International Journal of Inactivism (now supplanted by Decoding SwiftHack)

2010/02/16

Lambert-Monckton debate: we were wrong

[cite as: S. Stepanovich. 2010. Lambert-Monckton debate: we were wrong. Intl. J. Inact., 3:8]

As you may know by now, Deltoid blogger Tim Lambert had a debate on global warming with climate inactivist Christopher Monckton. Since Lambert accepted Monckton’s debate invitation unconditionally, and since the debate was widely publicized — for example, by the Australian Climate ‘Science’ Coalition and Joanne Nova’s blog — thus according to our global warming debate flowchart, inactivists should either proclaim victory for themselves, or throw a hissy fit and then proclaim victory for themselves. According to the flowchart, they might keep quiet about the outcome of a debate, but only if the debate wasn’t publicized widely in the first place.

However, we were wrong. Both the AC’S’C and Joanne Nova did keep quiet about the debate outcome, even though they’d widely announced the debate beforehand. We apologize for the error.

About these ads

2 Comments »

  1. This is what you call “ignoring” the debate? JoNova details exactly where Lambert was wrong. Lambert replied, and then she demolished that too.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/lamberts-pinker-tape-ambush-pr-stunt/

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/lambert-victim-of-his-own-spin/

    If you’re always this sloppy with your fact checking, I can see why you
    actually believe in anthropogenic global warming. BTW, Lamberts little
    Deltoid gang is a joke. Just a bunch of global cooling deniers who keep
    patting each other on the back and telling each other how right they are.
    Frankly, it’s rather pathetic.

    Comment by Mark E. Gillar — 2010/04/11 @ 09:22 | Reply

    • Mark E. Gillar:

      Great, so it looks like I don’t have to apologize after all — the inactivists did throw a hissy fit and then proclaim victory.

      The bottom line? The infamous “Pinker tape” turns out to be a reenacted piece of cherry-picked exaggeration, where lines are taken out of context to imply something important, or to frame it as if it were significant.

      Why did Joanne emphasize the word “reenacted”? Of course the tape with Pinker speaking was prepared, and I’m sure everyone involved will admit that freely. I think someone’s trying to emphasize on that word as if… horrors… “to imply something important”! Sounds like yet another case of projection.

      Lambert, victim of his own spin?

      I’m not sure what that means. Does Joanne mean Monckton got pwned by Lambert, and therefore, in a fit of logic inversion, it means Lambert lost the debate?

      Comment by stepanovich — 2010/04/11 @ 13:28 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: