Lord Monckton wins National Press Club debate on climate

Love him or hate him, the man can win a debate. Andrew Bolt shares the results of the National Press Club Debate in Australia writing:

No wonder the warmists hate debate

The National Press Club debate’s results:

Lord Monckton – 10

Former Greens adviser Richard Denniss – 1

Journalists – 0.

Watch the video of the debate in full:

Advertisements

321 thoughts on “Lord Monckton wins National Press Club debate on climate

  1. I caught a link over at Joanne Nova’s site and watched it. Lord Monckton is very good. I was impressed with the civility of the press in Oz however (with one exception), but mostly with the way Monckton turned the discussion back to the issues every time. He is not easily sidetracked. I respect Denniss for agreeing to participate, but it is obvious he was in way over his head.

  2. I had occasion to monitor one of Mr. Monckton’s recent presentations in Australia (see here for the first part of seven on YouTube), and the guy just gets better and better at hammering the hell out of los warmistas and their preposterous bogosity.

    No wonder Algore absolutely refuses to debate him.

  3. Is that all Denniss has ? Analogies rather than evidence..
    Unless he was at the wrong debate.

  4. The reason most people refuse to debate with him is because he talks rubbish. Admittedly he’s very good at presenting, but rubbish is rubbish whichever way you look at it. Most of his arguments are deeply flawed or just plain false.

  5. Steve E. No examples. Just calling Monckton’s argument rubbish? That sounds like rubbish to me.

  6. @SteveE:

    Yes, AlGore just does spout rubbish at every turn. Repeatedly shown to be wrong, “Wrong Way Al” just keeps coming back with more “leavings” to be swept up…

  7. to SteveE, Please give an example of one of Monckton’s flawed arguments and also one that is false one. Other wise your comment is rubbish.

    Jim

  8. Man Bearpig says:
    July 20, 2011 at 8:25 am

    “Is that all Denniss has ? Analogies rather than evidence..
    Unless he was at the wrong debate.”
    ==============================================================
    That’s all every AGW alarmist has.

  9. It was interesting that Denniss used the rather corny analogy of having to consult a doctor if you’re sick and having to accept his expertise. Of course the thing about remedies for curing illness is that they have to work and be seen to work. Most treatments depend upon a high percentage of successful outcomes which have been previously established by trials. I mean who’s going to accept a treatment where you have to wait, say, until long after your dead before it’s deemed successful?

  10. —-actually, Tucci78, he’s LORD Christopher Monckton. But I’ll forgive you! Yes, he’s brilliant, isn’t he. I know he has his critics but I think that it’s mainly jealousy. I saw him at the UKIP AGM last autumn and he brought the house down.

  11. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 8:39 am

    The reason most people refuse to debate with him is because he talks rubbish. Admittedly he’s very good at presenting, but rubbish is rubbish whichever way you look at it. Most of his arguments are deeply flawed or just plain false.
    ==============================================================

    You have the video…… show your assertion. Go for it! Or are you just talking out of your posterior?

  12. Hacked voicemail of Prof. Denniss: “Professor, Monckton here. Just wanted to let you know that you can pick up your clock anytime. It is now in perfect working order after I gave it a thorough cleaning. Ta-ta.”

  13. Baxter 75: Good point if I went to a doctor and he said “computer models show you will get cancer in 30 years you better have an operation today,” I don’t think I would have that operation, at least not now.

  14. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 8:39 am

    The reason most people refuse to debate with him is because he talks rubbish. Admittedly he’s very good at presenting, but rubbish is rubbish whichever way you look at it. Most of his arguments are deeply flawed or just plain false.

    Hey, SteveE… How about you volunteering to take Richard’s place in a debate with Monckton, or put on a Press badge and pretend you’re a journalist (they certainly scored well, didn’t they?). Should be a “piece of cake” since you’re so knowledgeable and all.

    Or better yet, how about enumerating a few of these quantifiable items of “rubbish” you’re talking about. There’s a bunch of us here that would love to see what you’ve got.

    Or are you just a drive-by rapscallion that’s too afraid to speak up?

  15. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 8:39 am
    The reason most people refuse to debate with him is because he talks rubbish. Admittedly he’s very good at presenting, but rubbish is rubbish whichever way you look at it. Most of his arguments are deeply flawed or just plain false.

    SteveE you could not be more wrong. You can spout rubbish in a speech (or 30 second sound bite), but not in a debate. That is the beauty of a “real” debate is that you cannot get away with BS, you have to be ready and armed. The reason they do not debate him is because he is.

    Perhaps you want to point out the rubbish he spouted in that debate? It is only an hour long, long enough to get lots of sound bites, but short enough to actually listen to.

  16. TO: SteveE

    First I assume the “him” in your comments is Lord Monckton. The only other possibility is Richard Denniss. In the future, please be more clear as to who is “him”, thanks.

    The second area is that you use the term, “rubbish”, but fail to give any list, examples, or links to back up your point. It would make your position sound a bit more solid if you could give us clear examples, with material (links) to back it up. As it stands right now, all I’m seeing is name calling.

  17. I think this by Melaine Phillips, a British author and journalists says it all and directly relates to the “consensus” argument used by Lord Monckton opponent.

    Melanie Phillips
    I am open-mouthed. The BBC Trust is recommending that its journalists ditch balance for propaganda.

    A report being published today has apparently decided that the BBC no longer needs to interview man-made global warming sceptics because there is a consensus on this issue that the theory is true.

    Its conclusions are said to be based in part on recommendations by the geneticist Professor Steve Jones. Astonishingly, he is said not only to have found no evidence of bias in the BBC’s output on climate change, but suggests that on issues like this where he says there is a ‘scientific consensus’ – also including the MMR vaccination and genetically modified crops – there should be no need for the BBC to find opponents of the mainstream view.

    This is as terrifying as it is outrageous. First of all, the claim that there is a consensus on man-made global warming is itself false. The wickedly cynical propaganda strategy to promote this false belief in a consensus was described in an eye-opening blog post by James Delingpole in the Telegraph last year:

    The story begins in autumn 2004 when the government’s hysterically warmist chief scientific adviser Sir David King successfully persuaded the then Prime Minister Tony Blair to put action on global warming at the heart of UK government policy. This resulted in the creation of a propaganda body called The Climate Change Working Group which in turn sought PR advice from a company called Futerra communications.

    Futerra – Britain’s answer to Fenton communications in the US – recommended the following policy:

    Many of the existing approaches to climate change communications clearly seem unproductive. And it is not enough simply to produce yet more messages, based on rational argument and top-down persuasion, aimed at convincing people of the reality of climate change and urging them to act. Instead, we need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement.

    To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken [emphasis added].

  18. Those 20 warmistas at Google are furiously working at suppressing Bolt’s article not a word after news search. Expect this to get worse with time. Only the current investigations into the press/google and/or freezing cold weather in NH this year will hopefully stop it.

  19. Well, Lord Monckton decisively won this debate while facing an obviously hostile audience. Quite an achievement in itself.

    The fundamental problem, though, that went unmentioned during this exchange of words, is that the whole “climate change” hype (as well as the taxation related to this invented problem) is not a “debate” at all. It is an armed robbery, plain and simple, perpetrated by the worldwide political mafia in dire need of more and more funds to pay for the irresponsible promises they made to their parasite electorate.

    Another frightening and appalling thing is that virtually every one of these ambitious and very self-important young people calling themselves “journalists” see their role as being elite educators and instructors of the humanity, not in finding and revealing the truth. Having not enough knowledge and experience to play the first role, they abandon the latter, therefore becoming subservient tools in the hands of most unscrupulous and dishonest representatives of the human kind.

  20. Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society, claimed that he never lost a debate.

  21. paul revere says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:46 am

    The silence from SteveE is deafening.
    ==============================================================Give him time he has to make up, er I mean find, the evidence.

  22. I don’t doubt the warming, I doubt CAGW.
    Have many papers been written about the benefits of global warming?

  23. SteveE says: “The reason most people refuse to debate with him is because he talks rubbish. Admittedly he’s very good at presenting, but rubbish is rubbish whichever way you look at it. Most of his arguments are deeply flawed or just plain false.”

    Rather rude of you to criticise Denniss that way. At least he showed up, which is more than i can say for most Warmists.

  24. Unfortunately, debates are settled more on the rhetorical skills and charisma of the debaters rather than facts. Good for Monckton, but giving weight to public debates seems bad for anyone who values science above showmanship.

  25. A slight re-work of Dr Denniss’ cancer analogy.

    Doctor: You have a melanoma on your arm, I need to amputate the arm.
    Patient: Where is it?
    Doctor: You can’t see it yet.
    Patient: So how do you know I have it?
    Doctor: I ran a computer model.
    Patient: Has the model ever successfully identified a melanoma before?
    Doctor: No, but this time we have it right. There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
    Patient: How does it work?
    Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
    Patient: But how does it work?
    Doctor: There is an overwhelming consensus that it works.
    Patient: I think I need a second opinion.
    Doctor: There are no other opinions, there is an overwhelming consensus.
    Patient: I think I’ll go and see Dr Smith.
    Doctor: You can’t trust him, he’s a denier.
    Patient: He published a paper on chemotherapy treatment for melanoma.
    Doctor: It wasn’t peer reviewed.
    Patient: It was the Medical Review.
    Doctor: Yes but the reviewers were all deniers and the editor was fired.
    Patient: I think I’ll go now.
    Doctor: It’s much worse than we thought.
    Patient: I’m going.
    Doctor: First pay me 4 trillion dollars.
    Patient: Bye now.

  26. These debates have far ranging impact. This one is already all over the internet. The statistics cited by Monckton will be what is remembered. Not the nonsense about seeing a doctor when you are sick. Even those who believe in AGW but are not on the AGW gravy train will realize that the proposed cure is far worse than a 1C rise in temperature.

  27. dz alexander says:

    “Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society, claimed that he never lost a debate.”

    It’s not up to the debate participant to decide who won. Otherwise, Tim Lambert would have won his debate against Lord Monckton as he claimed, when he clearly lost.

  28. Sceptics will always win these debates (and always have) because sceptics have usually studied the facts surrounding the many varied issues in this debate while the pro-AGW people have to rely on appeal to authority, the precautionary principle or easily refuted myths which is just a weak debate position.

    Has any pro-AGW person ever explained how they get to 3.0C per doubling? I actually think the vast, vast majority (including the vast majority of the scientists themselves) do not know how this is arrived at. But there is a scientific consensus on it.

  29. Monckton missed a lot of opportunities to drive his points home. He talked about the misleading elements of models but never once brought the models themselves, as opposed to data, into question. And he never used the term “flawed analogies” to describe the two or three that Denniss used. There were several other places that his responses were less than direct.

    Winning against such a weak opponent is not much of a victory. On the other hand, a win against Al Gore wouldn’t be difficult, either.

  30. Hans Moleman says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Unfortunately, debates are settled more on the rhetorical skills and charisma of the debaters rather than facts. Good for Monckton, but giving weight to public debates seems bad for anyone who values science above showmanship.
    =====================================================

    I rather look at it as an ability to express the thoughts in a cohesive and comprehensive manner. This reflects upon the thoughts and ideas as well has the ability of the orator.

  31. Bill Illis –
    “Has any pro-AGW person ever explained how they get to 3.0C per doubling?”

    I think section 8.6 of WG1 of IPCC AR4 report is what you’re looking for.

  32. I think the Denniss’ comment at the end is telling. He does not understand that Co2 is not an unintended byproduct of combustion. It is the INTENDED product. The other resultants such as soot and CO and SO2 being caused by inpurities in the process. Since he kept referring back to the economists, whom I doubt understand that fact, I can only assume was his intention. By siding with economists and not the core science he refuses to debate nor accept the alternative scientific view.

  33. The warmists really love their ‘Doctor’ analogy don’t they.

    They think it is a perfect example of how you can be sure, that when there is a general consensus amongst scientists and professionals, then you can be sure they are right and the suggested remedy and treatment will be beneficial.

    Next time someone uses it just ask about the practice of phlebotomy (bloodletting). For millennia this was the prescribed treatment for a huge range of ailments. ……

    “Bloodletting was used to treat almost every disease. One British medical text recommended bloodletting for acne, asthma, cancer, cholera, coma, convulsions, diabetes, epilepsy, gangrene, gout, herpes, indigestion, insanity, jaundice, leprosy, ophthalmia, plague, pneumonia, scurvy, smallpox, stroke, tetanus, tuberculosis, and for some one hundred other diseases. Bloodletting was even used to treat most forms of hemorrhaging such as nosebleed, excessive menstruation, or hemorrhoidal bleeding. Before surgery or at the onset of childbirth, blood was removed to prevent inflammation. Before amputation, it was customary to remove a quantity of blood equal to the amount believed to circulate in the limb that was to be removed”

    This practise was common until well into the nineteenth century.

    Of course if you had questioned the treatment being offered to you at the time the response would have been similar to the warmists position now. …..’Of course we are right nearly all professionals agree and look at this list of patients treated who survived and recovered’. You however might point to a long list of patients who subsequently died.

    The response would be of course……..’Ahh that is because we didn’t bleed them enough!’

    Alan

  34. Re: Charles Johnson of the Intl Flat Earth Research Society.

    I remember a newspaper interview of him from the early 80’s. He looked like Moses in a suit, posing with his wife for a photo in front of their house surrounded by Joshua trees in California’s high desert.

    He said the first time he saw a globe it “just didn’t make any sense.”
    But the most memorable quote went something like, “If the earth were round, Australians would be hanging by their feet. My wife is from Australia, and my wife has never hung by her feet.”

    Tough to beat that in a debate!

  35. I thoroughly enjoyed watching Lord Monckton kick a little butt but the did anyone else enjoy it as much as I did that the angry, green feminist from Campus reporting was straight out of Central Casting?

    Emmenjay – Brilliant!

  36. Alan, just think of the consensus about the “ether” in space that allowed light to travel through space, or the cause of cholera in London.

    The consensus just sucks and this one over CO2 is just the worst.

  37. R. Gates says:

    “Ah, if only scientific truth were determined by who could win a debate consensus and computer climate models.”

    There, fixed it for you.

  38. Re the Steve E comments – and I’m not him:

    Monckton does have a bit of a rep for over-egging the pudding – he’s obviously a politician trying to put a view across, rather than an unbiased reporter. It doesn’t make everything he says rubbish, but from time to time he gets things wrong because he’s a bit over-eager. You can see why he’s found himself a niche, but ideally he’d go along with the propagandists on the other side of the fence.

    Don’t ask me for specific examples, because I don’t remember what the specifics were, so I’ll just have to google them up, and you lot can do that just as well as I can.

  39. Looks like Hans is afraid of the public learning of these debates, tuning in, and all becoming climate realists, (otherwise known as sceptics in proggy circles).

  40. actually the scientific method is merely a stylized form of debate … sometime you “debate” with yourself, sometimes with other scientists but in the end your evidence either wins or loses the debate against the real world … peer review is yet another form of debate when properly done …
    the way Mann et al do it, not so much …

  41. Dr. Dennis did a credible job demonstrating how the “consensus” works and enables its own propagation. Short on factual information and long on hand-waving analogies and appeals to authority. Whenever real science or the consensus dependence on models and [CO2] sensitivity exaggeration was brought up, those topics were swiftly avoided if not deftly deflected. Nonetheless, Dr. Dennis did not stoop to any ungainly nor reprehensible behavior so despite being thrashed, debate-wise, he is to be commended.
    Viscount Monckton OTOH, was rapier-sharp but perhaps a bit too chiding for the scribes in attendance. He took them to task, rightfully, on numerous occasions but he could have shown some leniency and incited them more often to “show both sides of the story in a fair manner”. He did so on one occasion but the tenor and nature of the subsequent questions left him non-plussed and therefore in a position to up the ante of his rhetoric. All in all, a clear win for the side of reason and science. Catastrophism, not so much.

  42. The AGW fanatics and their carbon tax strategy – meaning their entire argument rests on CO2. Then considering 96% of the CO2 output is from natural sources perhaps Australians needs to ask themselves if they pay their carbon taxes will nature cooperate and stop producing CO2?

  43. @Alan Millar

    I wish that Monckton had replied to the medical analogy with a counter-analogy involving stomach ulcers and H. Pyroli infections. The concensus believed that most, if not all, ulcers were caused by stress and diet. Four out of five doctors would have required the patient to reduce stress and change diet. That one non-concensus doctor would have prescribed antibiotic to cure the patient.

    In fact, wasn’t it a pair of Australian (or New Zealand?) doctors who fought the concensus and proved that at least some ulcers were caused by H. Pyroli infections?

  44. emmenjayMichael J says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Patient: I think I’ll go now.
    Doctor: It’s much worse than we thought.
    Patient: I’m going.
    Doctor: First pay me 4 trillion dollars.
    Patient: Bye now.

    LMAO. Funny!

  45. I’d love to watch a five member team debate. It would be about 2 hours long and moderated by Judith Curry. The skeptic team would consist of Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Fred Singer. The warmists team would consist of Joe Romm, Michael Oppenheimer, James Hansen, Michael Mann and Ben Santer.

    Which side do you suppose would win that debate?

  46. R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:46 am
    Ah, if only scientific truth were determined by who could win a debate.
    ————————————————————————

    Funny, R Gates, for over a decade now your fellow warmists have been telling us to believe you have the “scientific truth” because the debate is over. So I’m glad to hear a warmist like yourself admit that for the nonsense it always was.

    And @Steve E: if he spouts such rubbish all the time, then it would be the easiest thing in the world to defeat him in a debate not to mention actually offer up an example of said rubbish (whcih you’ve spectacularily failed to do)

  47. @Markon: “Looks like Hans is afraid of the public learning of these debates, tuning in, and all becoming climate realists, (otherwise known as sceptics in proggy circles)”

    Nope, I’m worried about the public learning of these debates, tuning in, and stopping there thinking they now have the whole, accurate story.

  48. Philip Thomas: The Sydney Morning Herald has their own take on the debate – and don’t disclose the results: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oh-lord-theres-a-climate-sceptic-in-the-house-20110720-1hnvz.html

    There’s no doubt that Monckton is a master debater, although it’s not clear how the result of this debate came about.

    Of perhaps equal interest is the SMH’s report on Monckton’s response to the House of Lords demand that Monckton stop claiming to be a member of the British upper house.

    Monckton’s response was to produce his passport which states: ”The holder is the right honourable Christopher Walter Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”.

    Monckton then claimed: ”The House of Lords says I am not a member of it. My passport says I am. Get used to it!”

    But his passport says no such thing, only that he is a “right honourable” and a “viscount”.
    The SMH article points out that, in the UK, hereditary peers are no longer guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords.

    So there are two issues here:
    1. Monckton’s peerage
    2. Monckton’s right to sit in the House of Lords.

    Monckton defends (2) by pointing to (1). But nowadays they are not the same.

    Whether or not this exchange is indicative of Monckton’s general style of debate, on this matter I think it pays to be sceptical of his claims.

  49. “In the 40 years since 1970, global temperatures have risen at a linear rate equivalent to around 1.3 °C/century. CO2 concentration is rising in a straight line at just 2 ppmv/year at present and, even if it were to accelerate to an exponential rate of increase, the corresponding temperature increase would be expected to rise merely in a straight line. On any view, 1.3 °C of further “global warming” this century would be harmless. The IPCC is predicting 3.4 °C, but since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001 global temperature has risen (taking the average of the two satellite datasets) at a rate equivalent to just 0.6 °C/century, rather less than the warming rate of the entire 20th century. In these numbers, there is nothing whatever to worry about – except the tendency of some journalists to conceal them.” Monckton 2011

    This paragraph contains a number of erroneous statements. Firstly, according to both GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 (satellite data only began in 1979), the global temperature trend since 1970 is 1.6–1.7°C per century. Secondly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been accelerating (not linear). The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 in the 2000’s (2.2 parts per million by volume [ppmv] per year) was in fact 47% faster than the rate of increase in the 1990s (1.5 ppmv per year). Monckton uses these incorrect assertions to create the support for his incorrect argument – that if we continue with business-as-usual, global temperatures over the next century will increase at a constant, linear rate (or slower).

  50. Nigel Harris says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:32 am
    Bill Illis –
    “Has any pro-AGW person ever explained how they get to 3.0C per doubling?”
    I think section 8.6 of WG1 of IPCC AR4 report is what you’re looking for.
    ———————-

    Some climate models (with an average of 3.7 watts/m2 of direct forcing) and an average of 2.0 watts/m2 of feedbacks result in 3.0C per doubling?

    The Stefan Boltzmann equation says that would get us to 1.1C. Where does the rest of the warming come from?.

  51. “Most climate scientists have not studied the question of how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will cause: therefore, whatever opinion they may have is not much more valuable than that of a layman. Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling. The models predict warming in the range mentioned by Mr. Steketee, but at numerous crucial points the models are known to reflect the climate inaccurately.” Monckton 2011

    There are many determinations of climate sensitivity based on measurements and observations. Several studies use more complete satellite observations than those used by Lindzen and find high climate sensitivity.

    A number of peer-reviewed papers have exposed fatal flaws in Lindzen’s methods. His result of low climate sensitivity is heavily dependent on the choice of end points in the periods he analyses – slight changing of these end points gives widely varying results including positive feedback (Trenberth et al 2010).

    In addition, what Lindzen is trying to do is calculate global climate sensitivity from tropical data. The tropics are not a closed system – a great deal of energy is exchanged between the tropics and subtropics. To properly calculate global climate sensitivity, global observations are required. Several studies have performed the same analysis using near-global data. One study found that small changes in the heat transport between the tropics and subtropics can swamp the tropical signal. They conclude that climate sensitivity must be calculated from global data (Murphy 2010).

  52. Of course Monckton can win a debate – because he has absolutely no qualms about lying. If you’re unconstrained by truth, and you say what you like with a smile, then sure – debate away.

    You know who else won lots of debates? Duane Gish.

    First point Monckton makes is – once again – that the IPCC:

    > says that the climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic object, so that the prediction of future climate states is not possible.

    He’s been making this claim again and again and again, despite the fact that that is **not** what the IPCC says.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/monckton_uses_a_sock_puppet.php

    So what do you call someone who knowingly says something that is not true?

    So – how long does it take Monckton to make this claim, and how long does it take to rebut? Answers on a postcard.

    Has he owned up to not being a member of the House of Lords yet?

