Currently watching the debate. Monckton is more entertaining. Questions about his status as a Lord. Denniss is solid too. Generous applause for both. Good to see.
Gillard: “Coal mining has a great future in this country.” She is so unconvincing. The liar label has stuck.
Monckton played the three characteristics of persuasion: Pathos (emotion), logos (reasoning), and ethos (character)–for persuasion, these three; but the greatest of these (according to Aristotle at least) is ethos.
I would say Denniss ranked lower on all of these, mainly because he used them less, not because they were of lower quality. I doubt Monckton would be regarded as Jean’s fair umpire though:
This raises the hope that some of our bitter public disputes over science might be resolved, if only we could find the right messenger; a scientist whose conspicuous dignity, integrity and authority would make him (or her) trusted by all sides in the dispute.
UPDATE: See JoNova for insights by people present.
Overall Monckton won the debate, made his point, referred to the literature, while Denniss spent some time belittling the skeptics on being economic Sceptics as well, admonshing us for not criticizing the Liberal direct action policy.