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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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
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.
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.
Brendan H says:
July 21, 2011 at 2:08 am
“I’m not arguing bone fides.” (sic)
Coulda fooled me.☺
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.
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
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.
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
MoncktonGoreapologistsacolytes 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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
[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.
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?
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.
R. Gates says:
July 21, 2011 at 9:55 pm
And how many peer reviewed papers has Al Gore written?
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.
@ur momisugly 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?
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.