  53. Wow, I must say I was surprised. I don’t like Lord Monckton too much but in this debate he definitely did his homework perfectly. Mr. Dennis made a few good points but in general he was completely unable to react to Monckton’s arguments and was just repeating himself.

  54. Yes, ultimately the truth will result from who wins the debate with an audience of scientists. Not that the scientists will vote to arrive at a consensus but rather that they will be convinced based on the strength of the data and scientific argument.

    Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend Dr. Fred Singer’s presentation at NIST in Boulder, CO. To a mostly empty auditorium, most of the audience was from NIST and not NOAA, Dr. Singer presented his arguments to the contrary of “accepted” AGW. This is totally anecdotal but it seemed that a significant fraction of the audience understood the correctness of Singer’s message.

    Dr. Singer handled every question with dignity and with data on his side. The audience clearly could see that the AGW side engaged in deception and faulty arguments. Almost an admission of defeat, the last warmest question was something like, “Well even if the models are wrong, shouldn’t we do something in case they might be right?”

  55. Brendan H
    Unlike Monckton’s opponent I see you CHOOSE to concentrate on a question having NOTHING to do with climate change. But if you “must” know Monckton is a hereditary peer, he inherited his peerage after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999, which provided that hereditary peers would no longer have an automatic right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Now, I wonder did the CO2 rise? And pray tell us “deniers” exactly how much will temperatures drop with the Australian carbon tax? You know after paying billions and billions? How much will CO2 drop? You know after paying out all those billions upon billions?

  56. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:43 am
    the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been accelerating (not linear)

    I believe the point the viscount was making was that the effect of increased CO2 is logarithmic, and as such, even if the CO2 level is accelerating the increase in temperature would only be linear. This is why even the IPCC talks of increase in temperature per doubling of CO2.

  57. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:50 am
    You can google the rest, there’s plenty of articles rubbishing Moncktons arguements.

    This is a climate site, however rehashing every item in Climate science to obfusate your garbage claim is not proving anything. You made a claim, were asked to back it up, and as of yet, have not posted anything in support of your claim. Why is that? because your first post was totally wrong and you are not man enough to admit it? Please, google yourself. But if you want to win any respect, back up your claim or withdraw it.

  58. paul revere says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:46 am

    The silence from SteveE is deafening.
    ————–

    I have a 2 hour commute from London…

  59. @ SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:47 am ……yada, yada, yada

    You’ve managed to conflate two entirely different issues.

    First you state, “Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity…..”

    Then you go on and state, “Several studies use more complete satellite observations than those used by Lindzen and find high climate sensitivity.” …… and continue to blather about how some scientists differ in opinion to Lindzen… presumably is iris theory.

    Now read the two quotes. Note how one doesn’t have a damned thing to do with the other. But most importantly. what you should take away from this, is that measuring temps today has very little to do with determining the climate’s sensitivity to CO2. One must account for all of the other variables before one can make such a determination, and seeing that we don’t know all of the other variables, scientists use models instead. And, none of the models have been shown to be correct. And given the wide margin of modeled sensitivity, there is very little agreement as to what is or isn’t the earth’s sensitivity to CO2.

    I believe, if you were to re-read Monckton’s statement, you would understand that he wasn’t affirming Lindzen’s efforts towards sensitivity to CO2, but rather make a point about how the average climatologist doesn’t have any better insight as to the CO2 sensitivity than either you or I. And has put about as much thought and effort into coming to their conclusions.

    My question to you, if I were to Google as you suggested, would the arguments against Chris Monckton be as disjointed as the one you presented? If so, it would be a complete waste of anyone’s time.

  60. “emmenjayMichael J says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:59 am

    A slight re-work of Dr Denniss’ cancer analogy. ”

    Michael . . . that is a brilliant riff . .send it Monckton . ..

  61. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:50 am

    You can google the rest, there’s plenty of articles rubbishing Moncktons arguements.
    Which are utter rubbish, of course. But, enough trash talk. Monckton won handily, both because the facts are on his side and because he has an excellent understanding of them as well as a razor sharp mind. The Warmists don’t stand much of a chance in any debate against skeptics/climate realists, but they sent in a trained monkey armed with a squirt gun against a lion, who first ate his lunch, then had him for lunch.

  62. SteveE:

    This paragraph contains a number of erroneous statements. Firstly, according to both GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 (satellite data only began in 1979), the global temperature trend since 1970 is 1.6–1.7°C per century.

    ===============================================================

    So, does the climate trend from 1880 to 1910 accurately predict the climate of 2010? NO?! I’m shocked… SHOCKED!

  63. Steve E, Brendan H, Dave H, R Gates, Hans Molemans, etc.

    I feel your pain, and I sympathise.

    There has been another public debate of your belief in AGW. As in all such previous debates, your belief has been refuted and independent onlookers saw both the merits of the refutation and the lack of merit in your belief.

    That hurts and I can offer you no salve for the hurt.

    I know you and others who share – or promote – your delusion try to prevent such debates but similar debates will happen in future. The pain you now suffer will assuage with time but it will return the next time there is such a debae of your belief.

    However, I can suggest a solution to your problem. Recognise that your superstitious belief in AGW is a delusion that is refuted by all – yes, all – empirical evidence: the cause of your pain will go away and your pain will not recur.

    Richard

  64. Dave H says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:48 am

    this from page 21 of Chapter 1 AR4 Science basis – Historical Overview of Climate science…

    ”There is also, however, a contnuing awareness that models do not provide a perfect simulation of reality, because resolving all important spatial or time scales remains far beyond current capabilities, and also because the behaviour of such a complex nonlinear system may in general be chaotic’

    Monckton is correct – check it for yourself……….

  65. Dave H says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:48 am
    and further on page 28 (same doc)

    ”A different type of uncertainty arises in systems that are either chaotic or not fully deterministic in nature and this limits our ability to project all aspects of climate change’……

    so – in a nutshell – the IPCC does indeed say that the climate is difficult to predict because it is essentially a complex nonlinear chaotic system! I can’t be bothered to check for other references.

  66. This – from http://www.icecap.us – summarizes – very prejudiciously I need not add – Singer’s comments during the presentation/debate at the CSU in Colorado mentioned above: The italicized paragraphs near the end show the utter foolishness of one apparent PhD who is also apparently one of the oh-so-treasured so-called “climatologists” whom we are required to listen to as an ordained priest of the Giaia CAGW religion.

    Burning fuels causes “heat” that has created the “catastrophic” CAGW?

    —…—…

    Jul 19, 2011
    Controversial speaker Fred Singer says that global warming and climate science ‘bunk’

    By Bobby Magill, the Coloradoan

    Fred Singer talks about global warming Monday at CSU’s Glover Building. About 125 people showed up to listen to the presentation and grill the global warming and climate change skeptic about his theories and views.

    And don’t believe newspaper articles like this one – the mainstream media are not to be trusted because reporters have been “brainwashed” to believe the prevailing wisdom of climate science, which suggests climate change is real and caused by people.

    Those were the messages Monday evening from Colorado State University emeritus atmospheric science professor William Gray and the “dean” of climate change skeptics, Fred Singer, an emeritus professor at the University of Virginia. Singer and Gray spoke to a sometimes unruly and tense audience in a packed CSU auditorium in attempts to convince them that most climate science is “hokum” and “bunk.”

    Fear about climate change, Singer said, is a “psychosis” because global warming is natural and harmless.

    Presenting almost no data while being peppered with questions from some of CSU’s other atmospheric scientists and faculty, the pair emphatically denied the climate has warmed significantly in recent decades and said rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have only positive implications for humans.

    Any doubt about that, Gray said, has been sewn by error-ridden climate models from government-supported scientists and parroted by the United Nations and the mainstream media.

    “A lot of people agree with what Fred has said, but the majority of people don�t because of the brainwashing of the mainstream media and TV and the intellectuals and so on,” Gray said. “They want to run this under the U.N.”

    Singer said nature, not humans, rules the climate because rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are harmful neither to humans nor the planet.

    “Stop worrying, don’t worry,” Singer said. “Nothing you do will have any effect on the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere. Even if it did have an effect, it won’t affect the planet.”

    He said that even if the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were to double, the level of warming would be negligible. The additional carbon will help plants grow and bolster agriculture tremendously, he said.

    “If carbon dioxide becomes too low, plants will stop operating, then animals will die and we will die, too,” he said. “We depend on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in order to survive.”

    Humans, he said, will have to adapt to a climate that changes naturally.

    He said wind and solar energy are neither viable as alternative energy sources nor desirable, adding that he has joined a lawsuit with the conservative Heartland Institute opposing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

    In the meantime, “government is spending a great deal of money on what it calls alternative energy under the belief that carbon dioxide is bad for you,” Singer said, urging the continued use and exploration of fossil fuels.

    In responding to criticism from a member of the audience that Gray and Singer can’t get their research published in scientific journals, Gray said, “If you want to see where the real research is going on, you�ll look on the blogs.”

    “There’s no scientific review on blogs, it’s all a matter of opinion,” the audience member said. “Peer-reviewed scientific journals are the gold standard for science.”

    “No, they aren’t,” Gray said. “They are not the gold standard. Why do you think they’re the gold standard?”

    “You don’t vote in science,” Singer said, criticizing peer review.

    CSU atmospheric science professor Scott Denning interrupted, saying he’s skeptical and needs a high degree of evidence to believe a claim that runs contrary to common sense.

    “So, you know, you don’t really think humans cause climate change; we think heat causes climate change,” he said. “We know that burning fossil fuel produces CO2, we know that CO2 emits heat. Now most people know that heat warms things up.”

    He said Gray admitted that the Earth has seen a small increase in carbon dioxide levels in recent decades, but if China and India power their growth with coal, carbon levels will increase significantly.

    “You hypothesize that something’s going to come and get rid of all that heat,” he told Gray and Singer, “but you haven’t told us what it is that’s going to get rid of that heat or why you believe it’s going to get rid of all that heat, and I would suggest that people be pretty skeptical of that claim. Why should we believe you?

    “Scientists should all be skeptical,” Singer said.

  67. James Sexton says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Read my post again mate, the first paragraph is a quote from Monckton, not a statement from me.

  68. When the warmers can’t respond to ones position, they fall back on name calling and ad hominem attacks as shown in the debate. The warmer said nothing other than there is consensus and thus you have no choice but to do what they say. I would have to say this philosophy is alive in well in regimes such as those found in North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela or in the past, the Soviet Union.

  69. The truth is, actually, ala Feynman, is that the person debating hardest against your own position should be yourself. You should welcome someone trying to poke holes in your theory, instead of whining about sharing data with them because they only want to prove you wrong, as the warmists do. This is not something the warmists even remotely are familiar with sadly, hence what they practice can not be called real science, but pseudoscience.

  70. The people who obsess about whether Viscount Monckton is a real Lord or not sound like middle aged, TV-addicted housewives getting all hyper over Lady Di, or the Royal wedding. It’s misdirection, intended to take the spotlight off the fact that they don’t have credible arguments.

  71. Hans Moleman says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:59 am

    Unfortunately, debates are settled more on the rhetorical skills and charisma of the debaters rather than facts. Good for Monckton, but giving weight to public debates seems bad for anyone who values science above showmanship.

    Sadly, in this day and age, the scientists are not going to win this particular debate unaided. The science will not be allowed to win unaided, no matter how compelling. Science desperately needs the debaters to carry the argument to the majority whether scientists like it or not.

  72. Wil: “Unlike Monckton’s opponent I see you CHOOSE to concentrate on a question having NOTHING to do with climate change.”

    Monckton chooses to claim that he is entitled to sit in the House of Lords. There are two issues here:

    1. Monckton’s credibility
    2. Monckton’s style of argumentation.

    In the case of his claim to be a sitting member of the House of Lords, he is clearly mistaken, yet refuses to admit his mistake. His style of argumentation in this case is to wave his passport – a classic case of indirection.

    I’m not claiming that this exchange is necessarily indicative of Monckton’s general style of debate, but his credibility and style of argument are certainly below par in this instance.

  73. Dangerousdaze is right:

    IPCC wg1, TAR, 14.2.2.2:

    “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

  74. Steve E. You will do yourself well to read Lord Monckton defense against an hour long video attacking him that I believe WUWT published a year or so back.

  75. I love him – to a degree.

    I just wish he was not a raving left-footer who thinks he is doing god’s work. That sits very uneasily with rational science, in my humble opinion. But I have to admit, he does appear to know his science better than I.

    .

  76. While Monkton rattled off fact after fact after fact, I did not hear one scientific fact at all from Denniss. All I heard was appeal to authority and appeal to popularity. That and the bizarre claim that we should do something now because a lot of people think something bad will happen it the future being compared to not doing anything about something that has already happened (the skin cancer analogy ). So, attack Monkton if you like, but he has more facts than Al Gore even had and infinitely more than Denniss had in this debate.

  77. Doctor analogy is a very poor analogy. Many thousands of patients [die] each year from treatments recommended by Doctors that they would have been better off not receiving. Medicine is far from scientific fact is many, many instances. The patient, if they are intellectually up to it, should take care and evaluate their Doctors advice instead of blindly following it. Many Doctors are simply out to make a buck! Ask a GP what they think about many treatments that big money specialists recommend.

  78. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:43 am

    “In the 40 years since 1970, global temperatures have risen at a linear rate equivalent to around 1.3 °C/century. CO2 concentration is rising in a straight line at just 2 ppmv/year at present and, even if it were to accelerate to an exponential rate of increase, the corresponding temperature increase would be expected to rise merely in a straight line. On any view, 1.3 °C of further “global warming” this century would be harmless. The IPCC is predicting 3.4 °C, but since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001 global temperature has risen (taking the average of the two satellite datasets) at a rate equivalent to just 0.6 °C/century, rather less than the warming rate of the entire 20th century. In these numbers, there is nothing whatever to worry about – except the tendency of some journalists to conceal them.” Monckton 2011

    This paragraph contains a number of erroneous statements. Firstly, according to both GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 (satellite data only began in 1979), the global temperature trend since 1970 is 1.6–1.7°C per century. Secondly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been accelerating (not linear). The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 in the 2000′s (2.2 parts per million by volume [ppmv] per year) was in fact 47% faster than the rate of increase in the 1990s (1.5 ppmv per year). Monckton uses these incorrect assertions to create the support for his incorrect argument – that if we continue with business-as-usual, global temperatures over the next century will increase at a constant, linear rate (or slower).

    1) The global temperature trend Monckton is speaking of is since 2000, not since the beginning of data in GISTEMP or HADCRUT3, so you created a strawman and knocked it down, congrats.

    2) Even if Atmospheric CO2 concentration increases exponentially, eventually the IR absorption bands that it has will be saturated, this makes its ability to heat the atmosphere a logarithmic effect. You could have an infinite slope of increasing CO2 concentration and the temperature still wouldn’t go up by any measurable amount because the absorption bands are totally maxed out. In fact, there are experts in the field who already consider the CO2 bands to be maxed out in terms of measureable effects of its absorption.

    Care to look harder for false assertions by Monckton?

  79. @Steve E
    >I have a 2 hour commute from London…

    Presumably in a carbon neutral manner…(so go easy on your bearers – they are human too, you know)

  80. Brendan H says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    I’m not claiming that this exchange is necessarily indicative of Monckton’s general style of debate, but his credibility and style of argument are certainly below par in this instance.

    And can you give me the bonafides of this Richard Deniss? (Before this debate, I’d never heard of him. They should have sent a more popular spokesman–say Al Gore. But then, the CAGW meme would have been over, right?)

  81. Oh MY!!!!!

    Time stamp 43:45…..Jennifer Bennett’s lame assault on Lord Monckton’s person. She was left agape and stupefied by Lord Monckton.

    Like any so-called journalist’s abuse of so-called science. The lie was shameless…..

    Then at 52:00 the snotty Alex Hart gets his nose wiped by Monckton. Sweet.

    Anthony was correct
    Monckton 10
    Denniss 1
    Journalists ZERO

    This debate was an indictment of the press.

  82. Smokey says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Dangerousdaze is right:

    IPCC wg1, TAR, 14.2.2.2:

    “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    Don’t worry though SteveE, I’m sure Jim Hansen will be along shortly to adjust that statement to satisfy the propagandists and panic mongers.

  83. The doctor analogy is all wrong. If I saw a doctor and he said “have this operation now” I would go and get a second opinion.

    Dr1: “get the operation now”
    Dr2: “you don’t need the operation and here are all your test results to show what I’ve based that decision on”
    Dr1: “I don’t want to talk about test results, get the operation now”
    Dr2″ “you don’t need it and it may do more harm than good and here are the test results to back up what I’m saying”
    Dr1: “you have to trust me, you need the operation now and for the last time I’m not going to discuss any test results from another doctor and I’m not going to give you the test results I ran”

    Okay which doctor are you going to go with? I’ll Dr #2 thank you very much.

  84. Brendan H says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    In the case of his claim to be a sitting member of the House of Lords, he is clearly mistaken, yet refuses to admit his mistake.

    Brendan, go back and run the debate again. Monckton clearly stated (at the outset) and has made clear that he is NOT a sitting member of the House of Lords, but he IS a member of the house of Lords. Given that the UK is a Monarchy, I suspect he is entitled to his titles until the Queen decides differently. As was shown, the house of Lords can say what it wants, but it is the Queen that makes those kinds of rules (which for us Colonials makes no sense, nor do I pretend it makes one damn bit of difference).

  85. Brenden H. Has it not occurred to you that whatever the House of Lords says has nothing at all to do with any of the facts mentioned in the debate, or any fact regarding climate change at all.

  86. Brendan H says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    Monckton chooses to claim that he is entitled to sit in the House of Lords. There are two issues here:

    Brendan H: You are dead wrong on the above statement. Below is what Monckton himself says about his title of Lord and the right to sit in The House of Lords.
    The below found at Jo Nova site available thru WUWT.

    Lord Monckton:
    “The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”

    So Brendan please retract your statement.

  87. R Gate: The problem for you is that Monckton won this debate because the scientific facts are on his side, and not because he is a wonderful debater, that is just a bonus. That is why Dennis could not state one scientific fact that backs up his claims, not one. That’s the problem there aren’t any facts that back up the so called consensus view. None. There are only computer models.

  88. This debate was held in the National Press Club which is the traditional home of the left leaning Canberra Press Gallery. It was also stacked with anti-sceptic activists out to discredit Monckton and derail his argument. They failed dismally. Monckton was his normal impressive self and everything he said made sense to me.

    I was staggered by the apparent lack of knowledge of Dr Richard Dennis – an economist who used several false analogies as the main thrust of his argument together with his belief in consensus. He seems to believe that CO2 is a pollutant and did not raise the greenhouse effect once in his argument or any of the other phenomena that affect climate.

    I was also bewildered as to what the debate was all about. And even after watching the intro once again on YouTube again I am still at a loss. I believe it was earlier billed as a debate on the subject of ‘The World is Not Warming” but it seemed to have changed to the very broad “Climate Change Debate”

    As it was, Dr Dennis used the opportunity to promote Gillard’s carbon tax and knock Abbott’s Direct Action Plan whereas Monckton argued that neither was necessary and we should adapt to climate change and use the billions wasted on either plan on more productive causes.

    I have one question for Dr Dennis on his obvious faith in a consensus of economists to forecast the future of the world’s climate. How many of them forecast the global financial crisis to their clients up to one day before it hit us?

  89. Lord Monckton decisively won this debate while facing an obviously hostile audience because observational evidence and fundamental analysis indicates total warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels will be less than 1C. His arguments were based on facts in peer review papers.

    Lord Monckton is not a denier. He does not deny the fact that increasing atmospheric CO2 will cause some warming of the planet. The hard scientific facts support the assertion that the warming due to a doubling of will be less than 1C for a doubling of CO2. Warming of 1C with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes will be beneficial to the environment. The biosphere will and is expanding the increased atmospheric CO2.

    Observational evidence in published papers such as measurement of the total radiation at top of atmosphere measured by satellite over the last 20 years supports the assertion that the planetary sensitivity to a change in forcing is negative (planetary cloud cover increases when the planet is warmer to reflect more solar radiation into space). The IPCC predicted warming of 3.3C for a doubling of C02 requires the feedback to be positive rather than negative.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
    [1] Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html

    LIMITS ON CO2 CLIMATE FORCING FROM RECENT TEMPERATURE DATA OF EARTH

    The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.

    The science is not openly debate because the facts do not support a worldwide carbon tax, a worldwide carbon monitoring bureaucracy, and spending the trillions of dollars on carbon sequestration and carbon off sets. If the cost to mitigate a risk is higher than cost to directly manage the risk itself the do nothing alternative is the best choice. There is no scientific or logical reason to spend trillions of dollars trying to slow the rise of atmospheric CO2. There are not trillions of surplus public funds to spend on a mitigating a problem which is not a problem. In the case of this “problem” simple and cost effective energy conservation as opposed to carbon taxes and carbon sequestration which serve no purpose is the best government action based on the facts.

    CO2 is a fertilizer. Plants eat CO2. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 30% to 40% increase in crop yield. The blog Real Climate does not include threads discussing the fact that CO2 is a fertilizer.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

    http://www.advancegreenhouses.com/use_of_co2_in_a_greenhouse.htm

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6036529.ece

    http://www.greenhousemegastore.com/Johnson-CO2-Generator/productinfo/CO-1001/

  90. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    James Sexton says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    Read my post again mate, the first paragraph is a quote from Monckton, not a statement from me.
    =======================================================================

    Sigh, yes, I know. And it has nothing to do with Lindzen’s theories about CO2 sensitivity. Rather, Monckton was speaking about how few climatologists have actually tried to discern the earth’s climate sensitivity, and use Lindzen’s estimates towards that notion.

    I’ll put Monckton’s quote that you posted up again..

    “Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling.”

    Ok, so far, we’ve determined that Monckton and Lindzen believe there have been very few scientists that have studied climate sensitivity (to CO2) and they’ve reached their conclusions by modeling and not measurement and observation.

    Your next paragraph addresses your thoughts as to whether scientists use observation and measurements. (I should point out, it is impossible to attribute any particular bit of warming to CO2, so, there would be no measurements and observation to use, but I’ll digress.)

    Your next paragraph starts with…..
    “A number of peer-reviewed papers have exposed fatal flaws in Lindzen’s methods. His result of low climate sensitivity is heavily dependent on the choice …..”

    Now, for most readers, we expect one to tie sequential paragraphs with a thing we like to call relevance. From your quote of Monckton, Monckton wasn’t referencing Lindzen’s thoughts to climate sensitivity, but Lindzen’s thoughts on how few scientists have actually sought to determine the sensitivity and whether or not they’ve used observation and measurements. (Which we know they haven’t, because one can’t observe anthropogenic caused atmospheric CO2 causing heat vs. the other known and unknown mechanisms which go into the totality of our planet’s climate.)

    So, I think my original question is still valid. Sorry mate, but it is disjointed.

  91. Brendan H says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:41 am

    So there are two issues here:
    1. Monckton’s peerage
    2. Monckton’s right to sit in the House of Lords.

    Please take the time to explain how these issues are issues of this debate. How do they remotely affect the science or the issues at debate?? Can you not stay focused for a nano-second?? GK

  92. dz alexander says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:50 am
    Charles K. Johnson, president of the International Flat Earth Research Society, claimed that he never lost a debate.

    Yes, that’s because he was part of the consensus!

  93. Smokey says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:54 pm
    “Dangerousdaze is right:

    IPCC wg1, TAR, 14.2.2.2:”

    The sad thing is that that it took literally 30 seconds of Googling to put the lie to Dave H’s accusation. Yet if you Google Monckton lying about chaotic climate you find way too many people who fail at basic searching skills (including this very thread – damn but Google’s on the ball!)

  94. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Richard Denniss failed to even mention what scientific evidence this catastrophic global warming was even based on, though he liked to mention often it was the so called consensus. In fact under peer reviewed literature this is actually not the consensus. There are many papers which support little or moderate warming of the planet. It is the worst case scenario only based on models, not scientific observations and therefore can’t possible be a consensus, even if there was such a thing in science. The biggest mis-information is that of claiming that there is a consensus on catastrophic warming. In reality this only exists with CO2 being a greenhouse gas where higher levels will cause a little warming.

    If it is high sensitivity then why is there a long pause in warming? The planet Earth actually shows a low sensitivity because virtually all the warming at least since the 1970’s has occurred in steps brought about by strong El Nino’s dependent on cloud albedo and solar activity. Global cloud albedo was declining since the 1980’s until around 2001. (Hence little/no warming since after) Unless of course you think that a little rise in CO2 causes strong El Nino’s and the decline in cloud albedo that is no more.

  95. nofreewind,

    “Doctor analogy is a very poor analogy. Many thousands of patients [die] each year from treatments recommended by Doctors that they would have been better off not receiving. Medicine is far from scientific fact is many, many instances. ”

    No doubt true. But the point that Lord Monckton should have made, imho, is that at least in the annals of medicine there exists a database of millions of patients who have cancer, and a vast array of statistics to provide at least some reasonable assurance that if you have X type of cancer, and take treatment Y you have a Z probability of survival. Even the molecular mechanisms that lead to cancer are well understood.

    In climate science, there is only one Earth, and nothing but nothing on which to make assertions regarding probability outcomes. The mechanism that govern the climate are poorly understood, partly because of the insufficiency of data. We don’t have data on tropospheric temperatures that go back more than 30 years. Ocean heat content is only now being measured with anything like the sufficiency required and measurements of TOA radiation budgets is so in its infancy it is still sucking at its mother’s teat. We need another 100 years of a concerted data collection exercise using the most accurate and reliable methods as technology becomes available. Maybe then we will have a good understanding of all the myriad of feedbacks and interactions.

    To continue the medical analogy, it is the 19th century and all the doctor’s agree that the patient is sick because he has too much blood.

  96. The the physician analogy is extremely inappropriate. Medicine bears little resemblance to climate science. The modern trend in medicine is “evidence based medicine”. The state of the art is a constantly moving target. As evidence accumulates the standards of practice shift. Ask any physician over the age of about 45 or 50. Odds are that they learned that beta blockers were absolutely contraindicated in cases of congestive heart failure. There was sound theoretical and clinical evidence to back this up. But it was wrong. Today beta blockers are mainstays in the management of CHF. The basic premise was challenged, experiments were conducted and empirical evidence was evaluated. You don’t see that happening in climate science. It is heresy to challenge the basic premise of the CO2 mythology, experiments in the real world are all but impossible and the only empirical evidence that exists does not support the AGW fraud.

    Suppose you have a suspicious looking mole on your back and you see a dermatologist. Odds are he will biopsy the mole. A pathologist will confirm the diagnosis of melanoma. The dermatologist will refer you to an oncologist. The oncologist will recommend treatment that the best available current evidence suggests. Everything is evidence based. This doesn’t happen in climate science. In the Church of Climatology a dolt who measures tree rings can fabricate a “new” history of climate and convince politicians to squander wealth in the pursuit of remediation of a speculative hypothetical problem. There exists scant little empirical evidence in the field of climate science. Computer models are NOT evidence…in fact in most cases they’re not even good guesses.

    Denniss utilized a very poor analogy. He might better have quoted all the economists that accurately predicted the housing bubble and resulting crash of the economy. Some saw it coming but the “consensus” maintained there was no problem.

  97. G.Karst
    I read the letter Monckton refers to about Lord-dom. As I recall he does not claim anthing more than to be entitled to be referred to as Lord Monckton. I am not sure why you think he refers to himself as a sitting member of the House, that membership being a sub-group of all lords. I thought this was settled ages ago. Oh yeah, it was, when the plebs looked up the rules of peerage. Are the anti-royalist-warmists still hoping to get people to stop listening to Monckton’s central arguments by repeating (inventing?) liar-liar-pants-on-fire memes? Do they have 30 peer-reviewed formulas for that?

    Monckton’s question about Flannery publishing a peer-reviewed paper was spot on. Hot, flat and nutty.

  98. Dangerousdaze says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    Dave H says:
    “He’s been making this claim again and again and again, despite the fact that that is **not** what the IPCC says.”
    What does it say here?
    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
    It seems to say exactly what you claim it doesn’t. Did you check for yourself?
    ===========================================================
    lol, obviously not. He didn’t bother. Why check for the facts when its easier just to assume people that believe differently are wrong? Lambert found another sucker to believe his nonsense.

    Dave H, how does it feel to be played?

  99. Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all. It’s a self proclaim title he stole from his father. He has never been proclaimed or named ”lord” by the Queen, the Parliement, nor the Lord Chamber.

    As far has debating is concerned, mixing facts (creating confusion), saying one thing when talking about the other is the science Monckton is the lord of, and later gives the excuse he was not talking about that to cover his mistakes (numerous).

    Back in the good old days, such guy was selling medecine bottles filled with brandy and a lot of water. Charlatanism, that’s all.

    The guy creates confusion in a debate and people are just looking to hear what he’s saying, because that’s what they want to hear. Gauging the comments above, it is still very easy to abuse human’s credulity with good manner and large (empty) speaches.

  100. >>King of Cool
    >>I have one question for Dr Dennis on his obvious faith in a consensus of
    >>economists to forecast the future of the world’s climate. How many of them
    >>forecast the global financial crisis to their clients up to one day before it hit us?

    Ha, ha. None.

    But I did, back in 2006, and got into a right tussle with the Sunday Times economists about it. Perhaps I should be the climate tax advisor to the Aussie government. Got to be better than the current crowd.

    .

  101. The other interesting point about the debate was that a large number of tickets were sold to “Get-up” the propaganda arm of AGW and other socialist agendas, and they still couldnt come up with a relevent question or counter any of his arguments.

    We know Lord Monckton, won the debate and so does the Leftest ABC ((think BBC for outside Aus)propaganda arm of the labor party and the greens), because they scheduled to show the debate on TV at 10.00pm here in Australia and cancelled after they realised they had lost and didnt want that getting out to the general public.

  102. Honestly, Lord Monckton abuses his Lord title purely for the purpose of weeding out poor debaters. He WANTS people to assail his credibility because it tells him whether or not to pay attention, or go for the jugular. Most CAGW believers want to completely tear him down before distracting you with their pathetic analogies because it’s perceived as low-hanging fruit. Brendan H would be wise to see that he’s been trolled even though he thinks he’s doing the trolling.

    Member of parliament or not, he’s got you. The alarmism you CAGW believers espouse is completely misplaced and the word is out. I’m very sorry that you wasted your energy on these endeavors, but you are not the first people in human history to believe in human doom, so please take comfort in that you’re only human like the rest of us.

  103. I love it when warmists whip out the old “If you had a disease, you’d believe the doctors, wouldn’t you?” tripe.

    Well, let’s compare apples to apples, so to speak. Let’s compare the immature and rather un-robust science of climatology today to the science of medicine at a time when it was similarly immature and rather un-robust. To do that, we’d need to go back several hundred years. Now ask yourself the same question… “If you had a disease, would you (knowing what you know, as a 21’st century citizen) buy the doctor’s prescription that they treat you with the accepted remedy of the day?” After all, the consensus treatment way back then for your particular disease had been around for a couple of millenia, and it had been practiced by the ancient Mayans and Aztecs, as well as the Egyptians and Mesopotamians. So it had to be good, right?

    So step right up and offer the good doctor (or barber, if you prefer) your neck so that we can give you a good bleed. Hold still. This won’t hurt a bit. I promise we’ll stop as soon as you pass out from blood loss.

    Now, how do you feel about trusting the good Dr. Warmist?

  104. @Tom T: “Steve E. You will do yourself well to read Lord Monckton defense against an hour long video attacking him that I believe WUWT published a year or so back.”

    And much like this debate you’ll either have to take Monckton at his word or spend some serious time doing research on your own since the defense includes almost no sources for any of his claims (note: This was the state of Monckton’s defense at the time it was published. He mentioned several times that the sources were forthcoming so you can disregard this comment if he actually got around to doing as he had promised back then.)

  105. I wish to hellangone that Dr. Denniss wouldn’t have been as stupid as he was in using skin cancer as his example of controversy in medicine when there really isn’t a helluva lot of such in the matter of basal cell or plain squamous cell carcinoma (Ca), and that those in this forum didn’t bring up a particular kind of skin cancer – malignant melanoma – when most of the controversies we can and do speak of involve the relative values of pre-operative computerized tomographic, nuclear magnetic resonance, and positron emission tomographic imaging as well as perioperative ultrasonographic and roentgenological (lymphoscintographic) imaging followed by appropriate regional lymphatic surgical staging when initial wide excision (IWE) is undertaken, and adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapies are considered.

    In melanoma, though, if you can cut at all, you always cut. Some of the studies have yielded evidence that you do it even in Stage IV. Some of the very, very few definite “saves” I’ve had in my medical career have been the result of simply spotting a malignant melanoma when it was still in Stage I or Stage II and getting ’em under a good surgeon’s blade damned fast.

    The U.S. Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) had a couple of pretty good continuing medical education (CME) activities on these subjects a couple of years ago, the monographs for which are maintained online. The current management activity took place in 2008 and the one on minimizing the adverse effects of treatment was conducted in 2009.

    I’m not plugged into the Melanoma Mafia’s dickering over these issues the way I used to be back in the ’90s, but these ought to serve as concise updates about as good as anything you’re going to find outside a paywall.

    It’s a miserable goddam disease, and Dr. Denniss is a miserable excuse for an economist.

  106. M.’s answer regarding why climate skepticism is “cool” despite “overwhelming consensus” was embarrassingly bad. It plays right into alarmists stereotypes about skeptics holding to loony conspiracy theories concerning marxists wanting “to bring down the west.” How depressing.He should have hammered away on the fact that there are plenty of credible scientists who think AGW is a lot of b.s. That in fact the supposed consensus is a lie. That’s what the questioned demanded, pure and simple.

    You people celebrate all you want. But I don’t think this guy is the best representative of the skeptical side by a long shot.

  107. I hope people get inspired by C. Monckton. There are too many climate – bots out there going along with any thing the alarmists put out there. thank you C. Monckton

  108. Paul_T says:
    July 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm
    Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all. It’s a self proclaim title he stole from his father. He has never been proclaimed or named ”lord” by the Queen, the Parliement, nor the Lord Chamber.

    Odd that you seem far keener to display a complete lack of understanding as to how a heriditary peerage works, rather than discuss anything to do with climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, or maybe not that odd considering the lack of rigour you display in checking out even basic facts.

  109. Bill Illis – ““Has any pro-AGW person ever explained how they get to 3.0C per doubling?
    Nigel Harris – “I think section 8.6 of WG1 of IPCC AR4 report is what you’re looking for
    Bill Illis – “[…] The Stefan Boltzmann equation says that would get us to 1.1C. Where does the rest of the warming come from?

    It’s in IPCC report AR4 8.6.2.3 on page 633 – the rest of the warming comes from computer models, but they “strongly disagree on its magnitude“. No mechanism is given, ie. it is purely a figment of the models’ parametrization. “parametrization” means “fudge factor” or “fiddle factor”, see Box TS.8 : “Although the large-scale dynamics of these models are comprehensive, parametrizations are still used to represent unresolved physical processes […]. Uncertainty in parametrizations is the primary reason why climate projections differ between different AOGCMs.“.

  110. Jeremy says:
    July 20, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    “Honestly, Lord Monckton abuses his Lord title purely for the purpose of weeding out poor debaters..”
    ====================================================
    Its the same reason he wears his Nobel prize pin. He knows it bugs the heck out of the warmistas. I, for one, appreciate his sense of humor and the way it outs the priorities of some people.

  111. I also think you fellow skeptics who dislike Monckton dislike him because he does nothing to advance any real understanding of reality. I will grant you that. What he presents are facts of a matter that is unsettled in his own light. His purpose is not in advancing knowledge. His greatest use is in disproving hysteria.

    In disproving the baseless hysteria, he is exceedingly good, and his work is appropriate.

  112. I just wasted a hour watching this!

    Except it wasn’t a waste of my time and Lord Monckton was head and shoulders above everyone else in the debate. Well done Lord Monckton, we need more like you sir.

  113. SteveW says: “Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all

    This is totally irrelevant, but no-one – no-one – disputes that he is Lord Monckton. Even the recent letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which has triggered many comments like yours, begins “Dear Lord Monckton” (http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/). The matter does not only affect Lord Monckton, but has potentially severe constitutional implications. It is hotly disputed and will probably end up in the courts if it has not already done so (http://www.foiacentre.com/news-lords-091115.html).

    No matter who wins the argument, as I understand it Christopher Monckton will still be Lord Monckton.

  114. I thought Richard Denniss did rather well in the beginning. I think he could even have won. But rather quickly, he started repeating himself and got stuck on the insurance way of thinking where even if you’re unsure of something, you still put in safeguards against it. Over and over, he repeated the same logical fallacy. He had nothing for most of the debate and got progressively worse as it went on. Really sad. Monkton had a lot of facts and was right about the doubling. He’s right about the feedbacks. But I think it goes over the heads of everyone there. They seem to be thinking why should we listen to Monkton rather than the media (that’s us) who tells us that there is scientific consensus.

  115. I find it quite amazing that this debate and its subsequent exposure on this site has called all the warmist trolls out in some form of ‘concensus’ or ‘collective’ action………
    Moreover, it is funny how they seem to focus on the relative trivia instead of the basic facts…ad homs will simply not work guys – please try something else, like science and facts!

  116. Just watched the whole debate, the best part is at the end when Monckton spanks the last two “reporters” for asking stupid questions. (re: his “title”).
    Otherwise it was respectful, and informative, and should be widely distributed. sarc/

  117. Mike Jonas says:
    July 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm
    SteveW says: “Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all”

    Not wishing to get defensive Mike, but I was quoting PaulT and making the exact same point to him as you appear to be trying to make to me. Apologies for the confusion.

  118. Lord Monckton makes a great job, however the ultimate feat is reserved to nature, when nature, as patient as the chinese philosopher, waiting at his front door, will watch his enemy´s corpse passing by; nature will freeze all mouths and tongues with its devastating cold.

  119. This nattering about Mr. Monckton’s hereditary peerage is thoroughly silly, and I get the impression that he thinks it’s silly, too. I have to agree with Jeremy above, who had written that Monckton:

    ….abuses his Lord title purely for the purpose of weeding out poor debaters. He WANTS people to assail his credibility because it tells him whether or not to pay attention, or go for the jugular. Most CAGW believers want to completely tear him down before distracting you with their pathetic analogies because it’s perceived as low-hanging fruit. Brendan H would be wise to see that he’s been trolled even though he thinks he’s doing the trolling.

    I’ve noted that Mr. Monckton tends not to make much of a point about his “Lord” status – one way or another – when he’s speaking to American audiences in these United States, mostly because Americans just don’t give a damn about the hereditary titles that are such a big frelking deal in the U.K. and in the Commonwealth countries.

    It’s an idiot trap, and los warmistas keep proving with risible reliability that they’re bloody idiots.

  120. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:10 p

    “I have a 2 hour commute from London…”

    You must burn up a lot of carbon every day. Don’t you feel guilty?

  121. Well Denniss really is totally clueless and apparently not very bright. But, I don’t find this debate reassuring at all. I don’t get the impression that most in the room are any less clueless than he is. Anyone else find this frightening?

  122. Excellent comment, Vince Causey.
    Even the best analogies limp to some extent. But Deniss’s analogy couldn’t limp. It was amputated at the knees. It was on dialysis, heart bypass, in an iron lung in
    ICU, and they couldn’t get a steady brain signal.

  123. Doctor………no, I would not go to a witch doctor, shaman, etc
    That’s the extent of climate science today…..

    Insurance……no, I would not buy insurance for monsters in the closet
    that’s the extent of climate science today

  124. Not sure it has been mentioned… but immediately following the debate the following appeared on the Government-funded Australian ABC blog site:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2802994.html

    So after being roundly beaten in the debate, however you look at it, Dr Denniss makes the underhand act of slagging off Monckton through the same organisation (ABC) that showed the debate. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it. Given the ABC’s ridiculously pro-CAGW stance I doubt they will allow Monckton a blog to explain his side of things. Maybe if pressured by enough people…

    I don’t know what disgusts me the more, the ABC using my tax dollars to publish propoganda, or their tendancy to censor my comments (despite falling within their posting guidelines) on their blogs because they don’t suit the orthodox view. They are not as heavy-handed as the RC mods, but they have a clear agenda in moderation. As a result the ABC shows a very lopsided view in the often feral comments in their blogs.

  125. If Mr. Denniss buys his own insurance the way he suggests here, then I envy his insurance agent. He clearly does not understand what insurance is for or how to buy it. “Fools and their money…”

  126. I find this very interesting – Dave H makes the same mistake that Monkton accuses the journos of in the debate – not checking facts before regurgitating them – yes – not being skeptical!

    First Dave H makes an assertion based on something he has read in a warmist blog:

    Dave H
    July 20, 2011 at 11:48 am

    …> says that the climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic object, so that the prediction of future climate states is not possible.

    He’s been making this claim again and again and again, despite the fact that that is **not** what the IPCC says…”

    Very quickly learned readers at WUWT point out he is wrong, and Monkton is correct. Dangerousdaze gives a link to the IPCC document in this comment
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/#comment-703417

    The IPCC document does say “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm

    Thats a slam dunk.

    Dave H hasnt replied yet, but he wil now go one of two ways:

    1. (Most likely – it is human nature) Ignore the fact that he was misled on this one, and continue to trust everything else his sources are telling him, or
    2. Raise a skeptical eyebrow – ask what else isnt actually true, start checking a few of those facts which got you beleiving the alarmists in the first place.

    Dave H, I invite you humbly to consider option 2 – it is the path that led me and I think many other readers here to this blog. Theres no shame in being misled by those in whom you ought to be able to place your trust. The shame is with them.

  127. Jimmy Haigh says:
    July 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    I was gonna post a similar comment a few hours ago but felt I should refrain from exposing the sad weaknesses of such folk! Clearly, a 2 hour commute, probably generating enough CO2 to kill several thousand endangered species and raise sea levels by a few millimetres doesn’t stop this guy feeling guilty from earning his daily crust to house clothe and feed his wife and kids (presumably?)
    LOL

  128. James Sexton says:
    July 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Dangerousdaze says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
    It seems to say exactly what you claim it doesn’t. Did you check for yourself?
    ===========================================================
    lol, obviously not. He didn’t bother. Why check for the facts when its easier just to assume people that believe differently are wrong? Lambert found another sucker to believe his nonsense.

    Dave H, how does it feel to be played?
    ====================================
    Dave, I hope you’re still reading. I wanted to clarify what I was stating. On my way home from work, I realized how this could sound a bit boorish and cynical with some gloating mixed in. It is not the case. The fact is, you were lied to. The only thing you did wrong was to believe people that anointed themselves as being people to believe. And this happens to all of us at some point in time. The fact is, many of the commentators here were once believers in the CAGW hypothesis, too. But, there comes a point in time where one realizes that if some people can’t be trusted to tell you the truth about the simple wording of a report, then they probably can’t be trusted for much else and it is up to you, and no one else, to discern the truth of the matter.

    This is what skepticism is mostly about. We know the media misleads people. They seem to think that’s their job. Our politicians….heh, well, I hope we all know that they lie. But we also know many of the climate scientists have engaged in deceptive practices. They go out of their way to hide not just declines, but data also. They hire P.R. firms, that in hind-view, hold no thought to laws or decency. They attempt to slime any that would utter words contrary to their opinion. Even to the points of irrelevance. (witness the inevitable discussion about Christopher Monckton’s title.) So, we can see, whether they are right or wrong about the ensuing climate catastrophe, they simply can’t be trusted to tell us the truth. The onus is ours now. It isn’t anything anyone wanted, but the world of climatology has capitulated their responsibility, some by their words and actions, others by their lack of words and actions.

    So, Dave, its up to us. You, me and the rest of the world to discern the truth and determine whether or not this subject is worth this much consideration. And, if you are as angry as I would be at someone that I trusted so much as to quote them as fact in an internationally read blog, read by thousands daily, archived for posterity, only to find they lied to you, then I can only say, welcome to skepticism.

  129. Monckton is an amazing intellect coupled to an apparent photographic memory and a voracious appetite for research. Not to mention a talent for presentation and a knife-edged sense of humor!
    I’m glad he is on my side, yesiree!

  130. I just watched the whole debate and it’s clear that Dr Denniss believes the consensus of climate scientists supports AGW, and we should defer to them. The press strongly support this. Lord Monckton’s references to the science fell on deaf ears for the simple reason that he is not a practicing climate scientist. It didn’t matter that he was right.

