The Deniers were:
- Michael Crichton
- Richard Lindzen
- Philip Stott
The Fascists were:
- Brenda Ekwurzel
- Gavin Schmidt
- Richard Somerville
Some of those names will be familiar to you. Their positions are outlined in the transcript linked above. The debate was well handled and conducted in a light-hearted way, which seems pretty appropriate given the subject matter. I encourage you to read the whole transcript, even though it is lengthy, as it is quite illuminating in terms of how either side argues the debate.
Before the debate started the audience's position on Global warming is not a crisis was as follows:
After the debate the audience was polled again, with the following outcome:
How can it be that such a massive swing took place in the space of a couple of hours? If the 'science is settled' then why were the Climate Fascists not only not able to hold their position but actually increase it? And why would Gavin 'the debate is over' Schmidt even agree to a debate in the first place?
I'll digress here for a moment and point out that the mainstream media reports from an agenda-driven leftist position; arts faculties are teaching overwhelmingly leftists ideas and, in fact, any course that has the word 'studies' in its title (Women's Studies, Black Studies, Gender Studies etc) is taught from a cultural Marxist perspective; the 'morally superior' environmental movement is underpinned by socialist ideology; and even our K-12 school system has a one-sided leftist curriculum (it will show An Inconvenient Truth but not The Great Global Warming Swindle). So why is it that even with all of this inculcation of leftist ideas with no balancing right wing response that our society splits close to 50-50 along left-right lines?
The answer is that when openly and honestly debated leftist arguments are easy to overcome. The strength of the left's position on global warming is substantively weak, as is demonstrated by the result of the debate above. The lack of intellectual strength in the left's position also explains why there's so much hysteria about shutting down debate on the subject. On the right we're happy to debate any of our positions in an intellectually honest forum and we extend an open invitation to those intellectually honest on the left to join us.
Of course, Gavin Schmidt couldn't accept that he had been defeated by intellectual honesty and reason, as he commented on at his hilariously inaccurately named realclimate website:
I’m afraid the actual audience (who by temperament I’d say were split roughly half/half on the question) were apparently more convinced by the entertaining narratives from Crichton and Stott (not so sure about Lindzen) than they were by our drier fare. Entertainment-wise it’s hard to blame them. Crichton is extremely polished and Stott has a touch of the revivalist preacher about him. Comparatively, we were pretty dull.You see? It wasn't the strength of the argument that won the day it was good, old fashioned Sophism. So who's calling whom Deniers?
Update: I forgot to mention that this debate has not been widely reported in the mainstream media. If the Fascists had won then do you think it wouldn't have been splattered all over the media?