In April 2009, climate realist Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was invited to testify before Congress about global warming alongside Nobel laureate Al Gore.
The following video of a debate that happened in Australia Tuesday will perfectly demonstrate why Monckton, after he had arrived at Reagan International Airport in Washington, D.C., was informed that House Democrats refused his appearance at the hearing:
Please notice how Monckton continually referred to data and scientific papers to support his view of anthropogenic global warming, while his opponent, Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute, merely echoed the "scientific consensus" nonsense without bringing data or facts into his rebuttal.
Denniss did the same thing in his article about the debate published at Crikey Wednesday:
Put simply, Lord Monckton is a case study of the emphasis placed by the media on confidence over content. A harder question for the media, however, is why they have given so much prominence to climate sceptics with no qualifications in science when they pay virtually no attention to immunisation sceptics without qualification in epidemiology or fluoride sceptics with no qualifications in chemistry or biology?
Denniss's entire argument Tuesday, and in his article Wednesday, was that the science is settled, and people like Monckton shouldn't be listened to.
Yet, what Monckton did a number of times when questioned by Australian journalists at the debate was identify that it was press members like those present that are just repeating the information given to them by global warming alarmists, and that they are failing in their duties to not only research the science but also fairly report it to the public.
What this debate perfectly demonstrated was that the realists are willing to actually address the climate data key to this discussion while the alarmists just want to enumerate the number of scientists and organizations that agree with the theory without providing any facts supporting their position or refuting that of the realists.
Also made clear by this debate was exactly why the alarmists want the public to believe the science is settled: when presented with someone that actually knows the facts, they look foolish.
And this, of course, was why Gore got House Democrats in April 2009 to refuse to allow Monckton to appear with him.
Although Gore likely would have done a better job than Denniss, he would have been no match for the far more knowledgable and eloquent Monckton, and the entire myth the former Vice President has been profitably spreading since 2006 would have crumbled - with C-SPAN cameras broadcasting every delicious second - like a house of cards.
For those that have never seen Monckton speak, you now know why he was prevented to face Gore two years ago, and why the Nobel laureate has continually refused a standing debate offer from this British Lord.
(HT Anthony Watts via Just the Tip)
