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.
Mike Jonas: I can assure you that this issue is far from simple.”
The general intention of the legislation seems relatively straight-forward: “In the Queen’s Speech for the 1998–99 Session, it was announced that: “A Bill will be introduced to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.”
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/House%20of%20Lords%20Reform%201997-2010%20-%2028%20%20June%202010.pdf
The details and potential outcomes will be a lot more complex, but the general intention can be stated fairly briefly, and understood without too much background.
Brendan H – The intention of the legislation is not the issue.
I was surprised that the brilliant cancer analogy by emmenjayMichael J apparently did not remind anyone (besides me) of an infamous joke.
Physician: I’m afraid that I have some bad news. The tests that I just ran indicate that you’re at extremely high risk for a heart attack in the very near future. I’ve scheduled a triple by-pass operation for you for tomorrow morning. I’ll be doing the surgery myself, and it will cost you 100 thousand dollars.
Patient: Hey, wait a minute. I think that I need a second opinion before I make any decision.
Physician: You want a second opinion? I’ll give you one. You’re ugly too.
>>Phil Clarke says: July 21, 2011 at 2:31 pm
>>More germane are the 125 separate errors of fact and logic
>> in (Monckton’s peer reviewed) article.
Now this has to be the most stupid and nit-picking analysis of a scientific paper there has ever been. The review starts off with criticisms of how Monckton has ‘distorted the IPCC report’. How so? Well, Monckton wrote:
a. ‘more than half’ instead of ‘most’. (‘most’, by definition is ‘more than half’)
b. “probably” instead of ‘likely’ (the first synonym for ‘probably’ in my book is ‘likely’)
c. ‘past 50 years’ instead of ‘since the mid 20th century: (the mid 20th century is just over 50 years ago)
d. ‘global warming’ for ‘observed increase in global average temperatures’ (the global increase in temperatures is commonly known as Global Warming, or has the reviewer never heard of that term?)
I think the reviewer needs to take an English course first, and then concentrate on the science. And I would give the reviewer an ‘E-‘ for not knowing the difference between a speech-mark and a quote-mark. How dare the reviewer comment on the English, when his/her grasp of English is sadly lacking? Even better, perhaps all scientific papers should be in Latin, as they used to be, and then we will see who understands languages better !!
.
WOW! Thank you for posting this!!
Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
R. Gates:
If your opinion has been formed by reading “hundreds of papers over many decades,” I don’t see how you managed to misunderstand Monckton’s remarks at 41:10. He did leave something out and somewhat muddle the whole thing, but I knew what he was talking about, and I think anyone who was familiar with some basics would know. I understood him well enough that I did not even notice that anything was wrong until I listened carefully after you had complained about 41:10.
Ralph – all your ‘nitpicks’ are in a single error, Smith himself describes one as inconsequential, however taken together and with the point that Monckton conflates CO2 with all GHGs, which you glossed over, the sense of the IPCC quote is pretty well mangled, which was the point.
Are you comfortable with Monckton confusing feedbacks and forcings, arbitrarily halving an input term to his global equation based on a land-only study [error 28] and quoting text that is not actually from the cited paper (etc, etc, etc)?
Yes she does. you would be surprised at the power the monarchy has (it is a monarchy after all). She can disolve parliment if she so chose. Over time, exercising all of her powers has become “politically incorrect”, but the power is hers and Parliment recognizes it as well as understands that unless the Monarch cedes those powers, they are retained. While I am not a scholar on the British Governing system, I am not wholly ignorant of how it works. A little Binging would bring you the answers you are searching for.
But enough on his Title and peerage, as many have said, it is irrelevant. The topic is the debate, and Lord Monckton carried himself very well – enough to win the debate in a hostile environment.
“Ralph says:
July 22, 2011 at 1:07 am”
Scientific papers used to be written in Arabic.
Dennis: There exists “overwhelming evidence of catastrophic risks of climate change”
Is he talking about dinosaur bones?
Dennis made a valiant attempt to cheese off not only the warmists but also the herbalist, most of whom would send you back to the chemotherapy doctor. Some of the chemotherapy drugs are derived from their herbs. He also tried to insult those studying vaccine problems. There is some statistical evidence that some vaccines do have bad side effects.That why they were withdrawn and replaced with new ones and why the industry is always looking for a safer vaccine mix. if that’s all he has all is lost for the warmists.
PhilJourdan says:
July 21, 2011 at 11:44 am
No I didn’t, although one of the questions in the debate was on his status as a member of the Lords.
Ralph says:
July 21, 2011 at 11:02 am
>>Patrick Davis says: July 21, 2011 at 7:15 am
>>“SteveE says: July 21, 2011 at 6:49 am”
>>Curious. A 2hr commute from London? 2 hours each way?
Easy. You are not a member of the London commute set, are you?
