Malcolm Roberts wrote:Good morning:
I would be delighted to debate you in public and organise a team to present our case on the fundamentals.
I'd prefer to debate you and your team publicly in a live community forum.
I've entered internet discussions and they're not worth the time. It's difficult to check participants' claims. It's easy for people to avoid accountability.
Please refer to near the bottom of this page to see the topics and conditions I suggest. Go to:
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_futility.phpThen scroll down to the section entitled: Challenge to a debate
I'm happy to travel to <removed> area for the debate.
We would need to organise a mutually acceptable date and time as well as chairperson and venue.
What do you think?
Malcolm Roberts
Project Manager (voluntary)
The Galileo Movement (non-profit)
The challenge is
the Galileo Movement wrote:... addressed to any of the eight Australian academics prominent in promoting climate alarm.
I am trouble finding the names of these eight scientists, or indeed any reference to contributing Australian scientists! This may be because some people at various universities have received abusive emails and even death threats.
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-scientists-release-abusive-emails-1730 This is the sort of madness that got me motivated to do what I could. Graham Readfearn details the emails here
http://www.readfearn.com/2011/06/skeptically-threatening/#more-647 - this more and more resembles the campaign waged by the likes of big tobacco and exxon. Imagine receiving this sort of stuff when all you were doing was interpreting data.
I replied with the following:
Hi Malcom
At the risk of lowering your estimation of me, there is no "team" on my side. Ho ho! - I'm just a guy who see's the tactics in play on your website, and feels that there aren't enough little people like me pointing out the inherent flaws in your arguments. If I had your sort of backing, I'd love to debate you publicly; it's just not going to happen, unfortunately. I am still keen to have a rep from TGM address what I see as the inaccuracies in the science as presented on your site on an online forum. I suggested that format because it fits in with my life, work and family commitments. I understand completely if you are too busy to respond to my criticisms, and I have seen online debates go bad and understand your reluctance to enter into one, however this is the only way I can defend what I see as the 21st century version of the fight against big tobacco. I will have a look at your topics and conditions to see if there is any way forward - for your part, are you 100% opposed to an online debate?
I look forward to hearing from you
cheers
B
As a side note, when I was searching for the names of Australian scientists working with the IPCC, I had a graphic reminder of how negative spin campaigns like the one being run by TGM and Alan Jones et al can easily skew public opinion. In the first page of results in the search "australian scientists IPCC" 7 out 10 results were from sites with a negative view on the IPCC (that is fine), but 5 of those led to total crackpot sites like quadrant and australianclimatemadness.com. A person looking into this for the first time would tend to see these sites first - again I have no problem with an opposing view being shown first, as long as there are links to the established data and conclusions. However, as with TGM, the stated aim is to divert the public from the established science, to establish doubt, to remove the feeling that one must balance arguments, instead relying solely on their figures and conclusions. They do this, not because they have uncovered new research, or data or have new interpretations of existing data, but to put a stop to legislation. Not to belabour a point, but this is exactly how tobacco companies kept anti-smoking legislation out of parliament for so long.
Malcolm replied thusly:
Malcolm Roberts wrote:Thank you,
I had no preconceived estimation of you. I try to approach people and issues objectively.
I'm only 165cm tall and working entirely voluntary. Both physically and from a resources perspective that makes me one of the 'little people' too. Welcome, brother.
In answer to your points raised, would you please be so kind as to list the tactics you see as being in play on our web site?
Could you please advise what you mean by our sort of backing?
I may be in <removed> area in the near future. And definitely in the <removed>. Would you like to debate then? Either publicly or if you are reluctant to debate publicly, we could have a private discussion. Would either suit?
There are three key topics in discussing the carbon dioxide tax. Our web site suggests a team so that each of the three key topics can be addressed by an expert in the field.
I am happy though to forgo a team and simply cover all three topics myself. Or, if you are reluctant to cover the economics, I'd be pleased to discuss the corruption of science and the real-world science. Would you prefer that? Just the two of us? Over coffee?
Another way is for you to list what you perceive to be the inaccuracies on our site and as priorities permit, I'll address your list of 'criticisms'.
I confirm my interest in, and support for a debate, preferably public because that provides greater accountability.
Thank you for explaining your preference for an internet debate. There are too many holes in internet forum and accountability is lacking. Plus it is time consuming and lacks spontaneity. The big issue though is lack of accountability. I like to see people's eyeballs and to hold them accountable for their statements. That is far too time consuming on the internet.
We have much to do to end the scam being shoved on us by a corrupt government.
Perhaps you may want to peruse these two documents:
-
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/freedom1-CO2.pdf especially the two short pages of Section 1 'Basic Facts on CO2' and section 2 'Carbon dioxide is not pollution'.
-
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/ ... posing.pdfMalcolm Roberts
Project Manager (voluntary)
The Galileo Movement (non-profit)
I am composing my reply, and have read the two documents linked: both penned by Malcolm himself, and pretty standard rehashes of the standard distortions of science put about by the usual suspects. I am also putting together a list of my "criticisms" of the site, which will be large and which, gentle reader, I shall post asap.
B