Environmentalist Delivers an Epic Beat Down to Climate Change Skeptic

Avatar:
Ben Cohen
Author:
Publish date:
Social count:
0

By Ben Cohen

This is one of the most entertaining verbal annihilations I've seen in a long time. In this video from 2005, environmentalist George Monbiot takes on climate change skeptic and fellow environmentalist David Bellamy on the issue of melting glaciers.

Bellamy had produced an article that claimed to counter the hard evidence that glaciers were melting, while Monbiot had discredited the piece as being completely fraudulent. The two met on Channel 4 to debate the issue, and what ensued was a one sided massacre where Bellamy was left stuttering and unable to counter any of Monbiot's points. Bellamy's pathetic performance and inability to produce any credible evidence led Monbiot to directly accuse him of scientific fraud. Here is a partial transcript of the debate:

George Monbiot: It's just staggering. The latest figures by the world monitoring


service show that of the 88 glaciers they are monitoring, 82 are in


retreat, the other ones are in stasis. There are one or two which are


growing and it's caused by local effects of global warming caused by


higher rainfall. But worldwide it's a picture of massive retreatand all


the scientific evidence shows this.

When I tried to find out
where David obtained this he pointed me to a website run by a convicted
fraudster. I then followed these figures until I found one which they
came from a paper published in science 16 years ago.

I
checked that up, there is no such paper there are no such figures.
These are fraudulent figures and I'm afraid David you have found
yourself committing scientific fraud.

David Bellamy: Really well tell
me. I believe in climate change and it is a completely natural process.
You believe in carbon for climate change. Tell me where the evidence is?

George Monbiot: Well there is a staggering amount of evidence literally tens of
thousands scientific papers. Your attempt to produce some counter
evidence actually relied on false data on what appears to be fraudulent
data. If you are dismissing the great majority and I'm talking over
99.9 per cent of the world's climate scientists you have to some pretty
strong data to dismiss that. But what you have dismissed that data with
is data which has no source and is false.

You can watch the entertaining debate here.