UPDATE: See my full review of ABC’s “I Can Change Your Mind about Climate” HERE.
Nick Minchin vs Anna Rose.
Round 1 – Anna chooses anecdotal evidence from a farmer, Nick chooses Jo Nova and David Evans. Round 1 to Nick.
Round 2 – Anna chooses Matthew England, who fudges on feedback, Nick chooses Lindzen who embarrasses Anna big time. Round 2 to Nick.
Then Anna smears Lindzen by raising passive smoking. Nick (rightly) goes ballistic. Onya.
Round 3 – Anna chooses Richard Muller (of BEST fame) whose arguments are weak at … er, best.
Anna totally outclassed. Then smears Marc Morano. Hilarious. And tragic. Anna just not interested. “I will only debate a climate scientist” says Arts/Law graduate. “Won’t be engaging in debate”. Embarrassing, Anna. I’m afraid avoiding debate isn’t the answer.
“Alarmed” are worried about social justice. Yep.
Nick calls on Bjorn Lomborg – good choice, Anna picks Zac Goldsmith. Hmm.
Ben Goldacre… uses “denier” in the first 30 seconds. Thinks that the realists have the media on their side – bwahahaha! Twat. Thinks the documentary is a “flawed format”… geez.
Mike Hulme and Anna try to scare Minchin by showing eroding cliffs. Like cliffs never eroded before… FFS. Check the sea levels. Hulme and Anna question the validity of a democratic system. When have you heard that before?
ABC concludes by saying that it’s all about your “values” – not that climate science is corrupted and politicised.
Ah yes, now the ABC sends them to the Barrier Reef to show who has the real “moral” authority on this issue, and it ain’t Nick.
—-
Q&A is getting painful. Glad the “unknown” has come out as an alarmist, using the word “denier” within the first minute of her speaking. So that’s 4/2, then.
Every time Anna Rose opens her pretty mouth, she spouts total crap. Sorry, but she is so naive.
Q&A producers highlighting mindless tweets as usual…
Anna on the utopia of a “green economy” – which, er, doesn’t exist!
Ah, the bias of the Q&A audience finally revealed, as Anna chirps to Clive Palmer “why don’t you build solar panels instead?” Predictable round of applause for that puerile comment.
Anna cannot even accept that there has been a slowing in warming. Oh dear.
Why the F**k is Matthew England there bolstering Anna’s case? Is Lindzen there too? Shameful.
Shame again on Anna for cheap ad hominem attacks. Shows how desperate she is – and totally out of her depth.
APPALLING BIAS to allow Matthew England act as Q&A’s “appointed” climate scientist – WTF? Where’s Lindzen for balance?
OK, sick of this now. ABC has abandoned any pretence of impartiality. Going offline. *fume*
Amazing I lasted as long as this.
Australian Climate Madness 
this anna is a real boondoggle…and very dangerous…
What do you expect she is married to Simon Sheik of Get UP
All falls into place. thanks for the info.
Watching it now. Sickening.
Gross bias in the commentator’s comments already. And the inarticulateness of the commentator – not “natural cycles”, but “naturuow cycuows”
Lindzen has just demolished the stupid girl.
More crap from their ABC.
She changed her clothing in every clip; she wore six different pairs of gold or silver earrings. Ohh, wait; gold and silver are mined and processed in smelters. Guess she needs to throw them away.
Anna on Lizden ” he is smart…does not mean he is right”
Oddly enough, that also applies to people like Mann and Hansen. Obviously the “smart” part doesn’t even apply to her.
Solar will be cheaper in the next few years? Who knew? lol
Miss Smart arse Anna is so culturally ignorant in arrogantly refusing to debate Marc Morano because she stated he makes things up ! Can not believe the lack of educational quality in this kindergarten grade “film”. A spoilt little brat walking away when ever she can not get her favourite all day sucker !
Lomborg is a fence sitting slimeball who is trying to befriend both sides. More money in book sales that way. Pity that he has little idea about science or economics.
Goldsmith’s segment now. Commentator, paraphrasing Goldsmith – “Australia, where the media seems [sic] to be obsessed with climate conflict” – Obsessed with conflict? More like obsessed with the alarmist side. No surprise that the ABC would push the opposite though.
I meant Goldacre, not Goldsmith.
I get what the ABC are trying to do: show the “honest” both-sides-of-the-argument kind of thing, but only let the tweets through during Q&A that bolster the warmist cause, thereby peer-pressuring every fence-sitter watching this show into submission. Fair fight? I think not.
The ABC did denialists a favour by presenting this as a ‘debate’ – a matter of ‘triangulation’ according to Goldacre. In reality, the scientific consensus firmly agree with AGW and it’s just lay people like yourself who still still think otherwise.
what scientific consensus? the questions the 97% were asked were “has the earth warmed in the last hundred years” and “has man had a significant influence”. To which the answers are both yes. Land use and the urban heat island effect have both had some effect, but CO2 use has done very little.
Do some research you simpleton
Maybe if Anna works hard to create wealth as Palmer, has instead of wasting her time calling for economy-killing taxes, then she can risk and lose that capital on solar panels.
Yesterday, the ABC program website poll said 52% had said they didn’t believe in GW, today it is only 22%. What gives?
I think that the survey has been rebooted to show that the ABC ‘doco’ has changed people’s minds. We all need to go back and do the survey again for before and after results. No doubt GetUp will be recruited now to skew the results to the ABC’s groupthink position.
ABC leftist bias fest includes social researcher who was asked to give an opinion about Australia’s perceptions but instead started banging on with her own opinions about “deniers” and saying that the science is set by consensus.
Another “fair and balanced” article in the Sydney Morning Herald today. Written by a prominent Australian climate scientist, er…astrophysicist. No dogma here!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/balance-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder-in-climate-change-debate-20120425-1xlih.html
…and what the hell do firearms and smoking have to do with the alleged climate change?
Openly biased audience too, as you would expect. Rose blurted out the usual “sea level rise” and similar baseless garbage, and the mob applauded. Gullible fools.
That’s bally Anna Rose woman really finished up giving me the shits with all of her childish, totalitarian behaviour and one sided bias in her reporting techniques, in comparison to Nick Minchin, who seemed more open to listening to both sides of the debate, despite the fact that some of the issues being sprouted out by the so called scientific experts that Anna Rose chose were based on a whole lot of crap.
What a shame that Piers Corbyn, Anthony Watts and Lord Monckton were not involved. And Simon.
And Bob Carter, and Ian Plimer.
Loved Nicks “back in ya box girly” over the passive smoking crap… But totally agree shes another Uni fed Greenie
Utterly nauseating. Minchin didn’t do a bad job but did not hit back as hard as he should have. I wish Monckton had been there to pick up on all the fake stats and wipe the floor with some of those frauds.
So many lies got through unchallenged.
Yes they did. Far too many.
CSIRO boss just said that Australia produces “1.3% of the world’s emissions”. Not “carbon dioxide emissions”, but “emissions”. That says it all.
what people like anna and other climate activists fail to realize is the so called ‘deniers’, ‘doubters’ or ‘sceptics’, are merely people who disagree on their methods and solutions albeit political persuasion. i dont doubt the climate is changing, i merely doubt the way of fixing it is going to work, and is politically motivated as being the ‘right’ solution. labor pushed for a carbon tax only to maintain greens support to help them implement other policy and hold power. why is it various renewable energy schemes have been stopped, limited or rebates cut at state level. the carbon tax is seen by many pro global warming advocates as having no real affect. yet when it got passed into law, the anna’s of the country were having group hugs and popping champagne. yet the same science they used to introduce it, clearly stated it wouldnt fix or even have an impact on climate change. it is merely a revenue grab to fund their own political and environmental movements and careers. forget global warming and focus on the real issues. clean up our environment as a whole. limit pollution and waste. if they are serious on alternative energy sources, then the government should set up incentives for every house to be fitted with solar energy to limit power usage. yet for a government hell bent on renewable energy, seems to me they are hell bent on milking as much money as they can by allowing power, water and fuel costs to continue to rise. as far as i knew, those who provide those services tend to increase prices based on more demand. yet reducing emissions via a carbon tax surely is to reduce the demand for power, water and fuel etc? australia is one big hypocrisy when it comes to climate change.
Notice that Tony Jones had a stab at Clive Palmer by referring to a brief disagreement between him and an audience member “the scientist versus the miner” – and a similar stab at Minchin, but he conveniently neglected to mention that Anna Rose has no scientific qualifications.
