Deer Mr. Munkton. A couple of months ago you entered into a debate with me on What's Up With That about alleged errors in your public lectures, allegations that I made in a series of videos on my YouTube channel PotOla54. But as soon as I presented documentary evidence to back out my claims, you suddenly fell silent. Despite promising Anthony Watts that you'd respond when you returned from Australia mid-February, you haven't done so, and now you've written to tell me that you are in effect running away. Sorry, I don't know how else to phrase you're a abrupt retreat from our debate. I'm referring to your email to me dated March 22nd. I'm on a very busy tour and will be more busy when I return to the UK, so I don't know when I shall have further time to respond. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities, and while I try to accommodate them other priorities must sometimes come first. Let me address the first excuse first. I understand you're currently on a busy tour, but you promised Anthony Watts you would respond when you return from your last tour, and you did not. Meanwhile, I note that you have had plenty of time to respond to a university newsletter that criticized you, and you spent two hours talking on Skype to a small classroom of students. I failed to see why these are priorities, while my 57,000 subscribers, and the hundreds of thousands of subscribers to What's Up With That, are not deserving of an answer from you concerning clear evidence that you seriously misled your audiences over a period of several years. The people watching this debate have watched you vacate your chair, and are still expecting to see you reappear from backstage at any moment with some incisive rebuttal after checking my evidence. I'm sure there'll be as shocked as I am to hear the squealing of car tires as you make good your escape. You have, after all, been given every advantage in this debate. It's taking place on What's Up With That, a regular forum for you and one that you chose, so there can be no suggestion that the umpire is biased against you. In fact, even though he and I disagree on the climate issue, Anthony Watts has been good enough to give us equal space for our responses. You were given two opportunities to rebut my videos, responding first to a summary of them that was made by someone in a What's Up With That comments forum, and then directly to something that was, as you put it, not word for word, what Peter had field said, but I hope they fairly convey his meaning. With respect, no, the points you wrote did not fairly convey my meaning. In fact, they ignored the substance of the allegations altogether, and a lot of your response focused on ad hominim attacks questioning my integrity, honesty, and intelligence. So when I responded with the actual allegations, along with supporting documentary evidence, 17 video clips of your speeches, 13 scientific papers and studies, and one newspaper article that you yourself cited, and showed that you had clearly misquoted or misrepresented your own sources, you inexplicably fell silent, and then failed to deliver your promised response. If you'd like to argue that these allegations have already been answered elsewhere, then simply copy and paste the answers you've already given. I submit that you have not answered these allegations anywhere, and one reason I know that is because I had to email you to ascertain some of your sources, something very few people have done. Now you can prove me wrong very easily by pasting the answers into your response. If you want to publicly thrash me in this debate and show that I'm wrong, then the intelligent and mature way to do this is to show it with evidence. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities. If you think these issues are inconsequentialities, then why did you bring them up time and time again during your many public speeches? The Sun is largely responsible for recent warming. There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 500 million years, only one Himalayan glaze here is retreating. The earth has been cooling, greenland isn't melting. There's no long term decline of Arctic ice, etc., etc. It was you, not I, who decided these should be the bedrock of your case against anthropogenic climate change. I simply emailed you to ask for the sources of your assertions, and when you gave them to me, I checked them. And it turned out that you either misrepresented or misquoted these sources, or your source doesn't have the authority you claim it does. And if you think they're inconsequentialities, why did you decide to expand several thousand words on what's up with that, trying to rebut them? You were quite happy to do so when you thought the debate would be easy, and you thought these were just vague allegations. It was only when I came back with details and a wealth of supporting evidence that you apparently decided it was better to beat a hasty retreat than try to answer such prima facie evidence. I appreciate that you'd much prefer this kind of debate take place on stage where oratory is paramount. It's much harder to engage in this kind of debate online, where everything is written down and can be quoted back, where sources are demanded for any facts you give, and where these sources can be checked and verified. But this is the nub of our debate, whether you've chosen reliable sources and quoted and represented them correctly. Nowhere in my videos or in the what's up with that debate have I suggested you're making these errors deliberately, or that you're being dishonest. Occurtersy you didn't extend to me, and neither have I descended to add hominim attacks or name calling. Also, occurtersy you didn't extend to me. Errors are simply errors in my book, and if you unintentionally misled your audiences over several years, then I accept that it was unintentional. After all, the truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion, as you yourself said at the frontier centre for public policy last year. The truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion. In the same speech you said, before we subjugate the truth to mere expediency, convenience or profit, it's first desirable to discern the truth. And before we subjugate the truth to mere expediency, convenience or profit, it is first desirable to discern the truth. And again, what matters here are the facts. What matters here is the truth. And what matters here are the facts. For a man so dedicated to the truth, I'm surprised that you didn't jump at the opportunity to either rebut my allegations by showing that it's I, not you, whom has read these sources and quotes, or check your sources again and acknowledge that you made these errors. In that spirit, I urge you to rejoin the debate that Anthony Watts has so kindly agreed to host. This may be a triumph of hope over experience. My experience tells me you won't be too busy to issue a long response addressing the issue of the debate itself and why you shouldn't have to continue it or an attempt to deflect the debate onto some other subject or forum combined with another ad-hominum attack on me. Instead of what everyone would like to see, which is either a clear rebuttal or acceptance of the evidence I provided.