The tour with Lord Monckton travelling Australia is having its challenges with 6 venues canceled before Lord Monckton appears.
The obvious influence against the Monckton events is the Getup network which had the campaign against Monckton advertised on its web site.
Its people were imitating club members and complaining to clubs so they pull the event.
The other influence is an apparent political interference from someone higher up the " sporting funding chain" that leaned on the clubs to cancel.
This was obvious with the Port Adelaide Football club cancellation.
The letter goes on to note that some other venues are entertaining second thoughts after Lord Monckton likened the Australian government's chief climate advisor Ross Garnaut to a Nazi.
Good on whoever's behind these protests. Debating the likes of Monckton is basically wasting your breath.
8 comments:
"Debating the likes of Monckton is basically wasting your breath."
Well Godwin's Law applies to Monckton just as much as to any garden variety internet crackpot. Then again, the only difference between Monckton and a garden variety internet crackpot, is that Monckton is not on the internet much.
Yes, I mean, who needs the free expression of ideas..
I mean, damn, if we only had more effective pressure groups when the suffragette movement began to spout their inane gobbeldygook, imagine how much simpler life would be today.
We could have organized efforts to assure that Nelly McClung couldn't speak to the public - it would have been great, wouldn't it?
There's nothing wrong with opposing Monckton.. but seeking to prevent him and others, from speaking publicly and questioning the "settled science" does sort of smack of something dark and sort of authoritarian.
I mean, it's not like Rolling Stone gives Al Gore a massive pulpit or anything to balance these subversive meetings at football clubs.
One might even wonder if the "settled science" crowd are, oh, I don't know.. afraid of being challenged.
No. It smacks of venues dedicated to the highest and most rigorous forms of public discourse trying to maintain standards.
No, R.G., the '"settled science" crowd' are interested in maintaining science as an ideology-free means of learning about the universe. Monckton and his ilk are intent upon imposing their post-modern standards upon science, making the value of a scientific observation or theory contingent upon its political implications. A "debate" with Monckton is merely an opportunity for him to promote the idea that there is politically-correct science, i.e. what he peddles, and junk science, which doesn't allow him and his friends to believe what they want and therefore must be subverted. They're the scientific equivalent of Scientologists. Would you consider a debate with L. Ron Hubbard to have been worthwhile? He'd just use the fact that you took him seriously enough to debate him as validation.
Funny how this sort of thing invariably seems to come from the political Right these days. Truth being negotiable, I mean.
Climate science is the least "ideology free" branch of science.
Experto crede. Couldn't have asked for a better exponent.
Monckton would likely face a very tough crowd in Australia. The Aussies, having suffered massive fires, droughts, floods, and storms in recent years are quite on board with climate change and I really can't seem them humouring some lunatic pom coming to tell them it's all their imagination or something. Indeed, they are world leaders in climate change research both in the natural and social science.
some employee are need to wear dress code in company like Mans Suit for the guy.
Post a Comment