Last night’s Munk debate had great potential with the lineup of those promoting the view that climate change is mankind’s defining issue and those saying that view is hokum. There was the following warning displayed on the website “Expect Colourful Language”. This is going to be good, I think to myself.

George Monbiot and Elizabeth May spoke for the proposition while Bjorn Lomborg and Nigel Lawson opposed. Read the details and get any background you wish on the Munk Debate Website. For me, it was an opportunity to have the climate change deniers speak in a forum in which they would be challenged. It was not Fox News. It was not a free ride. It was to be a debate. M & M versus L & L.

And then there was the moderator/host, Rudyard Griffiths.

In short, Mr. Griffiths prevented good debate and colourful language. He obviously prefers biege.

When the debate got lively he interrupted it, re-directed the energy of the encounter and placed the debate into sterile territory -- and once even a timeout for goodness sakes.

The most exciting part of the debate lasted a mere couple of seconds. It was between Elizabeth May and Bjorn Lomborg, a.k.a. “Mr. Smoothie”. Griffiths called a halt at that point, creating a timeout when there was no need for one. He also framed limiting questions for the debaters to respond to and guided the debate away from pertinent issues. He was not a neutral player. For a while Elizabeth May was cut out of the debate completely. Am I the only person who thought, “Jeepers it’s been a while since Elizabeth had a turn.”

Because Mr. Griffiths was so controlling, the debate was chunky and resembled a series of rehearsed sound-bytes. I heard the same debate between Monboit and Lomborg on CBC’s The Current earlier in the day. It was a perfect match. Same sentences. Same rebuttals. Same wording. So I ask, was this a play? And was it by design that Elizabeth May was corralled enough to keep her from opening up with all cylinders or was that unconscious?

It was a skewed debate. It is the opinion of the billblog that the moderator was immoderately involved in manipulating the proceeding so that good debate could not flourish. Was he favouring one side over the other? Was he joining Rex Murphy, The Globe & Mail and The National Post in pooping on climate change proclaimers (one of whom is your faithful billblogger)?

At the end of the debate portion of the show, Griffiths asked the audience if they wanted a Q&A or would they like to let the debate continue. There was clapping and he let the debate continue as before, no Q&A. Just like that. I know that one. It's an old joke. “Coffee or tea?” “Yes please.”

There was vague similarity to a weird theatrical courtroom. The prosecution (May and Monbiot) presented their case and the defense (Lomborg and Lawson) did anything to introduce doubt — reasonable doubt not required. L & L provided grounds for doubt by a dance of obfuscation, unprovable assertion, theatrics, misdirection and pomposity. Monbiot seemed lethargic and May’s energy and presence were corralled and interrupted. She must have walked away frustrated.

Who won? It matters not a whit to reality. If a million people are mistaken, reality doesn’t care. It is what it is. No hurt feelings or hangups. Reality just is. CO2 will continue to be added to the atmosphere faster than it is utilized by plant life. A tipping point is coming. Just saying ...

That was the first Munk Debate that I have viewed. Not impressed. Thumbs down.