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.
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!
I’d love to watch a five member team debate. It would be about 2 hours long and moderated by Judith Curry. The skeptic team would consist of Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Fred Singer. The warmists team would consist of Joe Romm, Michael Oppenheimer, James Hansen, Michael Mann and Ben Santer.
Which side do you suppose would win that debate?
@ur momisugly SteveE:
Here’s a WUWT thread on Monckton vs. Abraham:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/
Here’s the first video in a series of videos titled “Monckton Refutes Abraham”:
http://www.youtube.com/user/cfact#p/u/26/Z00L2uNAFw8
R. Gates says:
July 20, 2011 at 10:46 am
Ah, if only scientific truth were determined by who could win a debate.
————————————————————————
Funny, R Gates, for over a decade now your fellow warmists have been telling us to believe you have the “scientific truth” because the debate is over. So I’m glad to hear a warmist like yourself admit that for the nonsense it always was.
And @Steve E: if he spouts such rubbish all the time, then it would be the easiest thing in the world to defeat him in a debate not to mention actually offer up an example of said rubbish (whcih you’ve spectacularily failed to do)
@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.
Philip Thomas: The Sydney Morning Herald has their own take on the debate – and don’t disclose the results: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oh-lord-theres-a-climate-sceptic-in-the-house-20110720-1hnvz.html
There’s no doubt that Monckton is a master debater, although it’s not clear how the result of this debate came about.
Of perhaps equal interest is the SMH’s report on Monckton’s response to the House of Lords demand that Monckton stop claiming to be a member of the British upper house.
Monckton’s response was to produce his passport which states: ”The holder is the right honourable Christopher Walter Viscount Monckton of Brenchley”.
Monckton then claimed: ”The House of Lords says I am not a member of it. My passport says I am. Get used to it!”
But his passport says no such thing, only that he is a “right honourable” and a “viscount”.
The SMH article points out that, in the UK, hereditary peers are no longer guaranteed a seat in the House of Lords.
So there are two issues here:
1. Monckton’s peerage
2. Monckton’s right to sit in the House of Lords.
Monckton defends (2) by pointing to (1). But nowadays they are not the same.
Whether or not this exchange is indicative of Monckton’s general style of debate, on this matter I think it pays to be sceptical of his claims.
“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).
Nigel Harris says:
July 20, 2011 at 10:32 am
Bill Illis –
“Has any pro-AGW person ever explained how they get to 3.0C per doubling?”
I think section 8.6 of WG1 of IPCC AR4 report is what you’re looking for.
———————-
Some climate models (with an average of 3.7 watts/m2 of direct forcing) and an average of 2.0 watts/m2 of feedbacks result in 3.0C per doubling?
The Stefan Boltzmann equation says that would get us to 1.1C. Where does the rest of the warming come from?.
“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).
Of course Monckton can win a debate – because he has absolutely no qualms about lying. If you’re unconstrained by truth, and you say what you like with a smile, then sure – debate away.
You know who else won lots of debates? Duane Gish.
First point Monckton makes is – once again – that the IPCC:
> says that the climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic object, so that the prediction of future climate states is not possible.
He’s been making this claim again and again and again, despite the fact that that is **not** what the IPCC says.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/monckton_uses_a_sock_puppet.php
So what do you call someone who knowingly says something that is not true?
So – how long does it take Monckton to make this claim, and how long does it take to rebut? Answers on a postcard.
Has he owned up to not being a member of the House of Lords yet?
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.
You can google the rest, there’s plenty of articles rubbishing Moncktons arguements.
Brendan H. Jones II,
Lord Monckton won the debate. Get used to it.
Yes, ultimately the truth will result from who wins the debate with an audience of scientists. Not that the scientists will vote to arrive at a consensus but rather that they will be convinced based on the strength of the data and scientific argument.
Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend Dr. Fred Singer’s presentation at NIST in Boulder, CO. To a mostly empty auditorium, most of the audience was from NIST and not NOAA, Dr. Singer presented his arguments to the contrary of “accepted” AGW. This is totally anecdotal but it seemed that a significant fraction of the audience understood the correctness of Singer’s message.
Dr. Singer handled every question with dignity and with data on his side. The audience clearly could see that the AGW side engaged in deception and faulty arguments. Almost an admission of defeat, the last warmest question was something like, “Well even if the models are wrong, shouldn’t we do something in case they might be right?”
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 11:43 am
the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been accelerating (not linear)
I believe the point the viscount was making was that the effect of increased CO2 is logarithmic, and as such, even if the CO2 level is accelerating the increase in temperature would only be linear. This is why even the IPCC talks of increase in temperature per doubling of CO2.
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.
paul revere says:
July 20, 2011 at 9:46 am
The silence from SteveE is deafening.
————–
I have a 2 hour commute from London…
@ur momisugly 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.
“emmenjayMichael J says:
July 20, 2011 at 9:59 am
A slight re-work of Dr Denniss’ cancer analogy. ”
Michael . . . that is a brilliant riff . .send it Monckton . ..
SteveE says:
July 20, 2011 at 11:50 am
You can google the rest, there’s plenty of articles rubbishing Moncktons arguements.
Which are utter rubbish, of course. But, enough trash talk. Monckton won handily, both because the facts are on his side and because he has an excellent understanding of them as well as a razor sharp mind. The Warmists don’t stand much of a chance in any debate against skeptics/climate realists, but they sent in a trained monkey armed with a squirt gun against a lion, who first ate his lunch, then had him for lunch.
@ur momisugly Dave H,
quoting from a site that intentional[ly] distorts the truth doesn’t hold much weight with most clear thinking people.
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!
Steve E, Brendan H, Dave H, R Gates, Hans Molemans, etc.
I feel your pain, and I sympathise.
There has been another public debate of your belief in AGW. As in all such previous debates, your belief has been refuted and independent onlookers saw both the merits of the refutation and the lack of merit in your belief.
That hurts and I can offer you no salve for the hurt.
I know you and others who share – or promote – your delusion try to prevent such debates but similar debates will happen in future. The pain you now suffer will assuage with time but it will return the next time there is such a debae of your belief.
However, I can suggest a solution to your problem. Recognise that your superstitious belief in AGW is a delusion that is refuted by all – yes, all – empirical evidence: the cause of your pain will go away and your pain will not recur.
Richard
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……….