If you add the tube and the walk to the station, it can easily be 2 hours. I used to do 1.5 hrs, just from Redhill !! (They took the direct train away from us.)
Any conscientious Greenie should live in the City, to stop all those emissions. However, a good Greenie also likes to live in the countryside, because they like to live ‘in tune with nature’. Ahhh, the dichotomies of being a Green eh? “Listen to what I preach, and not what I do…”
————-
I never said I was a “greenie” as you put it, and I’ve never preached as to what you or anyone should do. You seem to be talking as much rubbish as Monckton does!
>>Patrick Davis says: July 22, 2011 at 4:44 am
>>Scientific papers used to be written in Arabic.
Nonsense. Most ‘Muslim’ scientists were Persian, and so they would have been in Farsi. And most ‘Muslim’ scientists were not Muslim, for that is an oxymoron. Most were Ishmaeli, Sufi, or Zoroastran, or even Agnostic Persians, like Omah Khayyam.
Besides, if you wish to go back in time, most scientific papers were in Greek.
.
Shame, if you had you would have seen him admonish the reporter for breaking the rules, and then claim a “free kick” in which he changed the subject back to the topic and made a good point (which he would not have been able to make since no one was going to lob a floater in front of him).
“Ralph says:
July 22, 2011 at 7:53 am”
Never seen “scientific” papers, originally, written in Greek, or any other early language than Arabic. Reason, Arabic language very is specific in terms. Think Algebra. NOT explored in Greek or Latin until after the event.
Re R Gates, Monkton says that the equivalent of a near doubling of co2 has occurred, according to the ipcc. That includes other [a]ir absorbing gases beside carbon dioxide.
“SteveE says:
July 22, 2011 at 6:27 am”
So, with all the walking you do, exhaling at least 40,000ppm/v CO2, do you think you are contributing to catastrophic climate change via YOUR carbon footprint? Or is CAGW just via energy consumption by humans? Because we can prove all human activity and emissions of “GHG” are dwarfed by insects, rain forrests, volcanos, oceans…yadda yadda yadda…I just want to know where you stand in terms of sources of GHG’s, that ~3% of ~390ppm/v p/a of which ~50% “disappears”. Just asking.
Except for the signs that Monckton has clearly hit a nerve with journalists when demanding that they “do their homework”, and that this should have ongoing benefits, it is foolish to rest on the basis that he won this debate.
He, quite correctly, dwelt on the science, and what he had to say was clear and correct.
Richard Denniss, right from the start, completely ignored the science, simply repeating ad nauseum the “consensus” story, supported by anecdote which was plausible to people with closed minds.
Except for the very substantial benefit that some more intelligent journalists will now do more “homework” and discover that Monckton’s views are founded in sound facts, I don’t see this “debate” as likely to change old prejudices.
In reply to Brian’s comment:
Brian says:
July 22, 2011 at 9:42 am
William says:
July 22, 2011 at 7:39 am
In reply to Brian`s comment:
“Climategate” scientist have been CLEARED.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/08/muir-russell-climategate-climate-science
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404001.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/climategate-scientists-cleared-yet-again-story-ignored-media-again.php
Stop slandering people. Please.
Does being found not guilty not mean anything anymore in this country?
Geez.
Brian,
OJ was found not guilty. What does that mean?
Let’s discuss the science and the facts concerning the Climategate investigation. Did the climate gate investigation review the scientific validity of the Hockey Stick paper?
Stating something in capital letters does not make it correct. What is your point? Are you stating that the conclusions of the Hockey Stick paper – That the Mediaeval Warm Period and Little Ice Age did not exist are valid? Are stating that the scientific methods which were used to create the Hockey Stick paper are valid?
The Hockey Stick paper and graph are plastered throughout the extreme AGW sites. Why?
Perhaps you do not understand the technical or propaganda point of the Hockey Stick paper. By cherry picking data to make the Medieval warm period and Little Ice age go away a Hockey Stick is created which makes it appear planetary temperature is constant and then abruptly increases due to increases in atmospheric CO2.
It is not scientifically valid to splice on 20th century instrumentation temperature readings to a tree ring proxy temperature series. If the specific tree ring data is continued into the twentieth century it widely disagrees with instrument temperature readings. That makes sense as the tree rings size in that series does not correlate with temperature and is not a valid proxy for temperature.
The fact that the specific tree ring data that does not correlate with temperature and appears to make the Mediaeval warm period and Little Ice age disappear was selected for the Hockey Stick paper to me is obvious indication that the authors are biased. The fact that the same group of researchers corresponded to requesting the deletion of protected emails to me provides support for the assertion there is the appearance of a conspiracy to support the extreme AGW agenda.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
I agree with the writer of this blog. To me the climategate emails provides support for the assertion that there is the appearance of a conspiracy to “exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.”
Quote:
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
From the website of the House of Lords at http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
“Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.
In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said “Yes, but without the right to sit or vote”. You later repeated, “I am a Member of the House”.
