All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at:

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Lord Monckton wins the National Press club debate on Climate

Letter to editor by Leon Ashby - President -  The Climate Sceptics Party.
Lord Monckton orates as Richard Denniss seems to shrivel

Dear Sir / Madam,
                              Those who saw the televised climate debate (View HERE) 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 Dennis 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.
Dennis 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 injure 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 Dennis 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
The Climate Sceptics


  1. Denniss argued on flawed concepts like consensus and the precautionary principle. Monckton argued on scientific evidence.

  2. the other thing Denniss kept harping on about was 'Insurance Insurance Insurance', futile if the insurance premiums cost much more than the problem would cost

  3. The Green Labor fear monger Denniss was in full swing and hopelessly lost the complete show as he could not step on to the front foot where retreating to fear and loathing at the first opportunity nearly dragged out the black can and the Children’s, children’s, children’s sob awards and motioned towards nationalism in his squirming defence of the lefts man made global warming CO2 tax scam horah cry for me weeping willow portrait.

  4. I have explored Getup and watched their reactions to different types of opinion that disagrees with them. If they don't like what they read on campaign suggestions they make them die by withholding votes to them and they stack votes on what they want to promote. They place a large proportion of their own ideas on the campaign list, pretending it is from supporters, and then the staff all support it overwhelmingly. It is dishonest and a fraudulant vote stuffing and numbers stacking effort actually supported by less than 100 persons. It is a fraud. It will die a natural death.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!