I mentioned the Spectator debate last week but I didn’t go along as I was giving a talk in Manchester on Antarctic climate.
Someone from Climate Brief went along, though, and they have written a report.
Anyway, the motion was “The global warming concern is over. Time for a return to sanity.”
The results are quite interesting, which I guess I can comment on without having been there:
If the point of the debate was to change people’s minds then the “Against” panel clearly did a better job, so well done King, Singh and Palmer.
However, the clear message from the results is that the majority of people that go along to debates organised by The Spectator are not that concerned about global warming. I suppose you could also conclude (from the lack of change in the “For” votes and the make up of the panels) that this group of people are more interested in the policy implications of climate change than the science behind it.
I’m also wondering why Delingpole wasn’t on the “For” panel. He’s a Spectator contributor and has an interest in climate change. Any thoughts?