Greenpeace protestor gets her ass handed to her

[outragous76]

Did anyone else not think that she came across well?

I don't give too much of a toss about the will we all die/will we not all die global warming bollox, I just saw nice lady giving more time than I would have to total douchebag.

In the next video, Monckton plays connect 4 with a 9 year old who just learned the rules yesterday and absolutely destroys.

isn't that kinda the point? he's showing that the people spending their lives protesting don't understand the game they're playing

The game she's playing is protesting in her spare time, not debating on camera vs someone who spends his entire life gearing up for the sole purpose of debating on camera.

Bit of a mismatch.

She might as well just go to an Anti Norweigan women protest.

still laughing now!

genius

[Rod Paradise]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

[Rupert]

3 I'd love to see his working for the least mean square analysis (or whichever one of many statistacal analyses he claims to have used) - why are there many ways of analysing data? - because misleading results can arise from using the wrong one. Being able to rattle of an analysis method is not an argument without the figures.

I haven't checked the study, but regression analysis is an extremely powerful form of statistical analysis and certainly appropriate in this instance.  The conclusions you draw are often an accurate representation of whats going on because statistical instruments for internal/external validity are put in place to decrease/remove bias.

[DaveShoelace]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

[Swordpoker]

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

If he was to talk directly to camera few people would listen or believe him. By having the audience direct their attention to the protestor he gets his point across unconsciously to the viewer. He is saying to look up some evidence rather than just believing in something because other people believe it.

I particularly enjoyed the bit where he tells us not to trust him but to look up the data instead. This is a wonderful way to get folk to trust you

[gatso]

it's 2009, a woman, W, is standing outside parliament with a placard and a bullhorn, handing leaflets to people who wish she'd just get out the way, demanding equal voting rights for women when monckton, M, appears

M- hiya treacle, you've been out here for 2 years protesting, has no-one mentioned to you that women have had equal voting rights for 80 years
W- oh shit. really?
M- yes love, pop round to the interweb cafe and google women's suffrage, all the info's there
W- I'll do that right away

woman looks stupid and has wasted 2 years of her life protesting for something when she had no idea of the facts

now let's move the scene to 1910, same location, same dialogue but with less google and more public libraries or somesuch

it's irrelevant that monckton is now feeding her incorrect info. she still looks stupid and has still wasted 2 years of her life by protesting something without info

it's pretty much irrelevant what he says, he's managing to show up the ignorance of people who disrupt other peoples lives campaigning for things they don't even understand. if his facts also stand up to scrutiny then that's just a brucey bonus

[doubleup]

it's pretty much irrelevant what he says, he's managing to show up the ignorance of people who disrupt other peoples lives campaigning for things they don't even understand.

She has chosen to trust someone's opinion on the matter - just like many people do on a wide range of matters.  I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to take the piss out of a cancer patient for not understanding how their chemotherapy worked.

[gatso]

I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to take the piss out of a cancer patient for not understanding how their chemotherapy worked.

what a strange thing to say

[creepy_benji]

I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to take the piss out of a cancer patient for not understanding how their chemotherapy worked.

what a strange thing to say

hahaha that comment made me laugh very hard gatso

[Rupert]

I would imagine that it would be pretty easy to take the piss out of a cancer patient for not understanding how their chemotherapy worked.

Not even the biggest of pricks would dispute the fact that she had cancer though.

[Dewi_cool]

Right, we know what he was doing there, what was she doing there?

[action man]

pretty clear she was clueless on the subject she was protesting against. Some people just like to fight for a cause, any cause, even one they dont understand. It helps give thier lives purpose and meaning in their own eyes. It did go on a little long for my liking, and i compared it too a boxer mouthing off in the weigh in and getting a bloddy good hiding in the ring. However the fight should have been stopped after 3 minutes. I wouldnt go as far as bullying, it was just an embarrassing mauling, however the longer her went on the more compassion the viewer felt for the woman imho. I mean im sure he could have picked someone more adept in discussing the matter at hand, instead of a women whose first tongue is not ours. It just looked like she was cherry picked to get schooled, which is what eventually made it uncomfortable viewing for me.

[bolt pp]

i agree with rod and actionman but its much of a muchness, she didnt ask for it i suppose and the 10 min thing seemed a bit excessive and some of the stuff was quite low brow but i dont suppose she needed therapy after.

it reminded me of one of my all time favorite p*ss takes where the arena is a bit more suitable and i think illustrates the difference between picking on someone who hasnt really justified the attention and someone begging to get ruined.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_L-gbpKZpo

[Rod Paradise]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Someone only has the right to protest if they can carry out a scientific debate on the subject at the drop of a hat, in their second language & against a prepared opponent? 

People wouldn't protest in your world at all would they?

[G1BTW]

I admire the guy's skill.

He wasn't talking to her, he was talking to us.

Finally someone with a brain has turned up and figured the whole thing out.

If he is then what's he trying to tell us?

That he's so confident in his argument that he can only ambush an unprepared protester & overwhelm her with unsupported 'facts' and tricks of language? Well whoop dee do that's me in the denial camp now - those that believe in climate change don't have the skill to do that.

 

A climate change protester at a climate change rally (or whatever it was) should not be unprepared like that, if she saw fit to impose her viewpoint on the general public like that she should be able to back it up, if he approached her at work or at home its fair to call it an ambush of an unprepared protester, but she was at the one place where she should have been ready for conflict or indeed to educate others on what she is protesting about.

Sorry, but that's bollocks. Someone only has the right to protest if they can carry out a scientific debate on the subject at the drop of a hat, in their second language & against a prepared opponent?  

People wouldn't protest in your world at all would they?

In a world with many conflicting theories even among the top scientists, if you wish to adhere to a particular camp you cannot just do so on a whim, you have to make a decent attempt to examine the science being presented, the methodology used and the exact claims being made. If you do not wish to do this, or cannot, that is fine, go and sit on the couch. But if you choose one side over another on a whim, but wave a banner around as if there was some rationale behind your conviction........sister, you are going dowwwn
Rod, it looks like she knew nothing, tbf. Looks that way to me anyway