If you are a total ignoramus, but wish to win a debate, here's how:
Notice, first, that Jim Corrs and Lord Christopher Monckton, however deluded they may be, offer arguments in support of the positions they take: Jim Corrs' that 9/11 could not have happened the way the US Government said it happened; Lord Monckton's that the UN International Panel on Climate Change has exaggerated the immediate threat of global warming due to anthropogenic carbon emissions. Then notice how taking this facts-plus-logic approach proved to be a disastrous blunder, as the subsequent total repudiation of their views demonstrates.
In response to Lord Monckton, an Irish Green Party representative first:
irrelevantly talks about Lord Monckton's association with Margaret Thatcher, whose visceral hatred of IRA terrorists no doubts earned her few admirers in the Republic of Ireland;
then points out that Lord Monckton is opposed to Britain's membership of the EU, which is also totally irrelevant, but again a good way to evoke the antagonism of an Irish audience, since Ireland's recent prosperity owed much to subsidies from the EU, financed by Britain among other net contributors to the EU budget;
then accuses Lord Monckton of abusing the freedom of speech that he is allowed in a liberal democracy by, so she clearly implies, misleading people by what he is saying about climate science, thereby assuming the falsity of Lord Monckton's thesis without having to go to all the trouble of showing in what way, if any, it is false;
then states that the conclusions of the IPCC represent the consensus scientific view, which is simply nonsense. There is never a scientific consensus. Science is a construct of hypotheses, all of which are open to challenge. Her claim that anthropogenically induced global warming is occurring "faster than we anticipated" -- whoever "we" may be and whatever "we" may have anticipated -- "is irrefutable science confirmed by every scientific authority" is sheer bunk.
then baldly calls Lord Monckton a liar: "you are spreading climate disinformation;"
then rants about floods, about landslides, and about heatwaves, as if floods and landslides and heatwaves have never before happened in the history of mankind;
then reverts to the epistemologically invalid argument for authority in science "the scientific establishment are very clearly saying;"
then calls Lord Monckton a "climate denier," a term that can be meaningful only in the sense that it implies holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, a smear that she compounds by equating Lord Monckton's views with those of Sarah Palin, a person we may assume is much despised in Ireland.
Did she offer any facts or arguments relevant to the claim that human-induced global warming is occurring "faster than we anticipated"?
The attack on Jim Corrs by an American motor mouth goes directly to the point:
First, "I am afraid he's not making sense," which basically settles the argument right there;
then, so we understand that Jim's view is completely over the top, he boasts his own credentials as a skeptic;
then he refers to the 43 volume report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers by the US National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST): "the science, the engineering, the understanding, the physics, the science of the collapse of the World Trade Center is sound," so there we have it again, there's no argument, my opponent is a fool because I say so, and if you doubt that, don't because "there isn't a question about that," which of course, is a lie;
then, having disposed of the facts, the smear. Following the lead of the verbal Irish woman, he says Jim's views are inspired by anti-Semititic conspiracy theory;
he then justifies the smear by claiming that Jim's web site makes reference to Jews, always a mistake if you want to steer clear of the political correctness thugs;
In addition, he maintains that to suggest that the Mossad was involved in 9/11 is anti-Semitic, ignoring the question "what if they were involved?" Is the truth anti-Semitic? Is it anti-Semitic to ask a question?
There you have it. How to win a political debate even if you are an ignoramus and a moron.
Thanks to Tony Cartalucci's blog for the Video link