how do people come to the impression, that Littlemore "lost" this debate?

the "heartland" is making a huge thing out of this.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23673

i did not feel like that, when i listened to the podcast, nor while reading te transcript.

Monckton was bringing up personal insults, which was tolerated by the moderator. the way the questions were asked (omg, jupider is the reason for global warming? heard that one for the first time!) did not give a lot of good ways to trash the nonsense that Monckton was bringing up.

I noticed that AGW believers lose a lot of debates.

How can that be if they already have the science down to pat and need no more discussion?

Hmmmm they lose debates in a lot of furums too......

I'd have to say that Monckton "won" the debate. He came across as more prepared and had answers at his fingertips, whereas Richard appeared to verbally stumble on occasion. I agree completely with the point Richard made that it is difficult to properly discuss the science in such a format. That being said, my take would be that a number of newcomers to the subject would easily be inclined to side with Monckton and Mr. Green because of the eloquence of Monckton (not realizing that you can be eloquent but still wrong).

Of course, Monckton presented a lot of misinformation. But unless people are prepared to do the homework to find that out, they'll think he's right. I tried to phone in to point out that Monckton's piece in the APS newsletter had been debunked by two climate scientists, one physicist, and at least two mathematicians (and, as well, that the APS had seen fit to distance themselves from Monckton's piece), but couldn't get on.

If the AGW side is going to engage in verbal debates on radio or TV, they need to have people who have access to all the scientific minutae at their fingertips. One of the best climate scientists I've seen in this regard is David Karoly, Federation Fellow at the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne in Australia. I've seen him cheerfully and civilly reduce Bob Ward and the Swindle people to rubble.

I got in on the phone lines, but I've been on hold for quite some time. If Green takes me, I'll bring up the two big gaffes in his treatment of this -- hopefully, without any accusations.

The referee's quoting the Great Global Warming Swindle, and Monckton's getting fed up at the ref interrupting him. After an exchange solely about funding (ad-homs on both sides, but instigated by Monckton), the ref had the gall to say the debate's about the science.

Par for the course for Monckton and CHED. Richard, you've got to show them you've got more than insults.

used to listen to 630 CHED in the mornings (I don't know if they still do). I've listened to CHED when visiting. They seemed to spend a lot of time 'keeping up the good fight against government control'. They had a format for one of these AGW-Kyoto discussions that went something like this: someone from the Fraser Institute (or somewhere) got about 15 minutes, then the announcer spoke to someone from the David Suzuki Foundation (or somewhere) for 15 minutes, then the host brought the first guest back and critiqued the second guest and took questions from callers for a half hour. That last half hour was awful. But there was an interesting exchange between the host and the DSF (or whatever) guy where the host had to admit that there was a lot of subsidization of the fossil fuel industry. The host took the tack of asking, If the government stops subsidizing fossil fuels will you environmental groups stop promoting Kyoto?

Meanwhile, it's likely time for DeSmogBlog to brace itself for the army of colourful commenters from nowhere that'll be upon us any time soon. :)

http://tinyurl.com/6jansx

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce