Lord Monckton wins National Press Club debate on climate

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

Steve E. Really what for example is rubbish?

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.

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.

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].

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oh wow, I need to come back to see that in full!

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

Ah, if only scientific truth were determined by who could win a debate.

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.

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?

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!

@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.

“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).

“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).

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.

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?

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.

@ 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.

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!

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……….

“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”
Was she the lady who was told to do her homework? She didn’t even bother to learn how to spell Deniss’ surname.

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.

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.

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.

Hey Diddle Fiddle….The Puppeteer controls Australia!
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/

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.

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?

A Mole: I have see Dr Singer talk he is very good.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!)

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.)

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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

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…”

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

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.

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.

really does have a coronet and clock on !
should of course be
really does have a coronet and cloak on !

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!

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

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

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

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?

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.

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?

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:

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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’?

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:
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/MaunaLoaCO2.png
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?

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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…

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.

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.