[UPDATE Sun 17 July 2011 16:05 NZT] An announcement is expected soon from the organisers and I’ve been given no reason for pessimism. Let’s hope this is the news we’ve been waiting for.
[UPDATE Sat 16 July 2011 21:05 NZT] There has been good progress and everyone’s optimistic that we will see Lord M in the country. However, it’s not quite a done deal yet, so keep your fingers crossed.
[UPDATE Sat 16 July 2011 12:40 NZT] This post was removed for a while at the request of the organisers while they confirmed funding. It’s still unclear to me whether funding is secure, although the probability seems high that it is. The Dominion Post has published a piece on it and got feedback from James Renwick, who was at first keen on a debate. There’s a lot of interest in getting Monckton over here.
Plans are afoot to bring Christopher Monckton to New Zealand on 4th–7th August, though details are sketchy and sponsors unconfirmed.
Groups known to support his visit include the Climate Realists Network, Investigate Magazine, the NZ Climate Science Coalition and of course us here at the Climate Conversation.
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is keen to have a public debate with a prominent climate-change believer.
I asked James Renwick, senior climate scientist at NIWA, if he would be available, but he declined, saying he would be overseas. “Thanks for the invitation — I am very interested in his visit and would love to take up the opportunity, but I’ll be out of the country while he’s here, unfortunately. I hope you can find a suitable alternative.”
Later, he was asked to comment by Kiran Chug, Dominion Post reporter, who quotes him as saying he was unsure whether he would want to participate even if he was available as it would simply give publicity to Lord Monckton. “Sure we can debate things, but the evidence and observations that are out there, there’s nothing to debate. To debate the whole idea of climate change is long past.”
That sounds like the NIWA company line coming through, James, replacing your initial eagerness. And of course the debate would not really be about “climate change” would it? Nobody denies it changes. The debate we need is whether human-caused changes to the climate are dangerous — or even detectable.
There should be quite intense media coverage at any rate as it will be the first time Lord Monckton has visited New Zealand.
Watch this space for updates. I do hope we can make the visit happen.
Views: 91
Wow, this looks like fun.
Happy to help out in the Mainland where I can
(although I am in Auckland for the working week when he is here)
I wonder if Nick Smith might care to publicly explain to Lord Monckton why he has decided to lead the world in carbon taxation. That would be fun.
Climate group keen on stormy debate
Richard Treadgold, of the Climate Conversation Group, said there was support from within the group and other climate sceptic groups to bring Lord Monckton to New Zealand in the first week of August.
During the visit, a “high-profile” debate would hopefully be held, seeing Lord Monckton go head-to-head with a climate scientist. “We have not had that debate on global warming and the necessity for action in this country. We’ve just not had it.”
[…]
Although he would be overseas at the time, Dr Renwick said he was unsure whether he would want to participate even if he was available as it would simply give publicity to Lord Monckton. “Sure we can debate things, but the evidence and observations that are out there, there’s nothing to debate. To debate the whole idea of climate change is long past.”
“There is nothing to debate. The immortal words of Dr James Renwick.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5294368/Climate-group-keen-on-stormy-debate
BTW, this TV One interview with Monckton was shown some time ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVzxMWTaC7Y
It was pretty partisan. The interviewer made fun of Monckton’s eyes (which is due to a congential disease called Graves Disease) and they overlaid pictures of storms and collapsing ice shelves (pure propaganda).
At the end of the interview they slurred Monckton and compared his credentials with those of James Hansen.
Now, some of the criticism of Monckton may be fair. He does get quite colourful in his language sometimes. You may agree or not with this approach.
However, I would expect that we get a similar treatment from the media during his forthcoming visit. My recommendation is to use the complaints procedures of the TV channels to highlight any incorrect facts and personal slurs.
The mouth-frothing has started already
All I can say is that there will come a day when the likes of Treadgold and Monckton will be arrested and tried in the modern equivalent of the Nuremberg trials for attempted omnicide.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/revolution-and-realism-required-un-report/#comment-26831
Good luck in your attempt to get Christopher Monckton out here to debate with NIWA head James Renwick. The latter has already indicated his reluctance to participate. Not surprising really.
If the debate really does go ahead, can you make sure that the subject of the debate is “Global Warming Is Caused By Human Activity” nothing else.
Alarmists always seem to get on to the subject of floods, storms, fires etc etc. This is just weather, or climate change if you like.
OF COURSE we have global warming – we are in a warming cycle. Such cycles have been going on for centuries.
OF COURSE we have climate change – that’s what it does – all the time. When oceans warm (due to global warming) there is a known affect on weather patterns.