Rose said “people like us who respect the science” – no, Anna, “the science” is whatever the reality is, not a distorted version that some people label “science” for corrupt personal gain.
Head CSIRO scientist now concedes we only produce 1.3 % of world’s emissions and is saying that any solution can only be a world cooperative.
Why then did she not relay that fact to Gillard/Brown, as this means that the introduced carbon tax will have absolutely zero impact on climate change (which many of us have said all along). At least we have the proof that the carbon tax is both a caustic budget initiative designed to plug labor’s bad spending and strip the wealth from all Australians…..
@ 25:19 was the graph only for the last 200 years?
(insert Sarcasm)
LOL that’s good science right there 😛
CSIR(O) + a sugar comany solution = cane toads circa 1935…
I’m disgusted with the way that Nick Minchin used Inhofe [REPLY – it wasn’t Infohe, it was Marc Morano – Ed] as one of his supposed “experts”, and the way he nodded as that American cretin shill spouted pure BS about how addressing climate change was supposedly anathema to that great American Republican buzzword; “Freedom”. [REPLY – And I’m disgusted at Anna Rose’s haughty and deeply impolite refusal to engage with him. Given her offensive attitude, I thought Morano held his cool pretty well]
Denying science and pushing for the teaching of creationism in schools isn’t “Freedom”. [REPLY – What has creationism got to do with this (apart from distraction)?] It’s theocracy. I hoped I’d never see the day when that kind of crap was portrayed as just one side of the story on Aussie TV. The last thing Australian politics needs is scum like that being given airtime so they can tell already debunked lies. [REPLY – If you thought it was one sided, it was because Anna was completely out of her depth, and because the alarmists have few arguments left, and refused to engage rather than address Morano’s points]
[snip]
[REPLY – remainder of rant gets even more offensive – we get your point – you’re a true believer – maybe just don’t come back – Ed]
CSIR(O) + a sugar company solution to a beetle problem = cane toads circa 1935…
carbon tax then increased gst,so are going to be hit twice
Not one mention of Nuclear Power, probably the only non emmission power source that can meet our energy needs reliably and cheaply
Nuclear power was mentioned in that discussion. Guess which side mentioned it. The pseudogreen socialist side? No. The other side. Nick Minchin.
Your use of the word “emmission” (as you wrote it) indicates that you have fallen for the AGW hoax. I commented earlier on the CSIRO boss’s similar abuse of the word.
“If I wanted America/Australia/Europe to fail”
Simon, Can you please link Jo Novas response to last night’s kindergarten class?
Thanks
[REPLY – Done, in my latest post]
Did Travis go to the same kindergarten as Anna Rose.. one has to assume so. 🙂
Why is it that no-one is talking about a safe and clean solution that will solve all our energy problems? I’m talking about nuclear power using thorium as a fuel source not uranium. Look at the amzing benefits –
-Thorium is a natural occurring element found on earth, the moon, mars… essentially everywhere.
-A thorium-fueled nuclear reactor generates hundreds of times the power as a uranium or coal power plant but produces essentially no waste.
-thorium power plant would produce much less than 1% of the waste that a uranium plant of equal magnitude produces and, of course, would produce no carbon dioxide.
-More importantly, while the waste of a uranium power plant is toxic for over 10,000 years, the little waste that is produced in a thorium plant is benign in under 200 years.
-Even more impressive, the thorium power plant can be used to burn our current stockpile of nuclear waste.
-The thorium power plant cannot “melt down”,
-Thorium cannot practically be used to make nuclear weapons.
-There is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 10,000 years, and the thorium power plant can be designed to be a plug and play module that could tap right in at the source of a current coal or uranium plant so there would be no need for laying a new grid.Where are our leaders on this issue? Why is the public not informed?
None of the so-called experts on last night’s program made any reference to thorium nuclear power. Recent news reports indicate that China and India plan to build a thorium reactor. Zero emmissions, you’d think that would make the “greenies” happy but it doesn’t.
Poor Anna Rose she was completely out of her depth and can be labelled a “useful idiot” promoting AGW propaganda.
I’ve followed this debate for years and now see it as having no consequence to the main game. At the 1992 Rio Conference Maurice Strong introduced his plan to control the world. It’s called Agenda 21. This is where the real game is being played today. Trouble is the general public isn’t even aware of it. We have all heard the terms sustainable energy, sustainable development, smart growth, sustainable communities, smart meters, smart grids, social justice etc….and so on.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive master plan to reshape and control western nations locking them into the clutches of the UN under the innocuous phrase Sustainable Development. Along with 178 countries, President George H.W. Bush accepted Agenda 21 as “soft law” adopted by a new tactic called collaborative consensus building, instead of by treaty.