    Somehow the word needs to get out that a person can understand the science, and identify the merits of the argument without currently being employed in that line of work. Such a person has *more* credibility because he doesn’t have the conflict of interest of a climate scientist who wants to keep his paychecks coming.

  131. Paul_T says:
    July 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all. It’s a self proclaim title he stole from his father. He has never been proclaimed or named ”lord” by the Queen, the Parliement, nor the Lord Chamber.

    …—… …—… …—…

    1) Letters Patent – granting an hereditary peerage are solely the gift of the Monarch. Any one entitled to such Letters Patent IS by constitutional definition a Member of the House of Lords.
    The only revocation of such Letters Patent is the gift of the Monarch. Since H M Queen Elizabeth II did NOT revoke any of the Letters Patent for any member of th House of Lords when the Parliamentary portion of the House of Lords was crippled and wrecked by mal-advised constitutional reform (under one Anthony Blair sometime Prime Minister).
    2) That was a British Passport that he used to prove his identity; therefore HM Passport office (a branch of the government) has checked his entitlement to the title documented in his passport. HM Passport Office has agreed that he is entitled to claim the style and dignity of Viscount Monkton of Benchly.

    Therefore the correct form of address is (unless he invites you otherwise) is ‘My Lord Viscount’ or My Lord’ to be less formal.

    I refer you to this from that well know well of sometime dubious reliability : Wikepeadia :
    Monckton was born the eldest son of the late Major-General Gilbert Monckton, 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
    Since his father died – he INHERRITED the title (that is what happens with hereditary titles; when the current bearer dies). He did not; nor could have; steal the title.

    His title has nothing to do with Parliament or the Lord Chamberlin; only H M Queen Elizabeth II has the gift of revoking it; which she has not done.

    AND
    why does this have any bearing on the debate; any more than the dignities accorded to an ex vice President of the USA has. Oh look the Emperor (Lord) really does have a coronet and clock on !

  132. really does have a coronet and clock on !

    should of course be

    really does have a coronet and cloak on !

  133. Australia is currently going through an incredible political moment in history.

    Julia didn’t actually lie when she said there will be no “Carbon Tax” if she were elected. But, she wasn’t elected. She made a deal with the also unelected Greens to become PM. This is a deal with the devil and she must wear it.
    Personally, I would hang them all as an example to future politicos who think politics is just a game, rather than about real lives of people.

  134. Well, of course he won. The good lord Monckton is one of the most intelligent debater that is still active, the other ones kinda of snoozed off, permanently (the too early cowards).

    What I think are the two most difficult issues for the horrible, terrible, terrorist, for crazed climate communist hippies with Lord Monckton are that he’s a luke warmer and he’s actually making proper references to the opposite, both of these equivocally confuse the crazed climate communist hippie extremists in their terrible logic of the horrible alarm.

    And why are them crazed climate communist hippies so into his looks, I wonder? He being married and all, obviously have the looks. I’m figuring the sodding crazed climate communist hippies are trying out for marriage breakers!

  135. The medical anology is just fine. I have just sent a note to the local paper. “My own mob, endorsed by the august Royal College of Physicians, let blood for a thousand years, and a bit more when you did not get better.” Likewise the consensus was that air came out of arteries, even though they carried swords and used them freely. In 1562 in Switzerland they tied a bloke to the stake and lit him for suggesting that blood came out- they knew how to fix “deniers’. A professor taught me that you cut out a melanoma with two and a half inches all round. I asked what you did for one on the nose and was told to sit down and shut up as they did not occur on the nose. I have only cut eleven off noses and have not taken both eyes and the mouth as well yet. Everyone knew that acne was caused by eating peanuts and chocolates and picking your zits in the mirror. I saw adolescent lemurs who grow glandular areas on the cheeks and rub them on tree boughs to mark out their territory and found the microscopic appearance was identical to acne. True or not the difference that yarn makes to an adolescent is spectacular. Consensus in medicine is a good sign to get your antenna up. Nowadays emphasis on “evidence based” but check the evidence anyway. We were warned not to read medical journals much for the first few years as we would not have the nous to sort the wheat from the chaff. Peer review was not mentioned as properly done it may ensure integrity but it sure does not ensure truth. I judged debates at Uni and scored it 9:1. The press did better than I expected which tells you something.
    Any doctor who thinks like the Warmists that we can’t be wrong should read ” The Greatest Benefit to Mankind” and be very humble. Any warmist should be using double speak and weasel words so they won’t look quite so stupid in a few years time. Geoff Broadbent

  136. In all this arguing over semantics, I get quite peeved over the use of the term “carbon” when it is really “carbon-dioxide” that is being discussed. Carbon-dioxide as I know it is one molecule of carbon combined with two molecules of oxygen. So the two terms are not interchangable.

    And when mention of X megatonnes of “carbon” reduction is spoken about, does the tonnage include or exclude the oxygen component?

    Then there is the definition of carbon-dioxide as a “greenhouse gas”. To my simple mind, oxygen is a greenhouse gas since oxygen is what is emitted by plants in a greenhouse whereas carbon-dioxide is normally absorbed in a greenhouse.

    OK, so the smart ones will say I am confused since they are talking about the heat reflective properties of carbon-dioxide in that it traps the reflected heat just like the glass in a greenhouse.

    But again, my simple mind concludes that the glass of a greenhouse blocks far more convective heat loss than reflective heat loss, and carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere does not block convective heat loss, so the analogy is poor.

    Somebody educate me quick, I don’t have much time left.

  137. Interesting how Lord Monckton cites actual papers, while his opposition cites the nebulous “thousands of climate scientists.”

  138. I was taight the mnemonic at school “Do men ever visit beaches” , D = Duke, M=marquis, E=earl, V=Viscount, B=Baron” all are address as Lord. Just because the British parliament no longer wants to acknowledge the heriditary peers doesn’t make them any less valid. As a Commonwealth Subject I would still address him as M’Lord.

  139. You all need to see the National Press Club ‘debate’ in its Australian context. Firstly it’s the first time 2 opposing speakers were chosen for what is a sole speaker invitation with time for press questioning after (get the precedent here?) and secondly PM Gillard after promising not to introduce a carbon tax in the last election campaign, has backflipped completely on that promise and just released details of a $23 tonne intro tax on ‘carbon’ (not CO2E note) devolving down the track to an ETS at a much higher rate. Opposition leader Abbott is promising to reverse it at the next election and polling shows around three quarters of the votes (2 party preferred as we have preferential voting) agree with him right now.

    In that context notice how the NPC debate was really not about the science of AGW but focussed on the science/veracity of warmist policy prescription/s, albeit the protagonists had opposing views on the AGW science itself as having been settled. With no real substance other than ‘we gotta do sumpink’ appeal to emotion by Dennis and fallback on the insurance principle, Monckton simply agreed to agree with that premise and then proceeded to provide a damning actuarial anlysis based on the warmists best science ie notably the IPCC’s best scientific estimates. In the absence of Dennis, or any single economist, Lord or layman being able to debunk his calculations and sums, he rightly claims economic victory of fact over fictional emotion. Indeed he openly challenged all the press present to do their homework and prove his actuarial analysis wrong. Notice how none of them asked Dennis to do so, or if he couldn’t or wouldn’t, then logically we all had to defer to Monckton’s superior science re policy prescription/s. The only alternative is to accept the warmists’, post-normal science methodology and rely upon the settled consensus of voters. Take your pick warmists but either way you’re cooked according to those voter poll intentions. Frying pan or the fire, or as Monckton so poignantly posed- what about some comet bats while these warmists are at it folks? Game set and match!

  140. The entire extreme AGW hypothesis falls apart if the planet’s feedback response is negative rather than positive. (See links below.) I do not see comments above or at the Real Climate blog addressing the published data. The Real Climate response is name calling and blocking of those who persist in bring up the facts that disprove the hypothesis.

    The extreme AGW supporters and those who will profit from the trillions of dollars spent: on carbon trading, on the carbon monitoring bureaucracy, and on carbon sequestration do not want a debate because current and past observational data, analysis, and the paleoclimatic record does not support the hypothesis. It is necessary to cover up the Medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age to prevent the general public from understanding that planetary temperature changes cyclically with correlation to the solar magnetic cycle (There are almost a hundred published peer reviewed papers support that assertion and the mechanisms.) The 20th century warming has not exceed the temperature range in the last 1000 years and most certainly has not exceeded the warmest period in the Holocene interglacial period.

    Calling people “deniers” and appealing to consensus is a propaganda tool. Stating the science is settled is not justification for wasting trillions of dollars. The general public has no idea how much public funds is proposed to be wasted on this boondoggle and how little benefit will result from those expenditures. That is the issue that needs to be discussed. Well meaning people need to understand that critical analysis is required to optimize public policy.

    I specifically challenge anyone including those writing in the RealClimate blog or anyone in the Media to try to present scientific evidence and a logical argument why trillions of dollars should be spent and an estimate for what the trillions of dollars will be spent on and what specific will result be achieved after the trillions of dollars are spent.

    What CO2 level do you want? How much public funds is required to achieve that level? Hansen has stated 340 ppm. Atmospheric CO2 is 390 ppm now. The observational data indicates the IPCC prediction models are obviously incorrect. Is that not relevant? Plants eat CO2. We are carbon based lifeforms. The biosphere is significantly more productive when CO2 levels are higher. That is a fact not a theory. Is that fact not relevant?

    What is the point of reducing atmospheric CO2 if the planet’s feedback response is negative? Note there is limited public funding to spend. Massive taxes of companies will have an effect. It is ridiculous that we have proceeded to this point without critical honest discussion of the facts and reality.

    The current and proposed spending related to the extreme AGW hypothesis is not getting public or scientific attention as those in the media are not doing their job. Calling anyone a “denier” who critically discusses the issues provides a very effective cover for the AGW corporate and bureaucratic leaches.

    As most are aware Western Governments have a sever financial crisis to address. Trillions of public spending will need to be cut to balance budgets to avoid a currency collapse. There are fixed limits to economic science.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
    [1] Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation. Although such a test does not distinguish the mechanisms, this is important since the inconsistency of climate feedbacks constitutes a very fundamental problem in climate prediction.

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html

    LIMITS ON CO2 CLIMATE FORCING FROM RECENT TEMPERATURE DATA OF EARTH

    The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.

  141. Recently and independently two of our media quoted alarmists explained that a greenhouse works by letting in the sun light to warm the ground, which warms the air and the house stops it blowing away. It actually works by transmitting the shorter wavelength higher energy infrared from the sun in but not transmitting the low energy longer wavelength infrared from the plants out. Sometimes they blow in a bit of CO2 to give the plants more building material. Usualltythe materials chosen are glass or clear plastic. Earth has chosen water vapour, methane, CO2 and a few odds and ends to make up the last 1%. The reason CO2 does not matter much is that it absorbs infrared in three specific wave lengths with gaps in between and once saturated they cannot widen. You could be forgiven for wondering why the alarmist professors do not comprehend such simple physics. Geoff Broadbent

  142. A good debate. Denniss was no slouch. However, he can’t get past the point that consensus is not science. Capernicus was a skeptic, Galileo was a skeptic, and Einstein was a skeptic.

    Popular opinion does not make truth. If it did, Nixon would have been the greatest US president. He carried 49 out 50 states in the 1972 election.

  143. Smokey says:
    July 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    “The people who obsess about whether Viscount Monckton is a real Lord or not…”
    ____

    Need to seriously get a life. Who cares what title by birth he has or hasn’t? It adds no more or less credibility to his arguments. Best to look at the number of peer reviewed scientific research papers he’s written on the subject of climate to see what kind of credentials he has to speak on the subject of climate…oh, yeah, that would be a problem…so what other criteria could be used?

  144. Gates says:

    “Need to seriously get a life. Who cares what title by birth he has or hasn’t?”

    Well, R Gates certainly seems to care. No doubt the article title tortures our 75/25 wacko.☺

  145. misterjohnqpublic says:
    July 20, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    A good debate. Denniss was no slouch. However, he can’t get past the point that consensus is not science.

    Climate science is a branch of environmentalism, in terms of its recent recruits. It’s not as though there were lots of objective-scientist climatologists sitting around who bought into this scare. Rather, scare-mongers recruited, credentialed, and “placed” followers in influential positions.

    Warmism is inculcated in its students’ texts and classrooms, and thereafter in faculty lounges, etc. It’s biased by those things (e.g., it is strongly pro-regulatory & pro-precautionary, and suffers from a messianic delusion and a finger-pointing reflex), and also by the whole fields’ prominence being dependent on there being a credible threat of catastrophe. Then there’s the bandwagon effect, the fashionable fad effect, the academia-nut effect, etc. It’s just advocacy research, dressed up in bafflegab.

    Here, free for all, is a word I coined yesterday: Nonsensus!

  146. R Gates says – “Best to look at the number of peer reviewed scientific research papers [Lord Monckton]’s written on the subject of climate
    as usual, some things are not as simple as they may appear at first.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/sppi_press_release_monckton_paper_peer_reviewed.html

    Anyway, to resolve the issue in a scientific manner, and to get away from the field of personal attacks, why don’t you simply address the paper itself and tell us whether it is correct.

  147. Seems very odd that the google website which addresses Lord Monckton’s comments about the IPCC admitting in its AR4 report that climate cannot be predicted by models because of its complex, non linear, chaotic behavior (listed in James Sexton’s comment) is now showing a 404 error. I had made earlier reference to this site and read the exact IPCC statement as noted by Lord Monckton in his debate. I am suspicious that google may have dumped this site because too many people were seeing the truth.

  148. @SteveE – you say:

    QUOTE
    Firstly, according to both GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 (satellite data only began in 1979), the global temperature trend since 1970 is 1.6–1.7°C per century. Secondly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been accelerating (not linear). The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 in the 2000′s (2.2 parts per million by volume [ppmv] per year) was in fact 47% faster than the rate of increase in the 1990s (1.5 ppmv per year). Monckton uses these incorrect assertions to create the support for his incorrect argument – that if we continue with business-as-usual, global temperatures over the next century will increase at a constant, linear rate (or slower).
    ENDQUOTE

    By your own numbers you actually AGREE that warming was faster when CO2 was increasing at 1.5ppm per annum than today when its increasing 2.2ppm per annum. You demonstrated that warming has slowed with increased CO2 rate of production. Congratulations for supporting Monktons argument.

  149. R Gates
    According to your theory on papers published I should only listen to this doctor on vaccinations

    The story began with the publication in 1998 of a study led by Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Appearing in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, the report connected the MMR vaccine to autism and stomach problems in 12 children, a supposed new bowel-brain “syndrome.”
    End
    Good thing I didn’t listen to this peer-reviewed doctor
    An in-depth investigation just published in a prominent medical journal alleges that a decade-long effort to link childhood vaccinations with autism was really an elaborate hoax perpetuated by a British doctor who has since been banned from practicing medicine in that country.

    The doctor’s original research, first published in 1998, turned many parents away from immunizing their children, which some experts now link to recent outbreaks of illnesses that had once been well under control.

    “The MMR [measles-mumps-rubella vaccine] scare was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud,” Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief of the BMJ, which published details of the new investigation on Jan. 5, said in a statement. “Such clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare.
    End
    The sad thing is children will keep on dying thanks to this doctor,because parents still believe the hoax.
    So much for peer review,works really well doesn’t it?

  150. Watching this whole debate, it was rather thin on science which disappointed me, but what can you expect from two non-scientists. But in the one bit of science that Monckton did bring forward, he seem to get it quite wrong. He seemed to say that human’s have caused the equivalent of a near doubling of CO2 concentration since 1750, and the climate in central England had only warmed by 0.9C (which he said is a good proxy for global temps).

    Now, I don’t know how he has computed this equivalent “doubling” of CO2, but the last I checked, CO2 has only gone up by about 40% since 1750, going from 280 ppm to 394 ppm. So, if you took the true doubling since 1750, that would be mean we would be at 560 ppm. If we take 0.9C of warming then to have occurred by the actual 40% increase of CO2 since 1750, then when we arrive at the true doubling of CO2 of 560 ppm by 2100, then taken as a simple linear projection that would equate to somewhere around 2C of warming by that date, and of course, even with some modest positive feedbacks (such as sea ice melting, water vapor increases, and methane releases from arctic permafrost melt) it is not hard to see how 3C of warming would easily be attainable with a doubling of CO2.

    So, honestly, what is he talking about when he says an equivalent doubling of CO2 since 1750?

    You can jump to the point in the video here, and decide for yourself about his “doubling” comment and the 0.9C warming we’ve seen so far:

  151. in my previous post, I tried to post the exact point in the video, but for some reason the link failed. Lord Monckton’s comment about the doubling of CO2 since 1750 and the 0.9C temperature increase can be found at approximately 41:10 in.

  152. Nolene,

    You raise a very good point, and that’s exactly why I form my opinion based on the consensus of peer-reviewed scientific research. Note: This consensus is not a consensus of opinion, but rather a consensus of research findings. Big difference. Consensus of findings in peer reviewed research is the key to moving science forward. It is foolish to base any scientific opinion on one or even two or three research papers. But has the papers grow and all begin to point towards the same general thing, then you start to solidify your position. That’s why my opinion has been formed after reading hundreds of papers over many decades.

  153. R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:46 am
    Ah, if only scientific truth were determined by who could win a debate.
    R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm
    Watching this whole debate, it was rather thin on science which disappointed me,
    —————————————————————————–

    Ha ha ha. Ready, fire, aim.

    Ooopsie

  154. Monckton smoked him. All the poor guy could come up with was ‘concensus’ and ‘insurance sales’.

  155. There are plenty of comments about Monckton pretending to be a lord. How about getting on Denniss for pretending to be a debater? Just kidding, these ad-hominems are a specialty of global warming alarmists, not skeptics.

    Denniss of course hit the fallacious argument from authority and argument by popularity. This is the “go-to” move of every alarmist debater. To excuse them, I have heard people say “but they’re not scientists”. But if you listen to the 2007 debate between the late Michael Crichton et al against Gavin Schmidt and a couple of others, Schmidt, a climate scientist, uses those fallacious arguments. When one of the most prominent climate scientists turns to that in a debate, and as his first argument, what does it say about the state of climate science?

  156. Oh, I almost forgot, the good Richard Denniss put the C back back into CAGW, by mentioning something about catastrophic consequences.

  157. R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    Hi R.Gates. His opponent insisted that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. Too bad he wasn’t aware of photosynthesis.

  158. Better yet, R Gates….[This offensive comment has now been removed. R Gates, we apologise for letting it appear in the first place. savethesharks – please keep all comments on topic with no personal abuse. – mod]

  159. Viscount Monckton is an hereditary peer. Had he inherited his title prior to the rule change he would be sitting in the Chamber even now. But because he inherited after the rule change he must be elected to sit in the assembly. He never was, so there is no seat for him in the Chamber. Nor will there be unless he wins election.

    He is, however, a member of the House of Lords. As such he has unrestricted access to, for example, the Lords’ Library. And the Dining Hall. And the caf. And the loo. You don’t. I don’t. He does.

    Deal with it.

  160. savethesharks says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:44 pm
    [offensive comment by savethesharks, now removed]
    ——–
    Well, I’ve not heard a sufficient answer yet as to what the good Lord was referring to in his suggestion that we’ve seen a near doubling of CO2 since 1750. Go to 41:10 of the debate and listen. And as far as me being “cowardly”, I’d gladly debate him, but again, it would be about as meaningful as his debate versus an economist. And when my opponents have to resort to ad hominems [], it is clear that they lack any real substance to their positions and are likely just regurgitating well-worn talking points.

  161. If we take 0.9C of warming then to have occurred by the actual 40% increase of CO2 since 1750, then when we arrive at the true doubling of CO2 of 560 ppm by 2100, then taken as a simple linear projection that would equate to somewhere around 2C of warming by that date,

    Except if I were to do this lovely linear projection you just did, but from the CO2 concentrations and temperature increase in 1960 (assuming of course we havethe datae we have today back then), at that stage, atmospheric CO2 had only risen by ~ 30 ppm or close to 10% (285 to 315ppm). Comparing that to the Global Temperatures that show half that 0.9 degrees warming had occured prior to 1960 or around 0.45 degrees, then one would conclude at the time that the sensitivity from CO2 would be around 4.2 degrees for a doubling of CO2.

    If I instead take the data from post 1960 and see that another 0.45 degrees of warming have occured but this time the CO2 has gone up from 315ppm to 393ppm or about 25% increase over the level at 1960 then the linear sensitivity would be more around 1.8 degrees for a doubling of CO2.

    Considering that the far largest increase in CO2 Concentrations occured with no corresponding increase in temperatures you could reasonably hypothsise that the rate of warming per ppm of CO2 is decreasing and the likelyhood of reaching 3 degrees per doubling of CO2 is also decreasing.

    I know that Linear projections are hardly the most useful tool for projecing future temperatures, particularly in relation to the Climate, but you just used the argument to suggest that “it is not hard to see how 3C of warming would easily be attainable with a doubling of CO2.”. I just used the same argument to say “hey I do not see such a big problem here”. In fact if the rate of warming per ppm of CO2 is in fact decreasing as we let out more, wouldn’t it be more sensible to divert billions of dollars into adapting to whatever changes come rather than trying to spend billions reducing the CO2? I can surethink of a lot of things the government could spend billions f dollars on improving – throwing out the stupidity of using farmland to grown bio-fuel for example and maybe feeding people instead.

    I do not know about anyone else but when I see billions of dollars in Australia set aside to help us reduce our emissions by up to 20% by 2020 that will have the unbelievely large effect (/sarc) of reducing the World’s Temperature by 1/14,000th of a degree and yet on the same day read this:

    http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/un-declares-famine-in-parts-of-drought-stricken-somalia/1181565

    I can say with certainty where the money would be better off spent.

  162. Can anyone confirm that this is the actual result of the debate? That is, a vote of the attendees?

    Looks more like some blog reader giving their own personal ‘marks out of 10’. If not, what is the meaning of ‘journalists : 0’?

  163. Darren Parker says: July 20, 2011 at 11:55 pm
    ” Carbon Dioxide is a lag indicator of temperature not a cause.”

    I have long been suspecting that it may hold true also with the Mauna Loa data:

    Because, the very monotonous curve does not appear to reflect a near-exponential increase in CO2 emission by developed nations for the period 1940-1980, nor the second abrupt increase in CO2 emission by emergent countries (esp. China & india) for the period 2001-2011.

    Anyone can give me a clue to solve this enigma?

  164. R Gates:

    Having failed in all your earlier silly assertions concerning Monckton and his arguments, you assert (at July 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm ) that he “suggested”;
    “we’ve seen a near doubling of CO2 since 1750”.

    This was a repeat of the false assertion which you made at July 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm where you wrote;
    “He seemed to say that human’s have caused the equivalent of a near doubling of CO2 concentration since 1750, and the climate in central England had only warmed by 0.9C (which he said is a good proxy for global temps). “

    Your error in these assertions is that you fail to understand the difference between “CO2” and “CO2 equivalence”.

    Monckton was making a verbal paraphrase of a point often made by others who include myself and Richard Lindzen.

    Lindzen’s most recent statement (i.e. on 15 January 2011) of this that I have seen is in his article at
    http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html
    where he says;
    “According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. ”
    etc.

    Among your other spurious assertions above, you wrongly asserted that Monckton should be ignored because (you wrongly asserted) that Monckton has not published in the peer reviewed literature.
    Do you want to wrongly assert that Lindzen has not published in the peer reviewed literature, too?
    Or will you apologise for your mistake?

    Richard

  165. >>Wayne Richards says: July 20, 2011 at 11:01 pm
    >>Viscount Monckton is an hereditary peer. Had he inherited his title prior to the
    >>rule change he would be sitting in the Chamber even now.

    Not quite right. The UK Labour party actually banned these hereditary peers from Westminster, no matter when they inherited the title.

    And you can see their point here. Here was a socialist-communist party, desperately trying to pass laws to destroy the nation, and you have an upper house filled not only with patriots – but patriots with an education ten times more advanced than any Labour supporter, who can knock their deranged argument for a six. The only option for these socialist-communists was to destroy the Lords, in order to continue with their destruction of the nation. Perhaps you can see why the Lords are not going down without a fight.

    I am not to well up on Aussie politics, but it looks like you have the same cabal of traitors over there too.

    .

  166. RockyRoad: “And can you give me the bonafides of this Richard Deniss?”

    I’m not arguing bone fides. I’m arguing credibility over a specific issue.

  167. PhilJourdan: “Monckton clearly stated (at the outset) and has made clear that he is NOT a sitting member of the House of Lords, but he IS a member of the house of Lords.”

    Not according to a letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments addressed specifically to Monckton, and asking “…that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication”.

    Further: “I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House.”

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

    I don’t think you could get a clearer statement than that. The House of Lords is very clearly of the view that Monckton is not a member, and also cites a legal precedent to that affect.

  168. mkelly: “You are dead wrong on the above statement. Below is what Monckton himself says about his title of Lord and the right to sit in The House of Lords.”

    I’m aware of that statement by Monckton. I am also aware that his claim is rejected by the House of Lords.

    Importantly, Monckton’s statement that you cite sounds learned enough, but how many people have the knowledge and background to verify that this statement is valid, in part or whole?

    And that’s the point. On the House of Lords issue, Monckton sounds supremely confident and gives the impression that he must have a firm grasp of the matter. And yet, there’s the House of Lords letter addressed personally to him, telling him in no uncertain terms that he is mistaken.

    I don’t see any particular reason why Monckton’s version should be preferred over the House of Lords.

    Maybe the situation will change in future. But for now, he has been asked to “cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication”.

  169. Roger Knights [July 20, 2011 at 9:46 pm] says:

    “Here, free for all, is a word I coined yesterday: Nonsensus!

    That’s a keeper. Thanks!

  170. G. Karst: “Please take the time to explain how these issues are issues of this debate.”

    As I mentioned earlier, it comes down to Monckton’s credibility and his style of argumentation.

    His claim to be a sitting member of the House of Lords highlights problems with both these aspects.

    For example, what distinction does Monckton draw between his peerage and his sitting rights? He claims to be a member, but one who cannot sit or vote. However, the House of Lords is insisting that Monckton cease making that claim.

    Monckton draws this rather eccentric distinction in an important area of his own life, and remains firmly wedded to his interpretation in the face of explicit rejection by people who can be presumed to have a good grasp of constitutional law.

    One could conclude that he might draw similarly eccentric distinctions elsewhere, and also display the same sort of refusal to recognise that he might be mistaken.

  171. I would have hoped Lord Monckton would address the doctor analogy. It is faulty in two ways.

    First of all “global warming” is not necessarily a disease. Even if it was predictable that warming continues and humans are causing it partially, that does not equate a fatal disease. Warming of the climate may have many different consequences, some of which may be desirable, maybe others not so. But none will be fatal to the human race in any way. The idea that warming must necessarily have catastrophic consequences is conjecture by political interest group. The majority of scientists, even those that predict warming, say no such thing.

    Second the remedy. As opposed to cancer treatment, which is proven to work in many cases, the supposed remedy against “climate change” is unproven. There is no evidence whatsoever that the human race has the power to willfully manipulate world climate. Even if all the mechanisms supposed by the global warming scare were true, it does not follow that humanity has the power to reverse them.

  172. I would like to congratulate BOTH participants in the debate, and the adjudicator and the audience for a very well behaved and respectful debate, operated without interruption, bias, or weasel excuses afterwards.

    I wish such debates could happen more often.

    With specific regards to the debate, What I think was stated, but underplayed, was the specific science of climate sensitivity. Although Monckton stated correctly that a few dozen scientists at most have actually investigated the central and crucial issue of climate sensitivity, he allowed his opponent to still claim that the Australian academy of sciences, NASA and loads of other genuine scientific organisations and governing bodies, representing tens of thousands of scientists, still accept the IPCC ‘consensus’ view of the theory of climate change.

    What Monckton should have added specifically is the fact that these scientific bodies RIGHTLY accept the scientific work of other scientists. This is how science works in practice, for it is impossible for all scientists to verify all the science of ALL other scientists. You rely on the scientific method in full and accept the results accordingly and trust that the other scientists adhere STRICTLY to the scientific method too.

    This is why they rightly accept the IPCC scientists views. However what none of these scientific organisations has done is independently examine the scientific process followed BY the IPCC scientists individually, because of the few scientists which have, they have become appalled at the lack of adherence to the scientific method, the over-reliance and unsuitable application of models, the cherry picking of data, the refusal to share data and the acceptance of grey literature with equal merit as peer review literature when it supports ‘consensus’, but the rejection of proper peer reviewed literature when it does not.

    Also, of those scientific bodies, almost NONE of the scientists represented have actually done any research themselves into the actual specific science of climate sensitivity. Of those which have… there is NO consensus as to how sensitive the climate is to a doubling of CO2 nor therefore is there any consensus as to how much warming one might expect to see for a doubling of CO2. This is the absolute central and most important point which should be made in climate science right now.

  173. tokyoboy:

    At July 21, 2011 at 12:57 am you ask;

    “Darren Parker says: July 20, 2011 at 11:55 pm
    ” Carbon Dioxide is a lag indicator of temperature not a cause.”
    I have long been suspecting that it may hold true also with the Mauna Loa data:

    Because, the very monotonous curve does not appear to reflect a near-exponential increase in CO2 emission by developed nations for the period 1940-1980, nor the second abrupt increase in CO2 emission by emergent countries (esp. China & india) for the period 2001-2011.
    Anyone can give me a clue to solve this enigma?”

    I offer the following “clue” some of which I have previously posted on WUWT.

    Variations in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 above about 200 ppmv have so small an effect on global temperature that they cannot be discerned from the ‘noise’ of other effects on the global temperature.

    This is because the greenhouse effect (GHG) operates as follows.

    The Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun and the heated surface loses this heat. One of the ways the surface loses heat is to emit heat radiation (i.e. infra red radiation, IR). This IR is energy.

    Some of the IR from the surface passes through the atmosphere to space. But CO2 in the air absorbs some of the IR from the surface and re-emits it as radiation in random directions. So, half the re-emitted energy goes up and half goes downwards. The re-emitted energy that goes downwards is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and heats it some more. Hence, the effect of CO2 in the air is to increase the Earth’s surface temperature by ‘catching’ some of the energy from the surface and ‘recirculating’ some of the energy it ‘catches’ back to the surface: i.e.

    The Sun heats the surface by giving it energy,
    The surface loses the energy from the Sun,
    CO2 in the air returns some of the energy lost from the surface back to the surface.
    Hence, the surface is inhibited in its ability to lose heat it gets from the Sun so is hotter than it would be without CO2 in the air.

    The effect declines logarithmically because as each increment of CO2 is added to the air there is less IR from the surface available for additional CO2 to absorb.

    The above explanation of the GHG is agreed and reported by the IPCC. But the IPCC uses a large ‘climate sensitivity’ for the effect of CO2 on global temperature. To be precise, the IPCC uses several values of ‘climate sensitivtiy’ as ‘fiddle factors’ to get their climate models to work.

    An analogy for this logarithmic effect is paper over a window in a room. Light (i.e. radiated energy) enters the room through the window. A sheet of paper covering the glass absorbs some of the light from outside so prevents its entering the room (as CO2 absorbs some IR from the Earth’s surface and prevents it entering space). A second sheet of paper absorbs additional light so even less light enters the room. Consider that each sheet of paper absorbs half the light that falls on it (i.e. a ‘sensitivity’ of 50%, then the first sheet absorbs half the light that passes through the glass but the second sheet absorbs a quarter of the light that passes through the glass, etc. When 10 sheets cover the glass then an eleventh sheet makes little difference to how much light enters the room.

    Similarly, the first 20 ppm of CO2 in the air absorbs much IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the first sheet of paper absorbs much of the light through the window). But the tenth 20 ppm of CO2 absorbs little IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the tenth sheet of paper absorbs little of the light through the window).

    Of course, all of this ignores the other ways that heat is lost from the surface (i.e. evaporation and conduction) and ignores other ways that heat is inhibited from entering and leaving the surface (e.g. effects of clouds). And it ignores water vapour which is by far the most effective greenhouse gas (it absorbs over the entire IR spectrum but CO2 only absorbs the IR from the surface over two narrow bands of wavelength). And it ignores several other important factors.

    These factors may enhance the effect of CO2 on global temperature (i.e. be a positive feedback”), or may inhibit the effect of CO2 on global temperature (i.e. be a negative feedback”).

    The IPCC assumes the net effect of the feedbacks is positive but there are reasons to doubt this. And, importantly, the feedbacks must be positive to provide discernible global warming from additional CO2 in the air because the existing atmospheric CO2 concentration is ~390 ppmv so almost all the IR that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in the atmosphere.

    Importantly, empirical studies do not suggest that the feedbacks are positive. For example, the 8 ‘natural experiments’ of Idso; see
    http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm
    He finds;
    “Best estimate 0.10 C/W/m2. The corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”

    Also, please see my above post at July 21, 2011 at 1:12 am .

    So, CO2 follows temperature at all time scales. This is because of two effects.

    As I explain above, at levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration above 200 ppmv any variations in the concentration can only have trivial effect on temperature which is too small to be observable. And atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 390 ppmv

    But variations in temperature significantly affect atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    At longer time scales the effect of the temperature on CO2 is mostly because of exchange of CO2 between air and ocean. And at shorter time scales because of biological response to atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    I hope this helps as a “clue”.

    Richard

  174. So SteveE, You state that Lindzen and Trenberth disagree about sensitivity?

    So you must also agree with Monckton that this proves that there have been peer reviewed scientific papers which disagree as to the degree of climate sensitivity and therefore you are backing up Monckton’s correct claim that there is NO consensus in the science of climate sensitivity.

    As an independent lay person I do not know which paper to believe. Trenberth? Lindzen? Who knows? You are a believer so will naturally lean towards whichever paper supports your belief system. I shall have to independently examine the different papers and look at how well they adhere to the scientific method, what assumptions they have used (and if there is any validity in them) and if the data used is based on other flawed work or not, then make a decision for myself.

    But thank you for agreeing and proving the lack of consensus over climate sensitivity.

    Thank you.

  175. The reason that opposition to the science Genetically Modified Crops is so popular while the same people so strongly support the science of Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) concerns the central leftist philosophy of the Green Movement. Following the dictums MMGW Western technology, civilization and its economy will be weakened and therefore the Left supports it. GM crops is a solution to population growth and strengthens the economy of the West thereby opposed by the Greens. It is not about Science or even being Green, it is about political goals.

  176. Ken Hall says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:57 am

    I would like to sell you an Anomalymometer.
    It comes equipped with no scale, and therefore no data can be read from it.
    The computer model software enclosed will display the results, should you need to see something.
    You have to trust me when I claim that the results my model produces from it are concensus.
    You cannot afford the price tag, since it is in the $Billions. You’ll need a grant, which your government will fund you. Live long and prosper: The taxpayers will foot the bill.

  177. Let’s clear up this issue of whether Monckton is an heriditary peer of the realm.

    He is, just check the current list of peers..

    http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Roll%20of%20the%20Peerage.pdf

    The other question is semantics. Is he entitled to sit in the House of Lords? The answer is yes he is entitled. I am not, not being a peer currently, but he is.

    However, he is currently not elected to be a current sitting member. That is decided by voting of current sitting members when a vacancy arises, in the 92 heriditary peers allowed to sit at any one time. It is perfectly possible that Monckton could be elected to sit at some time in the future because he is entitled to do so, being a peer of the realm, whereas non-peers cannot ever be elected because they are not entitled to sit.

    Alan.

  178. Brendan H and Ralph:

    Your discussion of whether or not Chris Mockton is a noble Lord and, therefore, is a Member of he House of Lords is an attempt to side-track discussion of the debate which is the subject of this thread.

    Please take your ‘red herring’ elsewhere.

    The debate was about the reality and magnitude of AGW together with consideration of the need for actions to avoid or mitigate AGW. It was NOT about whether or not Chris is a Lord (and, incidentally, he is).

    Richard Dennis argued for acceptance of consensus and what that suggested should be done, but Lord Monkton argued for consideration of the implications of climate sensitivity and what that suggested should be done. So, this thread is about the performances of those two debators and the validity of their arguments concerning the asserted consensus, climate sensitivity, and what should be done about AGW.

    I repeat, take your ‘red herring’ elsewhere.

    Richard

  179. SteveE says:
    July 20, 2011 at 11:43 am

    This paragraph contains a number of erroneous statements. Firstly, according to both GISTEMP and HADCRUT3 (satellite data only began in 1979), the global temperature trend since 1970 is 1.6–1.7°C per century. Secondly, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been accelerating (not linear). The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 in the 2000′s (2.2 parts per million by volume [ppmv] per year) was in fact 47% faster than the rate of increase in the 1990s (1.5 ppmv per year). Monckton uses these incorrect assertions to create the support for his incorrect argument – that if we continue with business-as-usual, global temperatures over the next century will increase at a constant, linear rate (or slower).

    Steve, please carefully look at the charts found here:

    http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2

    The author uses HADCRUT3 data to falsify the AGW/CAGW hypothesis. Even during the modern warming period, CO2 concentrations did not go hand in hand with increases in global temps as measured by HADCRUT3. While correlation does not prove causality, there must be correlation if there is causality.

    Whatever effect CO2 has on global temps, it is easily swamped by other factors, many of which we know nothing about.

  180. For those of us that live in Australia and suffering the repeated misrepresentation and downright lies perpetrated in the name of science, one thing that Lord Monckton did so well for us is set out the difference between carbon dioxide and the stuff that politicians continual hammer by endlessly repeating, Big polluters, carbon pollution, dirty carbon pollution, complete with background of steam issuing from stacks or cooling ponds.

    He simply set out the difference in terms that anyone can understand between particulate emission and the benefits of the trace gas carbon dioxide. Also, that a carbon tax is a waste of our effort and industry and will achieve nothing in real terms except make Australia less competitive and put people out of work.

    I am grateful for the clarity of his words, they expose the lies of our political opportunists and their green cohorts who resort to such deception to try and hold onto power and think they can fool the voters of Australia, who by the way are one step smarter and way ahead of them.

  181. Brendan H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:12 am

    Brendan, you must have skipped over all the other posts that clearly show Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, just without sitting. He also clearly stated that the opinion of the Clerk of the House is irrelevant given the authority of the queen. But all of that is irrelevant since I am correct and you are wrong. He never said he was a “Sitting Member”. If you want to change the subject now, in light of the numerous responses demonstrating Monckton is correct, please direct your errors to them.

    As for me, I can only thank god for a little thing called a revolution 235 years ago, and that I do not have to memorize mnemonics, or go around bowing to people because some fop could not keep his johnson in his pants.

  182. anorak2 says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:47 am
    I would have hoped Lord Monckton would address the doctor analogy. It is faulty in two ways.

    First of all “global warming” is not necessarily a disease.

    Excellent point, Most non-medical people think that a “fever” is a sickness, when in fact the “fever” is merely the body fighting the sickness. in other words, it is a sign of healing. The analogy of CAGW and the human body is flawed on that level alone.

  183. Brendan H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:22 am
    One could conclude that he might draw similarly eccentric distinctions elsewhere, and also display the same sort of refusal to recognise that he might be mistaken.
    One could, if one were prone to persuasion by your blatant use of the logical fallacies of the types known as the Red Herring as well as Poisoning the Well.
    I know, I know, it’s a troll thing, and it’s all you’ve got, so I suppose you can’t be blamed.

  184. R. Gates:
    Monckton’s remarks at 41:10 are, in part, an abridged version of a well known argument by skeptics. Because he abridged it, it probably went over the heads of most of his audience. The temperature increase that should be expected from a doubling of the CO2 level is in the neighborhood of 1.1 C. or 1.5 C. (I forget), if there is no positive feedback. The increase without feedbacks is logarithmic, not linear. The 0.9 C. increase is approximately what the increase should be for the 40 percent increase of CO2 that has taken place since 1750, if there is no positive feedback. (This is not in dispute.) Apparently, then, there is no positive feedback, so we should expect an additional 0.2 C. or 0.7 C. by the time we have doubled the CO2 level.

    He not only abridged the argument, but he mixed it in with evidence for a per-century warming. So his entire remarks at 41:10 were somewhat incoherent. However, the argument which he abridged is valid.

    I apologize for not knowing the exact numbers.

  185. Monckton was world class again. It would be nice to thank him in person some day, with some coldmartinis.

    I thought it wise of him not to pursue the ‘red herring’ medical anology that his opponent offered up. Monckton is an experienced campaigner.

    Christopher M, take care. Perhaps we are past ‘seeing the end of the beginning” in eliminating IPCC focused AGWist pseudo-science.

    John

  186. PhilJourdan says:
    July 21, 2011 at 5:03 am
    anorak2 says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:47 am
    I would have hoped Lord Monckton would address the doctor analogy. It is faulty in two ways.

    First of all “global warming” is not necessarily a disease.

    Excellent point, Most non-medical people think that a “fever” is a sickness, when in fact the “fever” is merely the body fighting the sickness. in other words, it is a sign of healing. The analogy of CAGW and the human body is flawed on that level alone.

    ——

    Are you suggesting that global warming is Earth’s own “fever” trying to get rid of the “virus” of humanity?

  187. “KenB says:
    July 21, 2011 at 4:57 am

    …they can fool the voters of Australia, who by the way are one step smarter and way ahead of them.”

    Over the years living in Australia and being exposed to “gutter” politics (IMO – like gutter press, The Sun, The News of The World type toilet paper tabloids), all the while not qualifying to be able to vote albeit a full taxpayer, I am not convinced Australian voters are *that* smart, voting maybe compulsory, but those ticking the boxes really DON’T have a clue of the concequences. An analogy I like about Australia, climate change and “carbon” taxes which is “Australians are asleep at the wheel.” Could not have said it better.

  188. With reference to Monckton’s status as a Member of the House of Lords:

    “Dear Lord Monckton

    My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

    In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.

    I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

    “In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”

    I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.

    I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

    David Beamish
    Clerk of the Parliaments

    15 July 2011″

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

    Seems he’s been caught talking rubbish again…

  189. “SteveE says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:49 am”

    Curious. A 2hr commute from London? 2 hours each way? That might be the Isle of Wight if you used public transport, or even Doncaster way since electrification. But I somehow doubt you use anything other than a car in your commuting.

  190. Richard S Courtney ,

    I’ve got nothing to apologize to the good Lord Monckton about. I asked the simple question about how (at approximately 41:10) of the debate, he claimed that CO2 had effectively doubled since 1750, resulting in a 0.9C temperature increase. CO2 has not doubled since 1750, and is up only 40%. I was looking for someone (even the good Lord himself) to explain this statement.

    Also, I’ve still not seen an actual peered reviewed piece of climate research put out by Lord Monckton. If someone wants to point the way to it, I’ll be glad to look at it. He claims to be an “expert” in climate sensitivity, so where is his research? More importantly, it seems the IPCC could use his expertise if he is such a leading authority in this area.

  191. “SteveE says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Are you suggesting that global warming is Earth’s own “fever” trying to get rid of the “virus” of humanity?”

    LOL Funniest thing I have read in a while. In the oceans there are more viruses there, in the H2O, than all the viruses that affect land based creatures, including humans. There is more biomass represented by insects than all other creatures on this rock. Healthy forrests emit more CH4, and CO2, than ALL of human activity put together. Termites emit more CH4 thans ALL of human activity put together. Emissions of GHG from human activity is the pimple on the bum of a Blue Whale.

  192. Tucci78
    “Americans just don’t give a damn about the hereditary titles that are such a big frelking deal in the U.K. ”

    I think that far fewer people in the UK think they are a big deal than you imagine. I am sure that most people with titles find that they are fawned over far more in the US than the UK.

    Given that I’m British and, like most of the people I know, think that the whole peerage thing is silly, archaic nonsense at best, egregious at worse, Monckton still has the right to call himself a Lord, as much as anyone does.

  193. Brendan H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:22 am

    One could conclude that he might draw similarly eccentric distinctions elsewhere, and also display the same sort of refusal to recognise that he might be mistaken.

    So when his lordship quotes the IPCC report declaring prediction is not possible, we should not accept this, because there is a semantic debate ongoing, as to Monckton’s title???

    IPCC wg1, TAR, 14.2.2.2:

    “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    You have serious logic problems and a poor grasp of words such as science, relevance, facts, ad hominem, up, down.

    Perhaps you should return, when you have corrected your own deficiencies, and worry less about a small defect in Lord Monckton’s title. GK

  194. Brendan H says: Brendan H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:16 am
    mkelly: “You are dead wrong on the above statement. Below is what Monckton himself says about his title of Lord and the right to sit in The House of Lords.”

    I’m aware of that statement by Monckton. I am also aware that his claim is rejected by the House of Lords.

    Brendan you argue against your own statement. Your orginal post said that he claimed he had the right to sit in the house of Lords. The below clearly says he does not have the right to sit in the house and he has “never pretended otherwise”. Now you say his claim is rejected by the House of Lords.

    Lord Monckton:
    “… a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”

    So to be clearer Brendan please retract your statement concerning the right to sit in the House of Lords.
    As to the title, if the government issued him a passport which is a legally binding document with that title as part then that should suffice as proof.

  195. R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm
    But has the papers grow and all begin to point towards the same general thing, then you start to solidify your position. That’s why my opinion has been formed after reading hundreds of papers over many decades.
    Your Belief in climate change “consensus” is very touching, and explains a lot about your opinions. I’m not sure if it is caused by intellectual sloth, or a basically irrational nature. Perhaps science will be able to explain this Will to Believe eventually.

  196. A. Mole July 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm:

    Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend Dr. Fred Singer’s presentation at NIST in Boulder, CO. To a mostly empty auditorium, most of the audience was from NIST and not NOAA, Dr. Singer presented his arguments to the contrary of “accepted” AGW. This is totally anecdotal but it seemed that a significant fraction of the audience understood the correctness of Singer’s message.

    Dr. Singer handled every question with dignity and with data on his side. The audience clearly could see that the AGW side engaged in deception and faulty arguments. Almost an admission of defeat, the last warmest question was something like, “Well even if the models are wrong, shouldn’t we do something in case they might be right?”

    This last is EXACTLY the result I’ve gotten every single time I’ve discussed this with anyone who knows things about this issue from main stream media articles and from TV. When they can’t argue the points themselves, they come back to the Pre-Cautionary Principle, “Well, shouldn’t we do something in CASE they are right?” A: That is a hypothetical, and B: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And make no mistake, CAGW IS an extraordinary proof. It is shameful that so many in science are willing to give them a pass on this.

    As to the debate itself, Monckton time and time again brought in numbers, numbers, numbers, and references to specific scientists and specific papers. His appeal was for people to think for themselves, while Denniss always appealed to people to accept what those of authority said (which is basically like our parents saying, “Because I said so!”. Denniss had only one argument: Be afraid because these men of renown has said you should be afraid. He brought in no facts other than that there was a consensus. *

    @Dr. Dave July 20, 2011 at 11:33 am:

    I’d love to watch a five member team debate.

    There is a debate with Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton.from 4 years ago at MIT, with three people on each side.* * The debate went essentially the same as this one. The warmists repeatedly appealed to authority, and they brought in far fewer facts. A poll of the audience was taken both before and after the debate. I don’t recall the exact numbers reported, but it was WAY heavy for the warmists beforehand and was a clear majority for the skeptical position afterward. The skeptics won, handily.

    * That consensus, BTW, was first asserted in the 1980s, applied to only the attendees at one pro-AGW conference, and has been repeatedly claimed ever since. When looked at closely, the claim is much, much weaker than asserted. This has been covered on WUWT before.

    * * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY – This is a 10-part video.

  197. RE: SteveE says:
    July 21, 2011 at 7:14 am

    With reference to Monckton’s status as a Member of the House of Lords:

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Lord Monckton’s status has NOTHING to do with AGW, why even bother to bring up this point?
    Unless it’s an “ad hominem” attack.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  198. SteveE says:
    July 21, 2011 at 6:49 am
    Are you suggesting that global warming is Earth’s own “fever” trying to get rid of the “virus” of humanity?

    Hardly – I did not make the analogy and I also called it flawed. Your reading skills need some honing.

  199. >>Richard S Courtney says: July 21, 2011 at 4:21 am
    >>Brendan H and Ralph:
    >>I repeat, take your ‘red herring’ elsewhere.

    I think you like the sound of your own pomposity, sometimes, Richard.

    It would be nice for the peerage issue to be a complete side-issue and thus a complete kipper, but it is not. So as long as the Liberal-Left continue to use it as a rod to lash Monckton, it is an issue that needs explanation. If Al Gore had claimed to be a Lord, and was found to be a complete fraud, his entire AGW argument would, of course, have been sunk without trace. He very nearly tripped himself up with that stupid internet claim.

    As it happens, Monckton is a real Viscount, a genuine peer of the realm, and therefore he has the right to use the title of Lord – whether the socialists and communists in Westminster like it or not. A Lord is a peer of the realm, and not just some Labour sycophant who has received a gong from Tony Blair and so sits in the upper house. Thus the many complaints by the AGW lefties just looks like envious sour grapes. One of their hated hereditary aristocracy is quite obviously light-years ahead of them in education, and they do not like it one bit. Inbred hereditary Lords are all bumbling idiots, they will claim, while this one runs rings around the brain-dead lefty Aussie reporters and makes them look like complete fools.

    .

    P.S. Richard, please do explain why fractured coal seams are good for the UK coal industry. We are dying to hear an explanation. Shame you did not go to a private school, you might have an answer for us…. ;-)

    .

  200. Bruce Cobb says:
    July 21, 2011 at 8:09 am
    R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 10:25 pm
    But has the papers grow and all begin to point towards the same general thing, then you start to solidify your position. That’s why my opinion has been formed after reading hundreds of papers over many decades.
    Your Belief in climate change “consensus” is very touching, and explains a lot about your opinions. I’m not sure if it is caused by intellectual sloth, or a basically irrational nature. Perhaps science will be able to explain this Will to Believe eventually.
    ____

    Nice ad hominem. If someone doesn’t agree with your skeptical position after decades of reading everything they could about the topic…then it must be because of “intellectual sloth”.

    Interestingly, many skeptics have their position tied into a political perspective as well, which tells me a great deal.

  201. R. Gates says:
    July 21, 2011 at 10:14 am
    Interestingly, many skeptics have their position tied into a political perspective as well, which tells me a great deal.

    It does not tell me anything at all since both skeptics and warmists cross the policial aisle all the time. I guess so one predisposed to finding conspiracies where none exist, those types of things may tell them something, but for those interested in knowledge and truth, it only tells us that perhaps an “attack the messenger” is coming next.

  202. >>Patrick Davis says: July 21, 2011 at 7:15 am
    >>“SteveE says: July 21, 2011 at 6:49 am”
    >>Curious. A 2hr commute from London? 2 hours each way?

    Easy. You are not a member of the London commute set, are you?

    If you add the tube and the walk to the station, it can easily be 2 hours. I used to do 1.5 hrs, just from Redhill !! (They took the direct train away from us.)

    Any conscientious Greenie should live in the City, to stop all those emissions. However, a good Greenie also likes to live in the countryside, because they like to live ‘in tune with nature’. Ahhh, the dichotomies of being a Green eh? “Listen to what I preach, and not what I do…”

    .

  203. Monckton, unfortunately, has body language that are reminiscent of ground squirrels popping out of their holes, surveying in a rapid and twitchy fashion the world around them and then popping back down to do whatever it is that ground squirrels do out of sight. His practice of “humour” and voice impressions may score with the stage but do not score well with the genuinely analytically driven audience. His use of ad hominum attacks on the basis of watermelon political persuasions – that the eco-green are economically and socially Marxists – well may be true in a neo-Marxist way, but do nothing for the debate but obscure the disagreement. Social programming is without a doubt a large part of the eco-green movement (as capitalist industrialization spreads risks and environmental costs to the many while preserving the profits and benefits to the few), but the AGW situation is not really a philosophical argument outside of the involvement of the Precautionary Principle. The argument is whether the human-originating CO2 will cause a temperature rise in the world that is undesireable due to its unavoidable collateral effects on the biosphere.

    Despite these two serious flaws, he stayed on course for the debate. He also consistently dealt technical points in opposition to generalized statements. As an entertaining speaker Monckton gets my support in a way that Marc Morano, with his seriousness, youth and obvious political position does not.

    Gore and Suzuki are the snake-oil salesmen of the TV age, modern Hyde Park fulminators against the sins of the people. Monckton is closer to their style but lacking the statesman or Yoda-esque presence of a Gore or Suzuki. An anti-Gore/Suzuki is what the skeptic camp needs, not really a Monckton, unfortunately.

    The fight of AGW/CAGW is fascinating, as the debaters noted, in that a skeptical position on climate science is not an outlier activity as with other science-skeptical issues such as vaccination. The difference is, though, that billions of scare tax dollars, government resources and millions of jobs, lifestyles and careers are threatened, unlike all other skeptical issues. Everyone, literally everyone, is affected by what happens in the governing clubs around so-called anthropogenic global warming. The rhetoric and passion are high because so are the stakes. There is no need to justify a strong position on global warming. Dire consequences follow either course of action in this black-or-white situation. Vaccinations can be delayed, tested in small groups, avoided by concerned parties or moderated in their social impact in may ways should one choose to do so. Not so with global warming. Partial “solutions” are no solutions. A modest cut in CO2 emissions by warmist theory does nothing for the world (as pointed out by Monckton et al regarding the effects of the Guilliard-Brown proposals); a modest tax or penalty cost for CO2 reduction is still a serious reassignment of the world’s resources when so much other, really significant problems are underfunded or unaddressed. Only a full-out attack or retreat serve either side, both of which are viewed as complete defeats by one side.

    It is probable that by 2050 historians and philosophers will be looking at the AGW war in a political-sociological way that right now only the skeptics recognize. The power of generalized authority to act as they see “right” vs the individual to determine if, how and when that authority could or should act is being played out right now. The Age of Reason brought the scientific illuminated into conflict with the theologically illuminated. Today the conflict is between the technocrat, the technically illuminated holders-of-the-reins and the technically illuminated citizen – the passenger in the wagon being driven. Monckton is the citizen; Denniss, the reins-holder. The dais is tilted towards Denniss.

    Perhaps that is why Monckton at times plays the buffoon. He is aware that the stage is biased towards the Kings’s advisors (to change the analogy). In less televised times only the court jester time could say (suggest, actually) that the King was receiving bad advice. Is Monckton the court jester of 2011, living the only role where a skeptic is allowed to speak?

    In the past the jester sometimes had his head removed because the “bad” advice he noted was what the King wanted, for other reasons, to hear. Denniss does not seem to be one of those wishing the axe to fall, but Gore and Suzuki are. As the Gore-Climate Reality telethon in September approaches, I, as a non-warmist, hope that a State-side equivalent of Monckton can be found, but one viewed as less-worthy of the axe as Monckton can often appear to be.

  204. Patrick Davis says:
    July 21, 2011 at 7:15 am

    Curious. A 2hr commute from London? 2 hours each way? That might be the Isle of Wight if you used public transport, or even Doncaster way since electrification. But I somehow doubt you use anything other than a car in your commuting.

    ————

    Nope, I have a 40 minute walk across Hyde Park, a 50 minute train jouney and then a 20 walk from the train station home.

  205. SteveE says:
    July 21, 2011 at 7:14 am

    I refer you to the very first line of the letter you quote refuting Lord Monkton’s claim to be refered to as Lord Monkton, because that’s the gist of your arguments… He’s not a member of the Lords so he can’t be called Lord Monkton.

    “Dear Lord Monkton…..”

    And then I laughed

  206. Bob Diaz says:
    July 21, 2011 at 9:38 am

    I was asked to back up my claim that he talks rubbish… this is one such example.

  207. @ R. Gates;
    If someone doesn’t agree with your skeptical position after decades of reading everything they could about the topic…then it must be because of “intellectual sloth”.
    Nice mis-direction. This has to do with your Belief in the “consensus” on climate change, not on whether or not you agree with skeptics/climate realists. The consensus argument truly is either laziness or irrationalism (perhaps a bit of both), because it has nothing to do with the actual rightness or wrongness of the science backing up said “consensus”.
    Sometimes the truth hurts, but, no pain no gain.

  208. SteveE says:
    July 21, 2011 at 11:14 am
    I was asked to back up my claim that he talks rubbish… this is one such example.

    No, you said he talked rubbish in the debate, and you have yet to back that up. Do not change the topic or create strawmen for your own enjoyment. Man up or admit you are wrong.

  209. >>SteveE says: July 21, 2011 at 7:14 am
    >>With reference to Monckton’s status as a Member of the House of Lords:
    >> Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice
    >>Lewison stated:
    >>“In my judgment, the reference to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply
    >>a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House

    Oh, brilliant, Steve. So the whole of this ‘Lord’ argument depends on one lefty-judge. The same lefty judges that have decreed that convicted murderers and rapists must have a right to stay in the country, even if they are planning to rape and murder yet more British citizens.

    I think you, and the asinine bureaucrat at Westminster, have just lost the argument.

    .

  210. R. Gates says:
    July 21, 2011 at 10:14 am

    Nice ad hominem. If someone doesn’t agree with your skeptical position after decades of reading everything they could about the topic…then it must be because of “intellectual sloth”.

    And yet, any scientist that isn’t a skeptic isn’t a scientist at all. Or are you placing CAGW on the only pedestal that doesn’t allow scrutiny?

  211. R. Gates:

    At July 21, 2011 at 7:20 am you wrote saying to me:

    “I’ve got nothing to apologize to the good Lord Monckton about. I asked the simple question about how (at approximately 41:10) of the debate, he claimed that CO2 had effectively doubled since 1750, resulting in a 0.9C temperature increase. CO2 has not doubled since 1750, and is up only 40%. I was looking for someone (even the good Lord himself) to explain this statement.”

    Clearly, you have reading difficulties.

    My post (that your comment purports to be replying) is at July 21, 2011 at 1:12 am. It explained
    (a) the facts of the matter,
    (b) how and why you are plain wrong, and
    (c) why you need to apologise for your error.

    Lord Monckton’s comment is right. As I said, several others including me and Richard Lindzen have often pointed out the same, and I gave you a quote where Lindzen explains it.

    Read that explanation and try to understand it (yes, I recognise that is a challenge for you).

    But your response (that I quote in this post) indicates that either you did not read the explanation or you lack the intellectual ability to understand the matter. If you cannot understand then ask for explanation in simpler words. If you do manage to understand then either
    (i) you will find flaw in the explanation and state it
    or
    (ii) you should apologise for your error.

    Richard

  212. Ralph:

    Having managed to destroy one thread on WUWT with a ‘red herring’ you are trying (with Brendan H) to have similar success here.

    Take your Red Herrings elsewhere.

    Richard

  213. Many, many Monckton apologists here.

    Monckton’s point – the climate is **not** predictable because it is chaotic. Everyone who responded with IPCC cites about how **difficult** it is to predict are dissembling.

    @Dangerousdaze picked up on the relevant part (although clearly didn’t read my original link, where this also came up)

    > It seems to say exactly what you claim it doesn’t. Did you check for yourself?

    Do you agree with the assessment that Monckton claims that the climate is chaotic, and therefore not predictable in the long term? yes or no?

    Do you think that flat assertion (“not predictable”) is in accordance with the *very next sentence* after the section he purportedly quotes (with modification)? You know – the bit about how future climate is amenable to statistical analysis as a range of probabilities?

    Monckton is using colloquial terms and casual language to inflate the unpredictability of climate in the minds of a lay audience, *deliberately omitting* quotable text that weakens his argument. How honest is that?. Yes, a precise future climate state cannot be determined with unerring accuracy, that would be ridiculous – but is it entirely honest to claim something that is absolutely amenable to statistical analysis and probability distribution of likely outcomes is “not predictable”? An awful lot of science is amenable to this kind of analysis – is it all, in fact, “not predictable”? I suspect some statisticians might take issue with that.

  214. FWIW, here’s the House of Lord’s 7/15 “Dear Lord Monckton” letter, addressed to “The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”:
    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2011/letter-to-viscount-monckton-20110715.pdf

    Although whether he is or is not a “lord” is irrelevant to the correctness of his climate views, if he were posing as a viscount when in fact he was not, that would seriously undermine his credibility.

    He’s on thinner ice to claim he’s a “member of the House of Lords,” however.

  215. Nothing new here from Monckton. His specialty is one of being a showman, not, as he falsely yet predictably claims, “a specialist in the determination of climate sensitivity” who “lectures at the faculty level”. When are you people going to cut yourselves free of your defense of this man – his lack of credibility has now reached the point of him being self-defeating to your cause. Monckton’s been shown over and over to be a charlatan (you all know where to find definitive evidence of that fact – I don’t need to provide the links here). Several of the more serious among the WUWT contributors understand this and now rightfully distance themselves from commenting on Monckton’s distorting bombast, instead they choose to focus on the science and data placed on full context of the climate issues.

  216. PhilJourdan says:

    SteveE says:
    “Are you suggesting that global warming is Earth’s own “fever” trying to get rid of the “virus” of humanity?”

    Hardly – I did not make the analogy and I also called it flawed. Your reading skills need some honing.

    Doubly flawed since history shows human population increases in warmer times and decreases during colder times. Not quite how fevers work.

  217. Dave H:

    At July 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm you assert:

    “Monckton’s point – the climate is **not** predictable because it is chaotic. Everyone who responded with IPCC cites about how **difficult** it is to predict are dissembling.”

    No. You are “dissembling”.

    For example, at July 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm Kev-in-Uk gave you this direct quotation from page 21 of Chapter 1 AR4 Science basis – Historical Overview of Climate science…

    ”There is also, however, a contnuing awareness that models do not provide a perfect simulation of reality, because resolving all important spatial or time scales remains far beyond current capabilities, and also because the behaviour of such a complex nonlinear system may in general be chaotic’”

    There is a basic difference between
    (a) your assertion that the prediction of climate is “difficult”
    and
    (b) the IPCC statement that “resolving all important spatial or time scales remains far beyond current capabilities”.

    Something that is “far beyond current capabilities” is – at present – impossible: it is not merely “difficult”. And if something is impossible to predict in time or in space then at best it can only be predicted in magnitude. But no two climate models give the same predictions of future magnitude of global warming, so at most only an undetermined one of them can be right about that (and there is no reason to suppose any one of them is right).

    In summation, Monckton was right and you are wrong and your accusation of “dissembling” is projection.

    Richard

  218. Phil Jourdain: “But all of that is irrelevant since I am correct and you are wrong. He never said he was a “Sitting Member”.”

    Yes, my mistake. Monckton claims to be a member, but without the right to vote or sit. However, this claim is rejected by the House of Lords: “Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.”

    This is a strong statement. It not only says that Monckton is not a member of the House of Lords, but that, logically, he cannot be.

    I don’t know why the writer chose this strong form of statement. Perhaps he means that by legislative definition Monckton cannot be a member. Whatever the case, the statement is unequivocal.

  219. G Karst: “So when his lordship quotes the IPCC report declaring prediction is not possible, we should not accept this, because there is a semantic debate ongoing, as to Monckton’s title???”

    At face value, I don’t see why not. But in order to ascertain Monckton’s accuracy/veracity, one would need to exercise the usual scepticism and check the context of the report and see how his claim stacks up.

    Monckton’s statements, or anybody else’s, need to be taken on their own merits. However, his tendency to confabulation and hyperbole should make one wary of his pronouncements.

  220. Brendan H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Thank you for that. Now it becomes a simple matter of “he said, she said”. Monckton says his rights come from the Queen, and Parliment cannot revoke them. You will note that the clerk of the house does not dispute that (nor affirm it). There is room for disagreement and neither side seems to be “lying”. One is right and the other wrong, but as they are a Monarchy, it is up to the queen to decide which is which.

  221. Mkelly: “So to be clearer Brendan please retract your statement concerning the right to sit in the House of Lords”

    I retract this statement: “Monckton chooses to claim that he is entitled to sit in the House of Lords.”
    He makes a different claim, along the lines of being a non-voting or sitting member. But this latter claim has been decisively rejected by the House of Lords.

    “As to the title, if the government issued him a passport which is a legally binding document with that title as part then that should suffice as proof.”

    No problem with accepting that Lord Monckton is a peer. But that’s not the issue at hand.

    What’s interesting about this case is the way that Monckton has been able to obfuscate an issue that is relatively simple, ie he is a hereditary peer, but not a member of the House of Lords. Is this case a one-off, or part of a pattern?

  222. Dave H, Brendan H,

    I can’t understand the obsession with Lord Monckton’s title. It appears to replace the lack of any good arguments against Monckton’s facts. FYI, Wikipedia acknowledges Viscount Monckton’s peerage:

    “Although Monckton is a hereditary peer, he inherited his peerage after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999,[21] which provided that hereditary peers would no longer have an automatic right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”

    That is Lord Monckton’s stated position.

    So scientific skeptics have a Lord – and the alarmist crowd doesn’t. neener!

  223. I don’t care if he is a Lord. I don’t care where he sits or votes or eats or drinks. I don’t care if he makes mistakes, misquotes, or exaggerates, since his opponents do also. I appreciate his willingness to confront the GW contortionists.

    Thanks Lord Monckton.

  224. So, I guess the take home message is, it’s a lot easier to call yourself a scientist….
    ….than a Lord
    And a lot easier to get something peer reviewed and published if you agree with the peers……

  225. As an Australian I would just like to thank the Lord Viscount Monckton of Brenchley for his efforts in defeating this one true global menace.
    As an Australian voter I would like to thank Richard Denniss for having absolutely nothing, as expected.

  226. if he were posing as a viscount when in fact he was not, that would seriously undermine his credibility.

    Only a few worry much about such titles and so forth these days, however it is the case that Monckton pretended to be a ‘member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature’ in a letter to two US senators. He is not and never has been, and it is this repeated fabrication that triggered the House to issue a ‘cease and desist’ order – he is effectively wrongly impersonating a member of Her Majesty’s Government. Credibility duly damaged.

    He has also claimed to have published in the peer-reviewed literature on climate sensitivity. He has not, he wrote a piece on climate sensitivity, posted on the newsletter website of a special interest group of the American Physical Society. After Monckton represented this as a reviewed article, the APS issued a disclaimer and New Scientist wrote:-

    I spoke to Al Saperstein of Wayne State University in Michigan, one of two co-editors of Physics & Society, the offending newsletter.

    He stressed that that the article was not sent to anyone for peer-reviewing. Saperstein himself edited it. “I’m a little ticked off that some people have claimed that this was peer-reviewed,” he said. “It was not.”

    More germane are the 125 separate errors of fact and logic in that article.

    Indeed Lord Monckton’s ‘science’ has been discredited many times over as a quick Google will discover, yet still he repeats the same debunked claims. In a media debate, where detailed checking of references is not possible, this can be effective, however time and time again people who do the time-comsuming work of following up his cites, find that they do not say what he represents or he has simply misunderstood them.