But are we causing global warming? Where’s the proof? That’s what the debate must be about.
With emissions due to human activity being such a miniscule amount compared with emissions from all natural causes, any efforts we make to reduce carbon emissions must surely be futile. Certainly the buying and selling of carbon credits will do nothing to affect the climate.
By the way, the sum of $600 million has already been extracted from New Zealanders through our fuel purchases and power accounts since the new tax was introduced on 1 July 2010. Where has this money gone? No-one will tell me.
Note that Prof Barry Brook debated Monckton (and Ian Plimer) at the Brisbane club last year.
This seemed relatively congenial and productive (other than Graham Redfearn’s behaviour)
So, there are precedents, in case the NZ team want one.
Perhaps the editor of the Dominion Post can be persuaded to publish an article by Lord Monckton in reply to the scandalous “You Have Been Warned” alarmist screed on the front page of the Dom Post last Friday. The paper’s readers deserve an honest balanced debate on the issues. They won’t get it if the climate “scientists” can help it.
I think one of the main points of difference between the Monckton visit to Australia, and his potential trip to NZ, is the political climate.
The “carbon tax” issue was the main reason for Monckton’s trip to Aus. He was supported in part by a group known as “The Galileo Movement”. I have followed their activities on Facebook. It is getting very political and dirty between them and an activist PR group called GetUp.In Aus, there is Jo Nova and Andrew Bolt playing a fairly prominent public part.
So, it’s hard to know how a visit will be received in NZ. Our libtard media won’t do anything other than slur him. “Climate change” is probably not high on the list for most people (especially those living in earthquake ravaged ChCh)
I guess the best we can do is support the visit and get as many of our friends to do the same.
Pingback: Don’t give the potty peer oxygen | g.blog
I see the anti-science Stalinist muppets are crawling out of their caves already.
Andy, if you want to put up a climate scientist who dissents from the IPCC consensus, then a debate with someone like Dr Jim Renwick from NIWA may be worth having. But Monckton is a propagandist, not a scientist. He’s totally unqualified in climate science and cherry picks data and relies on distorting facts and telling outright lies.
Any reputable climate scientist debating with Monckton will only give Monckton’s pseudoscience undeserved publicity and credibility.
Well, I agree that Monckton is a showman. It would be nice to get the likes of Richard Lindzen, John Christy etc to come to NZ, but clearly there is an opportunity since Monckton is currenlty in Australia
Monckton debated with Barry Brook in Brisbane last year. It was a reasonable debate, and there were some good points made.
and while we’re talking of propagandists, what of our favorite Al Gore and his Climate “Reality” Project.
I think Monckton has been trying to debate him for ages.
BTW, Monckton is an extremely adept debater. He recently won a debate at the Oxford Union where he managed to completely outsmart the opposition with his knowledge of the IPCC reports. All I have see from the opponents of Monckton are ad homs and smears. The efforts of John Abraham seem to be built largely on strawman arguments, from what I can see, thought I started to lose the will to live following the various argumentum ad youtubem tooing and froing between the two.
“Sure we can debate things, but the evidence and observations that are out there, there’s nothing to debate. To debate the whole idea of climate change is long past.”
Moron of the week award.
—————–
Hope Monkton doesnt get closed venues like here in OZ. Good luck over there to get him to speak.
I understand that there were some fairly dirty tactics used against Monckton, including setting up phony websites announcing that talks had been cancelled.
It is suspected that these may have been initiated by advocacy group GetUp.
Gillard is now spending $22 million on a carbon tax propaganda exercise.
Things are getting interesting.
Richard North’s post over at EuRef isn’t exactly complimentary (referring specifically to the issue of Monckton’s claims to membership of the House of Lords and the House’s open letter to him on this matter)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/07/another-own-goal.html
Well, it’s a setback, and therefore perhaps embarrassing, but it’s just a dispute, where by definition opinions differ. His political party will be embarrassed, but they’re easily embarrassed, and it’s not that Lord M is at fault or has committed a crime. The matter could be appealed, and a higher court might rule in his favour. Neither his personality nor his opposition to the theory of CAGW enter into the dispute. If I thought I might be a member of the highest court in the land by virtue of my father’s membership of it, I might fight to retain it, too.
Unfortunately, it provides ammunition for the CAGW camp, which deflects from the real issues.
They will, no doubt, make a big deal over this, especially if he comes to NZ.
Yes, sure, they undoubtedly will.
I suggest that, if we don’t authenticate their ammunition by giving answering fire, they will fling fizzers. Perhaps short, polite replies will suffice? Naturally, we need not be deflected.
Well James Hansen got to see Peter Gluckman. Will Monkton be given the same courtesy?