Advocates of Agenda 21 talk about the three E’s of Sustainable Development: Economy, Equity, and Environment. Equity means replacing our American constitutional system with central planning and “social justice,” which is a code word for redistribution of wealth, abolition of private property rights, and giving favored corporations tax breaks, grants, and use of Eminent Domain.
Climate change isn’t the main game anymore, it’s Agenda 21. Check it out.
It’s good to see “Dismissive” is leading the online poll. I just hope at the next Federal Election that the Dept of Climate Change is scrapped along with the Carbon Tax.
Oh and I forgot, scrap the ABC also!
The big question that should be asked is why “Dismissive” is now the majority when only a few years ago most wanted action. Shows how the hysteria, lies, betrayal, Copenhagen farce and Greens socialist agenda discredited the global warming fanatics.
How dopey that Anna Smith cites her uncle’s farm, who’s only been there 26yrs. Since when does 26 years represent the extremes of the Earth’s climate? Just over 26 years ago just happened to be our last major drought that led to Ash Wed fires. Get back to us in another 26 times and if Anna’s uncle is sowing summer crops in July, I’ll admit a problem.
More people in the Dismissives camp may be symptomatic of an effective federal opposition which is exceptionally good at scare tactics and a gullible public willing to lap it up.
Agree with your point about Anna Rose’s father/uncle. Anecdotal evidence is no substitute for scientific rigour.
Hi Simon,
Great article! Your totally unbias account of the show is without question. Nick Minchin didn’t stand a chance. I believe we should get rid of all scientific knowledge, past and present, because it is totally unreliable, never 100%, and we need absolution. Like for example faith in our billionaires and our politians, and lets not forget religion. Thanks for opening my eyes to your great knowledge and integrity. Keep up your great work, i’m giving up science now, what’s the point? Have A Think!
[REPLY – I’m having a think, and I’m thinking… sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and avoiding the actual issues is the easiest way to score cheap points. Have a Think!]
Miss Smart arse Anna is so culturally ignorant
Lomborg is a fence sitting slimeball
A spoilt little brat
Did Travis go to the same kindergarten as Anna Rose..
the mob applauded. Gullible fools.
the stupid girl.
Just wanted to pat the Moderator on the back for the policy of refraining “from abuse and/or personal attacks”
[REPLY – You should take a look at some of the abuse hurled at “deniers” on the warm blogs. Makes the above look very tame. How about responding to the points in the programme?]
Great Blog and obviously clever and balanced readership. [REPLY – sarcasm again, yawn]
Your readership suffers badly from cognitive dissonance, motivated reasoning, stupidity and various biases such that no amount of reason will help them.
You might be aware that Minchin never tries to explain his viewpoint: global warming exists but humans aren’t responsible. Largely because he isn’t a climate scientist. Instead he tried to find experts that could explain it and convince Anna.
Judging by the viewpoints of the ‘experts’ he dredged up, you’ll realise that none of them actually supported his view. They either don’t believe global warming is happening or it is happening and humans are responsible.
No surprises there. Minchin has vested interests and his inability to maintain a consistent stance is matched only by his inability to find anyone to support his claims.
[REPLY – As usual, misrepresenting Minchin’s position is typical tactics of people who don’t want to engage in the actual arguments – go and play with Al Gore or something]
Respond to ponts on the programme? To what purpose exactly? Theres no debate happening on this Blog. Or do you think comments like these are “Debate?”
[snip – enough – go away]
Laurier Williams says:-
“CSIRO boss just said that Australia produces “1.3% of the world’s emissions”. Not “carbon dioxide emissions”, but “emissions”. That says it all.”
Methinks this program may have been one of these ’emissions’.
The warmists wanted to raise awareness and fear. They raised awareness but forgot that with awareness comes the need to know more. In the seeking of this knowledge people came upon the opposite side of the argument. Awareness WAS raised but to the GW Scam. To very bad scientiific procossess and to unverifiable conclusions
In short, the warmists created the ‘dismissives’. Was that their plan? Probably not.