I don't know Steve. She seemed very fluent with the English language. She was also smart enough to turn the argument around after Monckton initially asked if she validated the data or info she's heard for herself so when he started laying out his facts, she said she'd have to validate the info. That means she perfectly understands the conversation. She just didn't have any facts to back up her argument.

Disclaimer, I don't have any personal views on the Global Warming topic but just debating that interview.

 

I'm not sure I agree, Tony. She clearly spoke English, but unless you think in English, at all times, you're not a native English speaker. Also, as a non-native speaker, you might understand the question, but may not necessarily be able to articulate a response (or be as articulate in your response). My point was really that Monckton, speaking solely in his native tongue, coming to the discussion with pre-prepared arguments and pre-prepared talking points, was in his comfort zone - the lady was obviously a little less so. Monckton knew he was holding all the cards. In essence, it was effectively an ambush of sorts of a relatively soft target who for obvious reasons was less prepared than her opposite number. Maybe if she'd known earlier in the day she was going to get accosted by a random English Lord, with an accompanying television crew, she might have been a little better able to deal with the situation

 

Well, he already has attempted exactly that ... nearly 3 years ago Lord Monkton challenged Mr. Gore to a debate on global warming.

Mr. Gore has run away like a frightened little girl at every chance of debate.

The science of global warming is falling apart faster than Tiger Woods' marriage.

 

If she really did have trouble speaking English, I could see your point....but she was definitely comfortable enough with the language to have a conversation like that. All she really messed up were some of the tenses....that's really common for anyone who normally speaks German, which I am 99% sure is her native language. My Dad makes the same mistakes when he talks...it doesn't mean you can speak/understand the language.

Fact is, she didn't know the facts. And this is what Monckton, with right, exploited.

 

She's actually Norwegian, but language issues notwithstanding my point is essentially that Monckton came pre-prepared with his argument and talking points, this lady clearly wasn't able to do that. Doesn't make for much of a debate unless there's more of a level playing field. Monckton has some valid points, I'll give him that, but he knew that he held all the cards here.

 

Monckton never once interrupted her, and he always gave her as much time as she needed for her response. "I have to do the research" is the same in either language. Monckton just exploited the fact that these green peace protesters, at times, have no clue what they are really talking about. If you are protesting for something that you really, truly stand for there should be NO reason why you aren't ready to answer any questions people may ask you. Monckton knows that the majority of green peace members have one thing on their minds "yay, what I am doing is good for the planet....peace, happiness, oh man protesting makes me feel all fuzzy inside"

 

Well, you're assuming that she fully understood the questions, that she fully understood the agenda and that she was entirely comfortable being filmed as she spoke. I'm not sure we know the answers to those questions, Krozi. As I said above, Monckton had the ability to engage in what for him was a prepared narrative focused around previously prepared questions where he knew his own answers, it doesn't appear that his counterpart had that same luxury so it's maybe a little unreasonable for us to hold her to the same standard. As you'll see in my posts, I never accused Monckton of being discourteous, he never is, but he did hold all the cards in this particular situation. Put yourself in her shoes, even on a topic you're generally familiar with, and you might accept that you may not appear as informed as you actually are about a topic that you otherwise know well...

 

HAHAHA

 

If my passion is to really "save" the Earth, and educate people about global warming, then I would know everything I possibly could on the topic. Of course when someone puts you on the spot it's normal to screw up on some of the answers, but she really did not know the answer to ANY of the questions. I, for example, am fairly passionate about BMW's. If someone walked up to me and asked me anything about the BMW brand, the chances that I could correctly answer the question are extremely high.

You ALWAYS have to look at both sides. If you get your information from a single source, chances are that some, or sometimes most, of the information may be skewed. An intelligent person always looks at both sides. It seems like the only side she looked at was the, for the most part, bias press and the side of green peace. Green peace is not a organization that looks at both sides.

 

Maybe we just ought to agree to disagree. I've made all the points I wanted to make, but for what it's worth I find both Monckton and Greenpeace to be equally guilty of the crimes you attribute here just to Greenpeace. Neither party went into that discussion, or most similar discussions for that matter, with a truly open mind.