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.