The House of Lords says that Christopher Monckton is not entitled to claim he is a member of that House, but he disputes this. The internet is full of scientists carefully debunking the claims about climate change made by him, but he is similarly impervious to correction. Put simply, Lord Monckton is a case study of the emphasis placed by the media on confidence over content. A harder question for the media, however, is why they have given so much prominence to climate sceptics with no qualifications in science when they pay virtually no attention to immunisation sceptics without qualification in epidemiology or fluoride sceptics with no qualifications in chemistry or biology? So, how do you debate someone who is impervious to evidence? It’s not easy, but here are a few suggestions.
Related documents
Between the Lines Newsletter
The biggest stories and the best analysis from the team at the Australia Institute, delivered to your inbox every fortnight.
You might also like
We don’t need nuclear power – the path to cheaper electricity is renewables
The last thing Australia energy market needs is nuclear power. The data is clear – more renewables will lead to cheaper electricity.
Highlights from the Climate Integrity Summit 2024
2023 has shown us a planet on the brink of collapse. Cyclones, heatwaves, catastrophic floods, fires and landslides have killed people, destroyed ecosystems and decimated communities. And yet Australia is still yet to repair all the homes lost in the Black Summer bushfires of 2020 or the devastating Lismore floods of 2017 and 2022. No
The Climate Crisis is an Integrity Crisis | Polly Hemming
I am starting my address to this year’s summit in the exact same way that I started last year’s address. Because it is just over a year since I delivered these same words, which aren’t actually my words. They are the words of our Climate Change Minister, and they provide a baseline of sorts for what progress has been made in that time.