    Here’s the full rap sheet.

    Credibility destroyed.

    Sources:
    http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf
    http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2008/07/now-will-you-publish-my-paper-showing.html

  227. lol, wow, Dave and Brendan H. I’ve got to hand it to you guys. You are persistent. Entirely wrong, but persistent. It is a good quality, but better to have the quality and be correct rather than in error.

    Let’s review……….., Monckton is a Viscount. The proper term of address to such a person, as I understand it, is Lord. Apparently, this is stuff the queen grants and takes away. Oddly, it isn’t up to some other guy. Weird, I know, but that’s the way they do it over there. Personally, I’ve always considered this a uniquely British question and thought it best to let them sort it out.

    I am quite surprised no one brought up his prize pin he wears. Sigh, maybe for another day…….

    The words, “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Do, indeed appear in the IPCC report, in the paragraph just before part 14.2.2.3 Extreme events. So, we also see that Monckton’s characterization of what the IPCC report states is quite accurate.

    In closing, I’d like to say congrats to you two, many wouldn’t have taken such a beating and remained.

  228. What solutions do the greens propose to solve their imagined problem?
    They want to implement treaties like Kyoto and Copenhagen?

    These treaties simply impose new regulations and taxes that make our industry less competitive with the factories in China which won’t have to face new taxes and costs.
    Problem is that our factories are already cleaner than the factories in China so the production will simply move to the much dirtier, but cheaper, factories in China.
    Our cleaner but now even less competitive factories will simply close.

    More production from dirtier factories means more pollution, not less.

    If anyone has an explanation of how increasing the costs to our cleaner industry while giving our higher pollutiing competition a pass I would love to hear it.

    Denniss’s insurance argument ignores the fact that the plan he supports would increase real pollution and increase C02 emissions, not reduce them.

    Denniss should also look up the meaning of the ‘ appeal to authority’ argument and why it weakens his posiition.

  229. Brendan H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 2:08 am

    “I’m not arguing bone fides.” (sic)

    Coulda fooled me.☺

  230. When R Gates says “when my opponents have to resort to ad hominems [], it is clear that they lack any real substance to their positions and are likely just regurgitating well-worn talking points.” I can only agree. I was appalled on seeing the original comment and would have replied directly to it only R Gates had already done so.

    Please, everyone here, this is no place for language like that. No matter how much you may disagree with someone, be civil and stick to the actual argument.

    Patrick Davis – re Australian voters: Please note that everyone who voted for either of the two major parties at the last federal election was voting for a party that said it would not introduce a carbon tax. The outrage in the country, now that Julia Gillard has caved in to the Greens minority and introduced such a tax, is phenomenal. Something has to break, and hopefully very soon.

    Dave H asks “Do you agree with the assessment that Monckton claims that the climate is chaotic, and therefore not predictable in the long term? yes or no?“.
    Monckton did not make that claim himself, he got it from the IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm : “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible“.

    Brendan H says, re Lord Monckton’s status: “What’s interesting about this case is the way that Monckton has been able to obfuscate an issue that is relatively simple“.
    I can assure you that this issue is far from simple
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-09-29a.398.0
    Note that Baroness Ashton of Upholland says that the effect of Letters Patent creating peerages cannot be changed by legislation of general application. This is the basis of Lord Monckton’s argument that the letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments is incorrect. The issue involves many others, not just Lord Monckton, and has the potential for a constitutional crisis in the UK. http://www.foiacentre.com/news-lords-091115.html
    Fortunately, the whole issue is irrelevant to climate science. Unfortunately we have all allowed ourselves to be diverted by a blatant ad hominem.

  231. Btw, I think, Lord Monckton, as the Man On The Spot, handled himself perfectly. Kudos and applause. When he makes a mistake, he admits it… and moves on. We can’t ask for a better ambassador. GK

  232. Ralph says:
    July 21, 2011 at 10:06 am
    >>Richard S Courtney says: July 21, 2011 at 4:21 am
    >>Brendan H and Ralph:
    >>I repeat, take your ‘red herring’ elsewhere.

    I think you like the sound of your own pomposity, sometimes, Richard.

    _______

    Precisely.

  233. Dave H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    “”””””Many, many Monckton apologists here.””””””

    = = = = = =

    Dave H,

    Likewise I think my following paraphrased version of your quote is true:

    “”””Many, many Monckton Gore apologists acolytes here.””””

    Seriously, a good debate requires protagonists. And a good debate involves protagonists who are seeking knowledge as well as trying to teach at the same time. We can learn from each other; even when it is sometimes only learning to recognize the logically fallacies of our protagonists.

    Personally, I think Monckton is world class and in very broad areas agree with him. I am pleased to see that he really irritates the IPCC’s pseudo-science agenda supporters.

    John

  234. This whole thing about Monckton’s “Lordship” reminds me an awful lot of the Obama Birth Certificate debate.

    And neither had anything to do with the root issues.

    Smoke and mirrors, bread and circuses. Minutiae for the sheep to grouse about whilst being led to the slaughter.

  235. BTW, I don’t like the new email format, either. I’m sure it’s another useless “update” from WordPress and beyond Anthony’s control – but there’s my vote. Makes the emails harder to read.

  236. Smokey. I believe Lord Lawson, who served as Chancellor to Mrs Thatcher, is also very skeptical about these infuriating CAGW claims… He is a sitting and voting (elected) member of the House of Lords.

    So we have at least two Lords vs one ex vice president

  237. Phil Jourdain: “Monckton says his rights come from the Queen, and Parliment cannot revoke them.”

    Does the Queen have the power to confer these sorts of rights, in her own right? The Queen certainly has a ceremonial and symbolic role, but that doesn’t suggest real power.

    In fact, this passage suggests some quite strong constraints on that power: “The Sovereign/Monarch governs according to the constitution – that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will.”

    http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/Whatisconstitutionalmonarchy.aspx

    I’m no constitutional scholar, but I assume that she is pretty much bound by the same rules as anyone else. In that case, she would need to abide by whatever rules are in place, including legislation about membership of the House of Lords.

  238. After I finished watching the video, I had the impression that the media in the audience was uncomfortable with not being in control of the messages of Monckton. They seemed to be twitching with lack of ability to manipulate the dialog. These people are used to being the message about IPCC AGWist agenda (and associated pseudo-science). The media is not experienced in being the hapless receiver of a skeptical message that is clear and well said . . . especially not experienced with sitting there while the skeptical message is being live broadcast in direct comparison to the so-called consensus view.

    I loved watching the media squirm. That’s Entertainment!

    [NOTE: This was also posted at BH]

    John

  239. Smokey: “I can’t understand the obsession with Lord Monckton’s title.”

    Yes, it is a bit silly, but don’t you get sick of reading endless threads about CO2 sensitivity? I certainly do. Monckton’s House of Lord’s farago has the human touch, and is to that extent of interest.

    “FYI, Wikipedia acknowledges Viscount Monckton’s peerage:
    “Although Monckton is a hereditary peer, he inherited his peerage after the passing of the House of Lords Act 1999,[21] which provided that hereditary peers would no longer have an automatic right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.”
    That is Lord Monckton’s stated position.”

    Ah, yes. Wikipedia triumphs again. I must get around to contributing.

    However, despite this astonishing and clearly outlying example of Wikipedia accuracy, according to this report, Monckton makes quite a different claim: “…repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney’s Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote …”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords

    So there you have it. Monckton vs Wikipedia. Which to go for?

  240. R Gates:

    You seem to have time for an ad hom. but not to a apologise for your repeated error concerning the accurate statement of Lord Monckton in the debate concerning the rise in GHGs since 1790,
    “That’s almost equivalent to a doubling of CO2”.

    It is not “pomposity” to point out that your priorities are as erroneous as your untrue comments concerning what Lord Monckton said in the debate.

    Indeed, the clear lesson from this thread is that AGW supporters are so upset by the success of Lord Monckton in the debate that this thread has been infested by a swarm of trolls who have attempted to divert from discussion of the debate and on to irrelevant ad homs. and false assertions concerning what Lord Monckton said.

    Richard

  241. Brendan H says:

    “…don’t you get sick of reading endless threads about CO2 sensitivity?”

    Not at all. Sensitivity to CO2 is central to the entire global warming scare. If the climate sensitivity to CO2 is less than about 2°C, there is absolutely nothing to be alarmed about. And it now appears that sensitivity is significantly below that, probably closer to 1°C per 2xCO2.

    You can obsess about British class divisions, Herbert. I’ll keep following sensitivity developments – which are not going the alarmists’ way. I suspect that’s why you’re losing interest in the sensitivity question.

  242. Brendan H says:

    “…don’t you get sick of reading endless threads about CO2 sensitivity?”

    Brendan, I suppose you are sick of hearing endless threads about CO2 sensitivity as the IPCC extreme AGW prediction is only valid if the planet amplifies any forcing change. Those propagandists who state the science is settled are trying to cover up the CO2 sensitivity issue.

    I would assume everyone is aware that the IPCC is recommending that trillions of dollars be spent on a carbon dioxide monitoring bureaucracy, on carbon sequestration, and on funding schemes to corrupt third world governments to combat “climate” change. Note there is no scientific reason to spend trillions of dollars if the feedback response is negative.

    Calling people “deniers” who present published papers that fundamentally challenge the IPCC prediction to me seems like propaganda. Propaganda is the use mis-truths and of media control to push an agenda. Lobbying to block publishing of papers that do not support the extreme AGW agenda seems to be evidence of propaganda.

    Normally the media protect the public from miss-truths and propaganda. I would assume the media is aware that there are not trillions of surplus public funds.

    The IPCC prediction of 3.3C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels assumes the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to amplify the increase rather than negative where counter acting internal process work to resist the change and hence stabilize the planet’s temperature. Without zero amplification (nether positive or negative) all scientists agree the maximum warming is 1.2C however that warming is extremely conservative.

    The observational data and analysis however supports the assertion that planet’s feedback response is negative (planetary clouds increase when the planet is warmer) rather than positive.

    Roy Spenser has written a book discussing this issue and has asked to present the results of his paper at the 2009 fall AGU annual meeting.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Forcing-Feedback-AGU-09-San-Francisco-final.pdf

    http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-Warming-Blunder-Scientists/dp/1594033730

    The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
    …The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to pin down such high sensitivities with any precision. Results also show, the feedback in ERBE is mostly from shortwave radiation while the feedback in the models is mostly from longwave radiation…

    http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy_pubs.html

    LIMITS ON CO2 CLIMATE FORCING FROM RECENT TEMPERATURE DATA OF EARTH

    The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Niño/La Niña effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.

  243. R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:04 pm
    “…
    Best to look at the number of peer reviewed scientific research papers he’s [Lord Monckton ] written on the subject of climate to see what kind of credentials he has to speak on the subject of climate…oh, yeah, that would be a problem…so what other criteria could be used?”

    [Emphasis and clarification -Lord Monckton – added]

    Mr. (Dr.?) Gates, since you often, and sometimes endlessly, comment on the subject of climate, may one politely ask how many peer reviewed papers you have written on the subject of climate? Or would that be a problem? Honestly, I would like to know.

  244. Smokey says:
    July 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    “And it now appears that sensitivity is significantly below that, probably closer to 1°C per 2xCO2”
    ___
    Oh, is that the way “it now appears”? Is this according the the good Lord Monckton, or is there actual scientific peer-reviewed research that you can cite?

  245. F. Ross says:
    July 21, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    R. Gates says:
    July 20, 2011 at 9:04 pm
    “…
    Best to look at the number of peer reviewed scientific research papers he’s [Lord Monckton ] written on the subject of climate to see what kind of credentials he has to speak on the subject of climate…oh, yeah, that would be a problem…so what other criteria could be used?”

    [Emphasis and clarification -Lord Monckton – added]

    Mr. (Dr.?) Gates, since you often, and sometimes endlessly, comment on the subject of climate, may one politely ask how many peer reviewed papers you have written on the subject of climate? Or would that be a problem? Honestly, I would like to know.
    ____
    My credentials are not important in this instance as I am not professing any “specialized” knowledge of climate beyond what is contained in the vast majority of peer-reviewed research on the subject– a majority of which points to warming from anthropogenic CO2. Now even the good Lord Monckton does not deny that the increase in CO2 is warming the planet, but he continually boasts to being an expert, especially on the subject of climate sensitivity, and thus he is claiming knowledge beyond the body of established peer-reviewed research. To have such specialized knowledge would indicate that he has done substantial scientific research in the field, and should, for example, be an expert in such areas as how the climate responded the last time CO2 and other greenhouse gases were this high in concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, which was several million years ago during the Pliocene.Epoch.

  246. R. Gates says:
    July 21, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    And how many peer reviewed papers has Al Gore written?

  247. R Gates -your last comment is surely one of the most preposterous yet. You make the absurd statement that Lord Monckton “is claiming knowledge beyond the body of established peer-reviewed research. To have such specialized knowledge would indicate that he has done substantial scientific research in the field, and should, for example, be an expert in such areas as how the climate responded the last time CO2 and other greenhouse gases were this high in concentration in the earth’s atmosphere, which was several million years ago during the Pliocene.Epoch.“.

    Every subject can be approached from a number of different angles. Very few scientists, I suspect, are expert in every angle of their subject. Very few scientists would, I suspect, take kindly to a blogger telling them from what angle they should have approached their subject. In Lord Monckton’s case – which you could easily have verified for yourself had you taken the time to glance at the evidence – his expertise is as a (scientifically-literate) mathematician, and his approach was to examine the mathematics of the IPCC’s claim re climate sensitivity. His main findings are that “defects in [the IPCC]’s evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity” may have led to their estimates being “excessive and unsafe“, and that “it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration TS will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K“.
    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/sppi_press_release_monckton_paper_peer_reviewed.html

    Rather than endlessly cite other “authorities”, it would be more helpful if you could point out where Lord Monckton’s mathematics were incorrect.

  248. @ R. Gates 9:55h
    So if one speaks against your precious nonsensus one needs to prove credentials by peer reviewed literature publications, but when one speaks in support of the consensus (such as Al Gore) this is not necessary?

  249. Smokey: “I suspect that’s why you’re losing interest in the sensitivity question.”

    William: “… I suppose you are sick of hearing endless threads about CO2 sensitivity as the IPCC extreme AGW prediction is only valid if the planet amplifies any forcing change.

    Not really. I was referring to the endless process of mastication that takes place on some subjects, until they become tasteless. But I wouldn’t want to discourage anyone from taking part.

  250. Mike Jonas: I can assure you that this issue is far from simple.”

    The general intention of the legislation seems relatively straight-forward: “In the Queen’s Speech for the 1998–99 Session, it was announced that: “A Bill will be introduced to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.”

    http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/House%20of%20Lords%20Reform%201997-2010%20-%2028%20%20June%202010.pdf

    The details and potential outcomes will be a lot more complex, but the general intention can be stated fairly briefly, and understood without too much background.

  251. I was surprised that the brilliant cancer analogy by emmenjayMichael J apparently did not remind anyone (besides me) of an infamous joke.

    Physician: I’m afraid that I have some bad news. The tests that I just ran indicate that you’re at extremely high risk for a heart attack in the very near future. I’ve scheduled a triple by-pass operation for you for tomorrow morning. I’ll be doing the surgery myself, and it will cost you 100 thousand dollars.

    Patient: Hey, wait a minute. I think that I need a second opinion before I make any decision.

    Physician: You want a second opinion? I’ll give you one. You’re ugly too.

  252. >>Phil Clarke says: July 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    >>More germane are the 125 separate errors of fact and logic
    >> in (Monckton’s peer reviewed) article.

    Now this has to be the most stupid and nit-picking analysis of a scientific paper there has ever been. The review starts off with criticisms of how Monckton has ‘distorted the IPCC report’. How so? Well, Monckton wrote:

    a. ‘more than half’ instead of ‘most’. (‘most’, by definition is ‘more than half’)
    b. “probably” instead of ‘likely’ (the first synonym for ‘probably’ in my book is ‘likely’)
    c. ‘past 50 years’ instead of ‘since the mid 20th century: (the mid 20th century is just over 50 years ago)
    d. ‘global warming’ for ‘observed increase in global average temperatures’ (the global increase in temperatures is commonly known as Global Warming, or has the reviewer never heard of that term?)

    I think the reviewer needs to take an English course first, and then concentrate on the science. And I would give the reviewer an ‘E-‘ for not knowing the difference between a speech-mark and a quote-mark. How dare the reviewer comment on the English, when his/her grasp of English is sadly lacking? Even better, perhaps all scientific papers should be in Latin, as they used to be, and then we will see who understands languages better !!

    .

  253. R. Gates:
    If your opinion has been formed by reading “hundreds of papers over many decades,” I don’t see how you managed to misunderstand Monckton’s remarks at 41:10. He did leave something out and somewhat muddle the whole thing, but I knew what he was talking about, and I think anyone who was familiar with some basics would know. I understood him well enough that I did not even notice that anything was wrong until I listened carefully after you had complained about 41:10.

  254. Ralph – all your ‘nitpicks’ are in a single error, Smith himself describes one as inconsequential, however taken together and with the point that Monckton conflates CO2 with all GHGs, which you glossed over, the sense of the IPCC quote is pretty well mangled, which was the point.

    Are you comfortable with Monckton confusing feedbacks and forcings, arbitrarily halving an input term to his global equation based on a land-only study [error 28] and quoting text that is not actually from the cited paper (etc, etc, etc)?

  255. Brendan H says:
    July 21, 2011 at 4:11 pm
    Does the Queen have the power to confer these sorts of rights, in her own right? The Queen certainly has a ceremonial and symbolic role, but that doesn’t suggest real power.

    Yes she does. you would be surprised at the power the monarchy has (it is a monarchy after all). She can disolve parliment if she so chose. Over time, exercising all of her powers has become “politically incorrect”, but the power is hers and Parliment recognizes it as well as understands that unless the Monarch cedes those powers, they are retained. While I am not a scholar on the British Governing system, I am not wholly ignorant of how it works. A little Binging would bring you the answers you are searching for.

    But enough on his Title and peerage, as many have said, it is irrelevant. The topic is the debate, and Lord Monckton carried himself very well – enough to win the debate in a hostile environment.

  256. “Ralph says:
    July 22, 2011 at 1:07 am”

    Scientific papers used to be written in Arabic.

  257. Dennis: There exists “overwhelming evidence of catastrophic risks of climate change”
    Is he talking about dinosaur bones?

  258. Dennis made a valiant attempt to cheese off not only the warmists but also the herbalist, most of whom would send you back to the chemotherapy doctor. Some of the chemotherapy drugs are derived from their herbs. He also tried to insult those studying vaccine problems. There is some statistical evidence that some vaccines do have bad side effects.That why they were withdrawn and replaced with new ones and why the industry is always looking for a safer vaccine mix. if that’s all he has all is lost for the warmists.

  259. PhilJourdan says:
    July 21, 2011 at 11:44 am

    No I didn’t, although one of the questions in the debate was on his status as a member of the Lords.

  260. Ralph says:
    July 21, 2011 at 11:02 am
    >>Patrick Davis says: July 21, 2011 at 7:15 am
    >>“SteveE says: July 21, 2011 at 6:49 am”
    >>Curious. A 2hr commute from London? 2 hours each way?

    Easy. You are not a member of the London commute set, are you?

    If you add the tube and the walk to the station, it can easily be 2 hours. I used to do 1.5 hrs, just from Redhill !! (They took the direct train away from us.)

    Any conscientious Greenie should live in the City, to stop all those emissions. However, a good Greenie also likes to live in the countryside, because they like to live ‘in tune with nature’. Ahhh, the dichotomies of being a Green eh? “Listen to what I preach, and not what I do…”
    ————-

    I never said I was a “greenie” as you put it, and I’ve never preached as to what you or anyone should do. You seem to be talking as much rubbish as Monckton does!

  261. >>Patrick Davis says: July 22, 2011 at 4:44 am
    >>Scientific papers used to be written in Arabic.

    Nonsense. Most ‘Muslim’ scientists were Persian, and so they would have been in Farsi. And most ‘Muslim’ scientists were not Muslim, for that is an oxymoron. Most were Ishmaeli, Sufi, or Zoroastran, or even Agnostic Persians, like Omah Khayyam.

    Besides, if you wish to go back in time, most scientific papers were in Greek.

    .

  262. SteveE says:
    July 22, 2011 at 6:24 am
    No I didn’t, although one of the questions in the debate was on his status as a member of the Lords.

    Shame, if you had you would have seen him admonish the reporter for breaking the rules, and then claim a “free kick” in which he changed the subject back to the topic and made a good point (which he would not have been able to make since no one was going to lob a floater in front of him).

  263. “Ralph says:
    July 22, 2011 at 7:53 am”

    Never seen “scientific” papers, originally, written in Greek, or any other early language than Arabic. Reason, Arabic language very is specific in terms. Think Algebra. NOT explored in Greek or Latin until after the event.

  264. “SteveE says:
    July 22, 2011 at 6:27 am”

    So, with all the walking you do, exhaling at least 40,000ppm/v CO2, do you think you are contributing to catastrophic climate change via YOUR carbon footprint? Or is CAGW just via energy consumption by humans? Because we can prove all human activity and emissions of “GHG” are dwarfed by insects, rain forrests, volcanos, oceans…yadda yadda yadda…I just want to know where you stand in terms of sources of GHG’s, that ~3% of ~390ppm/v p/a of which ~50% “disappears”. Just asking.

  265. Except for the signs that Monckton has clearly hit a nerve with journalists when demanding that they “do their homework”, and that this should have ongoing benefits, it is foolish to rest on the basis that he won this debate.

    He, quite correctly, dwelt on the science, and what he had to say was clear and correct.

    Richard Denniss, right from the start, completely ignored the science, simply repeating ad nauseum the “consensus” story, supported by anecdote which was plausible to people with closed minds.

    Except for the very substantial benefit that some more intelligent journalists will now do more “homework” and discover that Monckton’s views are founded in sound facts, I don’t see this “debate” as likely to change old prejudices.

  266. In reply to Brian’s comment:

    Brian says:
    July 22, 2011 at 9:42 am
    William says:
    July 22, 2011 at 7:39 am
    In reply to Brian`s comment:

    “Climategate” scientist have been CLEARED.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404001.html
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/climategate-scientists-cleared-yet-again-story-ignored-media-again.php
    Stop slandering people. Please.

