change "catastrophe" is an assault on that which makes a flourishing and prosperous life and society possible: individual rights).
I think Dennis' arguments were disingenuous at best. Putting aside the appeal to "consensus"---a canard for "warm mongers" abound---Dennis' made many emotional appeals via false analogies such as comparing climate change to skin cancer (among other dubious analogies such as climate/carbon policy being an insurance). I was disappointed that Monckton did not call Dennis out on his weak, emotion-tugging non-arguments. Also, because Monckton does not argue from an *explicitly* pro-individual rights, morally principled perspective, I fear that his otherwise cogent points are lost in the morass of warmist rhetoric that (to many laypersons) sounds reasonable (even though ALL action to mitigate climate change "catastrophe" is an assault on that which makes a flourishing and prosperous life and society possible: individual rights).
It is amusing that now NASA is showing data to support the skeptics, it seems to turn Mr. Denniss weak arguement on its head.
RSS feed for comments to this post