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:
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.
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.
>>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…”
.
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.
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.
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
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
>>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.
.
R. Gates says:
July 21, 2011 at 10:14 am
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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……