    Does being found not guilty not mean anything anymore in this country?
    Geez.

    Brian,

    OJ was found not guilty. What does that mean?

    Let’s discuss the science and the facts concerning the Climategate investigation. Did the climate gate investigation review the scientific validity of the Hockey Stick paper?

    Stating something in capital letters does not make it correct. What is your point? Are you stating that the conclusions of the Hockey Stick paper – That the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age did not exist are valid? Are stating that the scientific methods which were used to create the Hockey Stick paper are valid?

    The Hockey Stick paper and graph are plastered throughout the extreme AGW sites. Why?

    Perhaps you do not understand the technical or propaganda point of the Hockey Stick paper. By cherry picking data to make the Medieval warm period and Little Ice age go away a Hockey Stick is created which makes it appear planetary temperature is constant and then abruptly increases due to increases in atmospheric CO2.

    It is not scientifically valid to splice on 20th century instrumentation temperature readings to a tree ring proxy temperature series. If the specific tree ring data is continued into the twentieth century it widely disagrees with instrument temperature readings. That makes sense as the tree rings size in that series does not correlate with temperature and is not a valid proxy for temperature.

    The fact that the specific tree ring data that does not correlate with temperature and appears to make the Mediaeval warm period and Little Ice age disappear was selected for the Hockey Stick paper to me is obvious indication that the authors are biased. The fact that the same group of researchers corresponded to requesting the deletion of protected emails to me provides support for the assertion there is the appearance of a conspiracy to support the extreme AGW agenda.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    I agree with the writer of this blog. To me the climategate emails provides support for the assertion that there is the appearance of a conspiracy to “exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.”

    Quote:
    When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

    Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

    Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
    ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

    Manipulation of evidence:
    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    Suppression of evidence:
    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

  267. From the website of the House of Lords at http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/

    “Dear Lord Monckton

    My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

    In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.

    I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

    “In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”

    I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.

    I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

    David Beamish
    Clerk of the Parliaments

    15 July 2011″

  268. Mike Jonas: “The intention of the legislation is not the issue.”

    If you were required to give an “elevator speech”, the intention of the legislation would serve very well: “A Bill will be introduced to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.”

    So the legislative intention is very much the issue. And without that intention and its aftermath, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

  269. PhilJourdain: “Yes she does. you would be surprised at the power the monarchy has (it is a monarchy after all).”

    Not all monarchies are equal. The UK Monarchy is a constitutional one, and therefore the powers are constrained.

    “She can disolve parliment if she so chose.”

    On her own cognisance? I doubt it. Keep in mind the previous comment: “The Sovereign/Monarch governs according to the constitution – that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will.”

    Now compare “if she so chose” with that comment. The comment rules out the exercise of the Monarch’s personal choice, so it’s doubtful that she could unilaterally override legislation to establish her own preference.

  270. Brendan H:

    In the probably forlorn hope that this will stop you and others waving the Red Herring concerning Lord Monckton’s status, I provide you with the following information.

    The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with all rights invested in the Crown and the monarch shares thos rights with the people and with Parliament. The monarch wears the Crown.

    All peerages are gifts of the Crown. And the Crown is the supreme authority of the State. Hence, a peerage cannot be invested and cannot be revoked by any person, or any persons, or any body, or any institution except the Crown.

    It matters not one jot what any individual or instituion (including Parliament) says about the status of a peerage. Only the Crown can give or take away the status of a peerage.

    There are two forms of Peerage: viz. the Lords Temporal and the Lords Secular.

    The Lords Secular are of two types: viz. heriditary and life.

    A life peerage ceases when the person invested with it dies.
    When a person with an heriditary peerage dies then that peerage is inherited by the eldest son of the deceased.

    Lord Monckton (who happens to be a friend of mine) is a Viscount and he inherited this peerage from his late father.

    The House of Lords is the assembly of all the Lords Temporal and Secular, and it forms the Upper House of Parliament.
    Hence, all those – including Lord Monckton – who have a peerage are Members of the House of Lords.

    In 1999 both Houses of Parliament agreed that only 92 of the heriditary Lords would be allowed to sit and vote in the House of Lords. (This was brokered on behalf of Tony Blair, then PM, by Paddy Tipping, then MP for Nottingham Sherwood, who happens to be a friend of mine.) Those 92 would be elected from among their fellow heriditary Lords. The crown gave the Royal Assent to this agreement. But that Assent did not repeal the peerages and/or any other rights of any heriditary peers.

    Hence, those heriditary peers who are not elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords remain as being Lords of the Realm and Members of the House of Lords. Lord Monckton is one of these. And if you want to dispute that he is one of these then petition HM Queen Elizabeth II because she wears the Crown so only she can change it.

    Those are the facts of the matter with which you have tried to disrupt this thread. And they have no relevance to the subject of this thread SO LET THAT BE AN END TO THE MATTER.

    Richardl

  271. For SteveE – July 20, 2011 at 11:43 am
    You are a victim of serious misinformation. First Monckton is even too generous with IPCC and allows them greater temperature rise than satellite data actually contain. According satellite data there was only one short spurt of warming in the last 31 years of observations. It started with the super El Nino of 1998, in four years raised global temperature by a third of a degree, and then stopped. It was a step warming of oceanic origin, and must not be included in the general temperature curve. There was no warming before this and none after it despite what Gistemp and HadCRUT3 tell us because both of these temperature curves are cooked. My book “What Warming?“ shows graphically how it was done. Global temperature curve also includes the ENSO oscillation of warm El Ninos and cool La Ninas alternating within a five year cycle. The average of these oscillations in the eighties and nineties stayed the same, yielding a horizontal straight line as the average temperature of these twenty years. Another horizontal straight line but a third of degree higher starts in 2002. It is still going on. These two horizontal lines are separated by the step warming. This leaves no room for any anthropogenic warming for the last thirty-one years during which satellites have been recording global temperature. The claims of absurd temperature rises from IPCC suffer first and foremost from conflict with real world observations I pointed out. Their theory is also defective because they use an incorrect method of calculating radiative forcing that gives values that are [too] high for greenhouse warming. THIS IS AN ERROR THAT HAS PROPAGATED ITSELF THROUGH SEVERAL IPCC REPORTS. But its significance is made moot by the work of Ferenc Miskolczi who studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he determined that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs did not change for 61 years. During that same time carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that addition of all this carbon dioxide had no influence whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed. This neatly explains why satellites cannot see any greenhouse warming. It also tells us that the sensitivity of temperature to doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air is exactly zero.

  272. Louise – please see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/#comment-703462 and Richard S Courtney’s last comment.

    Brendan H – It’s tempting to continue, but this issue is so irrelevant to climate science I’ll go with Richard S Courtney’s excellent explanation and his LET THAT BE AN END TO THE MATTER. As far as the dialogue between us two is concerned, I am happy to leave you with the last word.

    A general comment : Lord Monckton’s win (it was a clear win) in the debate, is not of itself significant, debates tend to be won by the best debater. What really counted in this event was that Monckton won by addressing the core science (climate sensitivity) and his opponent used argument by authority.

    Now, back on topic: William – your https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/#comment-704469 is an excellent explanation of how the Hockey Stick is more propaganda than science. I would however like to have one nitpick. You say “It is not scientifically valid to splice on 20th century instrumentation temperature readings to a tree ring proxy temperature series. If the specific tree ring data is continued into the twentieth century it widely disagrees with instrument temperature readings. That makes sense as the tree rings size in that series does not correlate with temperature and is not a valid proxy for temperature.“. I would argue that splicing on the instrumental record would not have been a crime if they had not also truncated (1) the later part of the proxy records (Briffa from 1960, another from ?1980), (2) the earliest part of the proxy records (pre-1550), and (3) the earlier part of the instrumental record (pre-?1950) in order to hide what would have been the blindingly obvious uselessness of the proxies.
    See http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/21/hide-the-decline-the-other-deletion/ and other posts on climateaudit.com
    Note: In other circumstances I might have used the passive “which had the effect of hiding” instead of the active “in order to hide”. In light of the Climategate “hide the decline” email, it is crystal clear that there was indeed an active intention to hide.

  273. Richard Courtney: “Hence, those heriditary peers who are not elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords remain as being Lords of the Realm and Members of the House of Lords.”

    Not according to the people who run the show: “…you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.”

  274. Smoking Frog says:

    Regarding Lord Monckton’s comments at about 41:10 on the debate:

    “He not only abridged the argument, but he mixed it in with evidence for a per-century warming. So his entire remarks at 41:10 were somewhat incoherent.”


    How kind you are to offer up this defense for him. And the same kind defense could be offered up for him getting a bit carried away in his speaking and bringing up references to Nazi’s (more than on one occasion, despite apologies. Or perhaps you could defend his continual reference to being a member of the House of Lords, despite being asked not to by that same body.

    I would say the good Lord seems ton need a lot of defending and is perhaps not the asset some skeptics might wish him to be.

  275. Friends:

    OK, I failed. At July 22, 2011 at 2:15 pm I tried to get the troll, Brendan H, to stop waving his Red Herring. But at July 22, 2011 at 8:48 pm he does it again.

    I refuse to believe that he is as stupid as he pretends to be. Clearly, he did not read what I wrote or he failed to understand it, or he chose to ignore it.

    I think he chose to ignore it, so I ask everybody to ignore his posts in the hope that he will get tired of waving his Red Herring and go away.

    Richard

  276. Richard S coutrney – I think the point is that whatever you wrote is your personal opinion, even if you are a friend of Lord Monckton. You personal opinion is trumped by the Clerk of the Parliaments who is able to state the official position (ie not personal opinion) that “…you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.”

    and

    “I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.”

  277. Sorry Richard. I’ll have one more go, but only this one (I promise). Since this irrelevant issue – membership of the House of Lords – is clearly continuing, I’ve done a bit of digging for more information:-

    The dispute hinges on the hereditary peers’ status, following the House of Lords Act 1999.
    This act is a general act, and Baroness Ashton of Upholland has stated in the House of Lords that the effect of Letters Patent creating peerages cannot be changed by legislation of general application.
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-09-29a.398.0
    This is confirmed in Hansard (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1999/apr/27/house-of-lords-bill-1) “I proposed the convention of the constitution by which hereditary Peers would agree not to have their votes taken into account. This is the proposition in my Amendment No.68A. The great advantage of this amendment is that the Government would not need to introduce a Bill to abolish Letters Patent, nor rights existing in common law and custom. It also avoids having to pass a Bill to annul each Letters Patent for each hereditary peerage and the parliamentary time and expense of so doing.“. [my bold]

    The House of Lords Information Office http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/hoflbpmembership.pdf states that:
    Letters Patent are issued by the Queen. Recipients become Members of the House automatically when Letters Patent are received. They can then be written to at the House of Lords, using their new title of Lord or Baroness. They cannot sit or vote until after their introduction.
    This clearly establishes that membership of the House of Lords is granted by Letters Patent. Also that membership and the entitlement to sit or vote are not one and the same thing. It is possible to be a member but not have the right to sit or vote. In fact all members of the House of Lords necessarily spend some time in this state.

    I found further information, mostly in Hansard, confirming the above, but I think that is enough.

  278. Louise and Mike Jonas:

    This is the second thread on WUWT that trolls have dragged into an irrelevant cul-de-sac during the past week, and I would appreciate suggestions on how to stop them doing it.

    Louise, I stated a fundamental point of the British Constitution. My personal opinion has nothing to do with whether or not Chris Monckton is a Member of the House of Lords. Only the monarch can decide that. He obtained his Letters Patent by inheritance from his father. The Queen did not then revoke his Letters Patent so she has decided he is a Member of the House of Lords. Hence, it is a matter of Constitutional Law that he is a Member of the House of Lords and nobody’s opinion can affect that in any way. My post explained this in as clear and non-technical a manner as I could manage.

    Indeed, Mike Jonas confirms the pertinent facts which I stated in my post with a link to them provided by the House of Lords when he writes:

    “The House of Lords Information Office http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/hoflbpmembership.pdf states that:
    “Letters Patent are issued by the Queen. Recipients become Members of the House automatically when Letters Patent are received. They can then be written to at the House of Lords, using their new title of Lord or Baroness. They cannot sit or vote until after their introduction.”
    This clearly establishes that membership of the House of Lords is granted by Letters Patent. Also that membership and the entitlement to sit or vote are not one and the same thing. It is possible to be a member but not have the right to sit or vote. In fact all members of the House of Lords necessarily spend some time in this state.”

    Yes, Mike, and that distinction between Membership of the House and the right to sit and vote in the House is important. The 92 peers elected to sit and vote in the House are elected by and from all the heriditary peers. Hence, those Members of the House choose the 92 of them who will sit and vote in the House. If they were not Members of the House then it would be a nonsense for them alone to decide which of them could sit and vote.

    So, Louise and all other trolls. STOP WAVING THIS RED HERRING. It has no relevance of any kind to the subject of this thread. In addition to the logical falacy of ‘red herring’, it is also the logical falacy of ‘poisoning the well’, and it demonstrates that you know and understand nothing about that on which you post.

    In conclusion, I ask all others to ignore further daft and uninformed comments concernig this red herring.

    Richard

    PS Mike, as a point of interest for you, the distinction between Membership and the right to sit and vote also applies in the House of Commons. A Member of that House cannot sit and vote until after he/she swears an oath of loyalty to the Crown. During the recent ‘troubles’ Irish republicans were elected to Parliament but refused to take the oath so they were Members of the House of Commons (and were provided with offices in the House) but had no right to sit or vote in the House.

  279. Richard S Courtney

    The House Of Lords Act 1999, precludes Monckton and many other peers from sitting and voting in the House Of Lords.

    The Queen may not have revoked his Letters Patent, but she did give the House of Lords Act 1999, Royal Assent on 11 Novenber 1999.

    Based on that Royal Assent, The Queen says Monckton is not a member of the House Of Lords.

    Get over it.

    You may take your Red Herring and place it where the sun don’t shine.

  280. Patrick Davis says:
    July 22, 2011 at 8:46 am

    “SteveE says:
    July 22, 2011 at 6:27 am”

    So, with all the walking you do, exhaling at least 40,000ppm/v CO2, do you think you are contributing to catastrophic climate change via YOUR carbon footprint? Or is CAGW just via energy consumption by humans? Because we can prove all human activity and emissions of “GHG” are dwarfed by insects, rain forrests, volcanos, oceans…yadda yadda yadda…I just want to know where you stand in terms of sources of GHG’s, that ~3% of ~390ppm/v p/a of which ~50% “disappears”. Just asking.

    ———————

    This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues – roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

    These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

    Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it’s a carbon cycle, not a straight line – and a good thing, too!

    Buring fossil fuels is returning to the atmosphere carbon that was taken out of the cycle millions of years ago.

    Hope that helps your understanding of the Carbon cycle, as you clearly didn’t understand it when you were taught it at school. Any other questions please just ask.

  281. SteveE:

    You assert that “There are many determinations of climate sensitivity based on measurements and observations.” This assertion is false.

    The “climate sensitivity” is more properly known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity.” It is the increase in the equilibrium temperature from a doubling of the CO2 concentration. As the equilibrium temperature is not an observable, the equilibrium climate sensitivity cannot be measured or observed.

  282. Mike Jonas: “The House of Lords Information Office…“Letters Patent are issued by the Queen. Recipients become Members of the House automatically when Letters Patent are received”.
    This clearly establishes that membership of the House of Lords is granted by Letters Patent.”

    No it doesn’t. Read the quote in context. Immediately before your quote above is this comment setting out the process of becoming a member of the House of Lords.

    “The Announcement is made by No. 10 Downing Street…that certain people are to become Members of the House. Before anyone becomes a Member, a title has to be agreed, and documents—the Writ of Summons and Letters Patent—prepared.”

    The automatic right to become a member on receipt of Letters Patent refers to life peers, who are also chosen to become members. You must be a peer in order to be a member, but not all peers are members. Monckton belongs in this latter category.

    The document you cite also notes: “Members no longer pass on sitting and voting rights to their offspring when they die, although a small proportion of hereditary Members remains…”

    Clearly, “sitting” and “voting” are activities that comprise membership. If you don’t have the right to sit and vote, you are not a member.

    Also refer to: “The changing membership of the Lords…1999 House of Lords Act [r]emoves all except 92 hereditary peers from the House”.

  283. URKidding, Brendan H and other daft trolls:

    The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy.
    The Crown provides Letters Patent.
    Only the Crown can revoke Letters Patent.
    The Crown has not revoked any Letters Patent.
    It matters not one jot what some flunky wrote because the opinion of anybody does not and cannot overcome the decision of the Crown in a Constitutional Monarchy.

    If one of you had bothered to borrow the family brain cell and had used it then you could have worked this out for yourself before posting nonsense.

    But I suppose some smear blog such as DeSmogBlog or SkepticalScience or etc. posted the lie that heriditary peers are no longer Members of the House of Lords as a method to demean Lord Monckton. Those sites rely on moronic fools picking up their lies and spreading them.

    Stop spreading the lie here as a method to destroy this thread.

    Richard.

  284. Richard S Courtney said “This is the second thread on WUWT that trolls have dragged into an irrelevant cul-de-sac during the past week, and I would appreciate suggestions on how to stop them doing it.“.

    Blatant trolls do get sin-binned sometimes, but I would say that WUWT is much more open and democratic than certain other sites and tends to give quite a lot of leeway. People (including trolls) submit comments. Others read the comments and form their own opinions. When factual information and good analysis are posted, the trolls won’t change their views, but others hopefully will. It is frustrating at times, but IMHO you just have to trust the general readership’s intelligence.

    At a higher level, if a website bars comments it doesn’t like then people eventually realise that and go elsewhere, leaving the site with only true believers. Hence WUWT’s success.

    Will the general readership here believe that if someone is not able to sit and vote in the House of Lords then they are not a member, or will they believe that if someone has Letters Patent and the right to vote on who sits and votes in the House of Lords then maybe they really are a member? I don’t know. I don’t even know what I believe, other than that I can’t assume the former because of powerful evidence in favour of the latter. To argue that the Clerk of the Parliaments or anyone else says the former is in the end only an appeal to authority and does not address the basic issue, which is that the general legislation of the House of Lords Act 1999 cannot change or annul Letters Patent. There are sufficient logical or factual errors in comments here supporting the former, that the evidence in favour of the latter has not been overturned

    Example 1: Brendan H’s last comment quotes “Before anyone becomes a Member, a title has to be agreed, and documents—the Writ of Summons and Letters Patent—prepared“. This does not prove that Lord Monckton is not a member, because Lord Monckton does indeed have Letters Patent, and it is the Letters Patent not the writ of summons that confers membership (the HoL document continues: “The Writ of Summons … is the document which calls the Member to the House and then acts as their ‘entry ticket’.“, ie. they are a member before they get the writ of summons.).

    Example 2: Brendan H’s last comment says “Clearly, “sitting” and “voting” are activities that comprise membership“, but that is the wrong way round. Membership can confer the right to sit and vote, but does not logically have to [think of organisations such as the US Congress that have non-voting members]. On the other hand, it is hard to believe that a non-member can have the right to vote on who can sit and vote.

    It looks like the UK government may have stuffed up on this, and hopefully it will get properly resolved before there is a constitutional crisis.

  285. Richard S Courtney said “This is the second thread on WUWT that trolls have dragged into an irrelevant cul-de-sac during the past week, and I would appreciate suggestions on how to stop them doing it.“.

    Blatant trolls should and do get sin-binned sometimes, but I would say that WUWT is much more open than certain other sites and tends to give quite a lot of leeway. People (including trolls) submit comments. Others read the comments and form their own opinions. When factual information and good analysis are posted, the trolls won’t change their views, but others hopefully will. It is frustrating at times, but IMHO you just have to trust the general readership’s intelligence.

    At a higher level, if a website bars comments it doesn’t like then people eventually realise that and go elsewhere, leaving the site with only true believers. Hence WUWT’s success.

  286. Richard S Courtney

    Well Richard, unlike your family, mine has a brain cell to borrow.

    And anyone who believes anything Monckton says, is incapable of believing the truth.

    Enjoy your herring.

  287. >>Patrick Davis says: July 22, 2011 at 8:18 am

    >>Never seen “scientific” papers, originally, written in Greek, or any other
    >>early language than Arabic. Reason, Arabic language very is specific
    >>in terms. Think Algebra. NOT explored in Greek or Latin until after
    >>the event.

    Come off it.

    Geometric algebra goes back to the Greeks, while formula algebra goes back to the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta. Nothing to do with Arabic.

    .

  288. >>Mike Jonas says: July 23, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    >>Blatant trolls should and do get sin-binned sometimes, but I would
    >>say that WUWT is much more open than certain other sites and tends
    >>to give quite a lot of leeway. People (including trolls) submit comments.

    There are no trolls on WUWT, just posters that Richard does not like, because they point out the flaws in his arguments.

    Perhaps Richard would like to explain why fractured coal seams are good for the UK coal industry.

    .

  289. “Ralph says:
    July 24, 2011 at 3:02 am”

    A quick visit to Wikipedia would support your post, but it isn’t entirely accurate IMO. What you are suggesting is that the instrument used to find Mecca, was derived from the Sextant, and not the other way? I guess the point I am trying to make is that Arabic STANDARDISED the science, because of very specific language, and took it forward.

  290. Brendan H says:
    July 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm
    “She can disolve parliment if she so chose.”

    On her own cognisance? I doubt it.

    That is the difference between opinion (yours) and research. She has that power. Although rarely exercised, it still belongs to her (or him when her son or grandson suceeds her). In matters of royalty, she has full discretion (thus who gets to be called Lord or Lady, and what they are entitled to do with that title).

  291. Mike Jonas:

    I undertand the point you make in your post at July 23, 2011 at 3:14 pm. But the problem remains.

    The trolls can now strike up another win on WUWT.
    They have hijacked this thread onto meaningless and irrelevant discussion of a minor point of UK Constitutional Law which they clearly know as much about as ‘Ralph’ knows about the history of the UK coal industry (i.e. nothing).
    Do those issues have anything to do with the subjects of the threads they have side-tracked into nothingness? No, none, not any.

    So, this red-herring ploy is proving a successful tactic for the trolls of WUWT, and I repeat that I would welcome suggestions on how to deal with it.

    Richard

Comments are closed.