Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Munk..eys! May and Monbiot


I watched the Munk debate tonight. The deniers, spouted statistics from Al Gore and declared the discussion over, of course the deniers were May and Monbiot. May was funny, she totally wigged out, seriously she lost her cool, and showed a real dislike of Bjorn Lomborg. It might have been because he wiped the floor with her sad, outdated, and now we know corrupted statistics and fear mongering.

Why did May stay standing the whole time? It was very distracting. My female view? Her dress was too tight and she couldn't get her butt up onto the chair. Go to the site and watch for yourself.

Bjorn was great! He got the M&M's off course and talking about poverty. The debate question was, "be it resolved that climate change is mankind's "defining" crisis", it appeared to me that even the M&M's didn't agree with that statement. Lord Lawson was a very stabilizing influence. Monbiot relied on emotions. The M&M's started the night at 61%, the results are not in yet, but if they lose even one point, they lost the debate.

There is a poll out (results not up yet on Harris/Decima) about what we think of this issue.

The poll asked Canadians if they agreed or disagreed with a resolution to be debated Tuesday during the fourth Munk Debate in Toronto, that: “Climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response.”

Nearly two thirds of Canadians agreed while 31% disagreed. A tiny fraction had no opinion.

“I think it shows the extent to which not just the environment, but the actual issue of climate change, has ascended up the public agenda to point where it is reminiscent of those other big causes that have shaped a lot of Canadian history,” said Rudyard Griffiths, co-organizer of the Munk Debates.
........
The poll suggests nearly two thirds of people think humans will be able to adapt to climate change. Half of those surveyed also agreed the money Canada spends on climate change would be better spent on health care and national debt.


So, 50% of people want the money spent on health care and debt instead? Just proves that we will agree that climate change is an issue, but when it comes right down to it, we don't want to spend any "REAL" money on it. I told you the other day that I had answered a Harris poll about climate change this might have been it, except this poll was supposedly done online, not over the phone, and it was done from Nov 12 to 15th, way earlier than last week. Wonder if they were re-polling using the same questions to see if the leaked emails had changed anything.

Yesterday I pointed you to this website, with an article by Monbiot, defaming our oilsands, which he has never seen in person. He wrote this from Toronto!!! HA. He might as well have saved his carbon footprint and stayed in the UK. Does he have the guts to come here and view the seeping oilsands that in their natural state are an environmental disaster, polluting our rivers and allowing nothing to grow. It is a dead land, even the wildlife avoids the area, unless.....

For a blast from the past, read an old blog of mine that is still very relevant today. Pay very close attention to the pictures, and read the surprise ending.

12 comments:

The_Iceman said...

Fantastic post! I am a big fan of Bjorn. I think we are starting to expose the fact that many in this movement fudged the number to advance an alterior agenda.

pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2009/06/where-environmentalism-ends-and-marxism.html

wilson said...

Did I hear Bjorn right?
The trillions spent on AGW will set back the 'crisis' by 6 hours...!!?

I missed the first part, was he talking about Canada's 6 hr contribution to slowing GW?

maryT said...

I also watched said debate and was very distracted by May's outfit. How off topic she got, bringing up Watergate and aids.
Perhaps she was following the new cbc standard by standing all night. Notice how she clapped when the other side spoke. Very unenthusiastic. It would be great to have that body language lady from Fox do a take on her act.
How about the moderators introduction of her saying, this is one debate there is no question she should be at.

Unknown said...

You've clearly got your head stuck in tar. Lomborg is a pathetic lout and not a credible climate spokesman in any way. He's an embarrassment ... but the Deniers don't really set their scruple bar very high do they?

'Follow the money' is all you need to know in this debate, and if you didn't already know that, then read James Hoggan's 'Climate Cover Up - the crusade to deny global warming' and you'll get the REAL picture of what's being going in this debate.
- Michael Maser, Gibsons BC

CanadianSense said...

The moderators on the forum were censoring the "con" posts. 90% for with links with 10% against last night.

I tried to post about 7 times and gave up after only 2 posts made it.

It looked like the moderaters were too busy posting their own "for" comments.

West Coast Teddi said...

Here is a link to a statement by the former Speaker of the House, N. Gingrich:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/gingrich_statement_on_climateg_1.html

The New Inconvenient Truth is beginning to pick up "steam" (CO2 maybe?).

Anonymous said...

Great post, Hunter. I knew, all along, that these green screamers were scammers or, at the very least, incredibly gullible.

On another note, I wish to point out something regarding your November 25 post: making the opposition look idiotic.

Hunter, I know that you are an intelligent woman and, for that reason, your post caught me by surprise. Making the opposition look idiotic is like making somebody breathe. Looking idiotic is a natural state for the opposition so, how do you "make" the opposition look idiotic?

It's like "making" the sun look bright or the night look dark. Looking idiotic is the natural state of the opposition, is it not?

So, why would it be necessary to "make" the opposition look idiotic? I mean, Cindy Crawford cannot be "made" to look gorgeous because she IS gorgeous. The opposition cannot be "made" to look idiotic because they ARE idiotic.

Catch my drift?

Sarc switch now firmly in the "off" position.

Have a great one, Hunter. I really am impressed with today's post - you really nailed it.

Kunoichi said...

I was watching the debate, too. One of the things I found distracting was, every time Lawson of Lomborg spoke, a couple of panelists in the live commentary would immediately start making snarky comments.

CanadianSense said...

The real deniers are the alarmists who witheld the data, fudged it, destroyed it.

The Real deniers will be charged for fraud the CBC is only one week late covering the bigget HOAX of history.

The CBC included a negative comment on Harper in China by referencing a blogger!

CRU-CBC both in the tank for "deniers"

hunter said...

Hey, East where have you been? You are okay I hope?

hunter said...

The Deniers won the debate. The greenies started at 61% support and ended with 53%!! Can you feel the momentum? It is shifting.

Anonymous said...

Hey Hunter. I'm fine, thanks. At work, we can no longer open up blogs or anything where we can leave a comment so I'm limited as to when I can get on and comment. Harumph - scrooges in our IT security. LOL.