Lord Christopher Monckton Debates Economist Richard Denniss at National Press Club in Canberra, Australia
Via TrevorLoudon.com comes footage of manmade global warming “skeptic” Lord Christopher Monckton debating economist Richard Denniss at the National Press Club in Canberra, Australia on issues related to so-called “anthropogenic climate change.”
Dennis prefaces his presentation by saying he is an economist, and not a scientist. Then he proceeds to dive head first into typical alarmism by equating climate change (an oxymoron) with “skin cancer.” What the patient needs is aggressive and “expensive” treatment, and if the patient forks over the cash, there will be a good prognosis.
Apparently, those who disagree with this nonsensical analogy, premised on an anthropomorphic fallacy, are simply in denial about having terminal “cancer” of the climate. Additionally, those who believe climate change is a natural fluctuation, and that this supposed “cancer” is a fundamental aspect of nature, rather than the “cancer” being human life and economic progress, are not to be trusted as rational beings who are even on the same tier of credibility as the scientists and international organizations raking in climate cash hand over fist. Perhaps the prospect of upping the scale of the scam from billions to trillions – $76 trillion by UN estimates – might have a little something to do with the doggedness of the “scientific consensus”?
While we’re on the subject of “consensus,” what about the nearly unanimous consensus in our universities that huge sums of money thrown at our economy would cause higher employment numbers to “stick”? Keynesianism is the coin of the realm in economics, yet our Keynesian economists are constantly baffled by the “unexpectedly” dismal results that come from the government extorting trillions from taxpayers to dole out to political cronies, including unions, corporations, and banks. One might even suspect that these “impartial” economists were on the take. But perhaps I should tread lightly, lest I be branded a “statism denier.”
Lord Monckton himself retorts to Denniss by recapping the fundamentals of science, and then explaining the fraudulent nature of the IPCC’s “science.” Monckton concludes by begging people to “think, and think again” about the warmists’ arguments, and not to accept any alleged “consensus.”
A question and answer session ensues, in the course of which Denniss laughably argues that manmade climate change is not a “left-right” issue. Sure, that is why leftist organizations and corporate welfare bums around the globe have latched onto the issue like a moccasin on a muskrat – because it is a non-political issue.
It only just happens to be an issue that would accrue vast power to governments and huge wads of cash for environmentalists and corporations if people would only allay their qualms and give up their money and freedom. The only climate anomaly that warmists are willing to accept is that all the organizations that back the alarmism stand to benefit immensely. That in no way impairs their judgment. A correlation, assuredly, that is no cause of the political activism on behalf of the “scientific” issue.
Read also: The Green Tyranny (via JamesBoard.com)
Hate facts. Snark. Just a splash of derision.
Rogue Government 
My education (degree) is economics, and I was grossly insulted by Denniss’ insinuation about “all economists”. He was dead wrong with that one. I am sure he is a Keynsian, but they are far from all economists. I am not one. However, you have 2 things playing against you right now in seeing any other economist other than Keynsian being quoted anywhere. The first is Obama – he does not know Keynsian from Monetarist, but anyone who tells him that the answer is “more government” is going on his council of economic advisors. So you cannot get a quote from a government source who is not one.
The second reason they are hard to find in print is that the press wants to know ‘what to do”. An answer of “do nothing” is not on their agenda, so they look for someone to tell them what needs to be done. Monetarists would tell them that the government should have, from the get go, done nothing other than reduce regulations and the tax rate. And let the economy do the rest. But doing nothing is an anathema to both government and the press, so no one quotes them (unless they get a Nobel Prize – hard to come by with the agenda driven selection committee of recent tenure).
Back to the debate, Denniss was all wrong about what economists would tell you – if they were honest. There are 2 types of errors, Type I and Type II (HEY! They are economists not prose writers). Type I is the more severe and the one to be avoided (if there is a tie between which to commit). Denniss is committing a Type I error, so very few economists are going to agree with him.
Thanks for the enlightening critique, as usual. Best, RO
I have to tell you that I was pleased to be able to be at one of The Lord’s debates – and in the comfort of my own computer room too boot! It should not have suprised me to have found that most of the criticisms against him seemed of a personal nature! They really do not have anything to come back at him with in terms of numbers or science! He is such a personable fellow I think they must really be jealous of the following he has engendered.
I was also totally peed off with the analogies Denniss was using with complimentary (life giving/healthy) alternatives versus body and soul destroying mainstream/pharmaceutical killing therapies! That in and of itself kind of describes what we are seeing with the carbon dioxide pollution debate in Australia.
If anyone has links to anyother of Lord Moncton’s puplic appearances I would appreciate having them.