Comments on: Climate Denial http://www.chrispalmer.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Comments+on+Articles+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chrispalmer.org%2F2008%2F04%2F30%2Fclimate-denial%2F%23comment-&seed_title=Climate+Denial A Strong Conservative Voice Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:13:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Matthew Butler http://www.chrispalmer.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Comments+on+Articles+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chrispalmer.org%2F2008%2F04%2F30%2Fclimate-denial%2F%23comment-60&seed_title=Climate+Denial/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Matthew Butler Fri, 02 May 2008 08:13:40 +0000 http://www.chrispalmer.org/?p=75#comment-60 Of course, the purpose of this "debate" was never really to debate at all. The organiser and chairman, Rev Roger Nunn, is a thoroughgoing environmentalist and general leftist, who never misses an opportunity to insert green and generally left-wing propaganda into his sermons (amazingly, he managed to fit global warming into a sermon on Palm Sunday). It was clear that his aim was not to facilitate free intellectual enquiry but to propagandise for the green movement. Indeed, he stated at the start of the "debate" that the purpose was to "raise concern" about climate change, which if you take my position is rather a dud point, because there is no point in being concerned about something you can't control, except to help people to adapt to it. From my correspondence to him, it was clear that he had never read, or tried to engage with, any of the sceptics' arguments: his argumentation was shockingly lazy and complacent. For example, when arguing that a sceptical voice should not be represented, he quoted Anil Markandya - a partisan member of the panel - as saying that the IPCC represented a consensus of the world's top scientists, obviously not realising the endemic corruption at the heart of the IPCC, which is obvious if you just take a brief look at the process of writing its reports. And there's another point here: just imagine if, for a debate on whether we should abolish the monarchy, the Chairman refused to represent a pro-monarchy panellist and supported this by citing a republican panellist to confirm that the vast majority of people supported abolishing the monarchy. Everyone would instantly realise what a sham that debate would be. But this is effectively what Rev Nunn did. In any case, since making my intervention several members of the Abbey congregation have thanked me, some of them saying that although they did not agree, they were glad that I said it nevertheless. It's heartening to know that there are fair-minded people out there who actually want to see the subject properly debated. Of course, the purpose of this “debate” was never really to debate at all. The organiser and chairman, Rev Roger Nunn, is a thoroughgoing environmentalist and general leftist, who never misses an opportunity to insert green and generally left-wing propaganda into his sermons (amazingly, he managed to fit global warming into a sermon on Palm Sunday). It was clear that his aim was not to facilitate free intellectual enquiry but to propagandise for the green movement. Indeed, he stated at the start of the “debate” that the purpose was to “raise concern” about climate change, which if you take my position is rather a dud point, because there is no point in being concerned about something you can’t control, except to help people to adapt to it.

From my correspondence to him, it was clear that he had never read, or tried to engage with, any of the sceptics’ arguments: his argumentation was shockingly lazy and complacent. For example, when arguing that a sceptical voice should not be represented, he quoted Anil Markandya – a partisan member of the panel – as saying that the IPCC represented a consensus of the world’s top scientists, obviously not realising the endemic corruption at the heart of the IPCC, which is obvious if you just take a brief look at the process of writing its reports.

And there’s another point here: just imagine if, for a debate on whether we should abolish the monarchy, the Chairman refused to represent a pro-monarchy panellist and supported this by citing a republican panellist to confirm that the vast majority of people supported abolishing the monarchy. Everyone would instantly realise what a sham that debate would be. But this is effectively what Rev Nunn did.

In any case, since making my intervention several members of the Abbey congregation have thanked me, some of them saying that although they did not agree, they were glad that I said it nevertheless. It’s heartening to know that there are fair-minded people out there who actually want to see the subject properly debated.

]]>