I must repeat my predecessor’s statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:
“In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to ‘a member of the House of Lords’ is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage.”
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote”.
I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.
David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments
15 July 2011″
Mike Jonas: “The intention of the legislation is not the issue.”
If you were required to give an “elevator speech”, the intention of the legislation would serve very well: “A Bill will be introduced to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. It will be the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative.”
So the legislative intention is very much the issue. And without that intention and its aftermath, we wouldn’t be having this debate.
PhilJourdain: “Yes she does. you would be surprised at the power the monarchy has (it is a monarchy after all).”
Not all monarchies are equal. The UK Monarchy is a constitutional one, and therefore the powers are constrained.
“She can disolve parliment if she so chose.”
On her own cognisance? I doubt it. Keep in mind the previous comment: “The Sovereign/Monarch governs according to the constitution – that is, according to rules, rather than according to his or her own free will.”
Now compare “if she so chose” with that comment. The comment rules out the exercise of the Monarch’s personal choice, so it’s doubtful that she could unilaterally override legislation to establish her own preference.
Brendan H:
In the probably forlorn hope that this will stop you and others waving the Red Herring concerning Lord Monckton’s status, I provide you with the following information.
The UK is a Constitutional Monarchy with all rights invested in the Crown and the monarch shares thos rights with the people and with Parliament. The monarch wears the Crown.
All peerages are gifts of the Crown. And the Crown is the supreme authority of the State. Hence, a peerage cannot be invested and cannot be revoked by any person, or any persons, or any body, or any institution except the Crown.
It matters not one jot what any individual or instituion (including Parliament) says about the status of a peerage. Only the Crown can give or take away the status of a peerage.
There are two forms of Peerage: viz. the Lords Temporal and the Lords Secular.
The Lords Secular are of two types: viz. heriditary and life.
A life peerage ceases when the person invested with it dies.
When a person with an heriditary peerage dies then that peerage is inherited by the eldest son of the deceased.
Lord Monckton (who happens to be a friend of mine) is a Viscount and he inherited this peerage from his late father.
The House of Lords is the assembly of all the Lords Temporal and Secular, and it forms the Upper House of Parliament.
Hence, all those – including Lord Monckton – who have a peerage are Members of the House of Lords.
In 1999 both Houses of Parliament agreed that only 92 of the heriditary Lords would be allowed to sit and vote in the House of Lords. (This was brokered on behalf of Tony Blair, then PM, by Paddy Tipping, then MP for Nottingham Sherwood, who happens to be a friend of mine.) Those 92 would be elected from among their fellow heriditary Lords. The crown gave the Royal Assent to this agreement. But that Assent did not repeal the peerages and/or any other rights of any heriditary peers.
Hence, those heriditary peers who are not elected to sit and vote in the House of Lords remain as being Lords of the Realm and Members of the House of Lords. Lord Monckton is one of these. And if you want to dispute that he is one of these then petition HM Queen Elizabeth II because she wears the Crown so only she can change it.
Those are the facts of the matter with which you have tried to disrupt this thread. And they have no relevance to the subject of this thread SO LET THAT BE AN END TO THE MATTER.
Richardl
For SteveE – July 20, 2011 at 11:43 am
You are a victim of serious misinformation. First Monckton is even too generous with IPCC and allows them greater temperature rise than satellite data actually contain. According satellite data there was only one short spurt of warming in the last 31 years of observations. It started with the super El Nino of 1998, in four years raised global temperature by a third of a degree, and then stopped. It was a step warming of oceanic origin, and must not be included in the general temperature curve. There was no warming before this and none after it despite what Gistemp and HadCRUT3 tell us because both of these temperature curves are cooked. My book “What Warming?“ shows graphically how it was done. Global temperature curve also includes the ENSO oscillation of warm El Ninos and cool La Ninas alternating within a five year cycle. The average of these oscillations in the eighties and nineties stayed the same, yielding a horizontal straight line as the average temperature of these twenty years. Another horizontal straight line but a third of degree higher starts in 2002. It is still going on. These two horizontal lines are separated by the step warming. This leaves no room for any anthropogenic warming for the last thirty-one years during which satellites have been recording global temperature. The claims of absurd temperature rises from IPCC suffer first and foremost from conflict with real world observations I pointed out. Their theory is also defective because they use an incorrect method of calculating radiative forcing that gives values that are [too] high for greenhouse warming. THIS IS AN ERROR THAT HAS PROPAGATED ITSELF THROUGH SEVERAL IPCC REPORTS. But its significance is made moot by the work of Ferenc Miskolczi who studied the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he determined that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs did not change for 61 years. During that same time carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that addition of all this carbon dioxide had no influence whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed. This neatly explains why satellites cannot see any greenhouse warming. It also tells us that the sensitivity of temperature to doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration in the air is exactly zero.