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.
Monckton smoked him. All the poor guy could come up with was ‘concensus’ and ‘insurance sales’.
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?
Oh, I almost forgot, the good Richard Denniss put the C back back into CAGW, by mentioning something about catastrophic consequences.
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.
Better yet, R Gates….[This offensive comment has now been removed. R Gates, we apologise for letting it appear in the first place. savethesharks – please keep all comments on topic with no personal abuse. – mod]
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.
savethesharks says:
July 20, 2011 at 10:44 pm
[offensive comment by savethesharks, now removed]
——–
Well, I’ve not heard a sufficient answer yet as to what the good Lord was referring to in his suggestion that we’ve seen a near doubling of CO2 since 1750. Go to 41:10 of the debate and listen. And as far as me being “cowardly”, I’d gladly debate him, but again, it would be about as meaningful as his debate versus an economist. And 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.
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.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/ocean-carbon-sink-henrys-law.html
Mr Gates. Carbon Dioxide is a lag indicator of temperature not a cause
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’?
My Lord, you are now the KING.
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?
R Gates:
Having failed in all your earlier silly assertions concerning Monckton and his arguments, you assert (at July 20, 2011 at 11:22 pm ) that he “suggested”;
“we’ve seen a near doubling of CO2 since 1750”.
This was a repeat of the false assertion which you made at July 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm where you wrote;
“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). “
Your error in these assertions is that you fail to understand the difference between “CO2” and “CO2 equivalence”.
Monckton was making a verbal paraphrase of a point often made by others who include myself and Richard Lindzen.
Lindzen’s most recent statement (i.e. on 15 January 2011) of this that I have seen is in his article at
http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2229-richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action.html
where he says;
“According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. ”
etc.
Among your other spurious assertions above, you wrongly asserted that Monckton should be ignored because (you wrongly asserted) that Monckton has not published in the peer reviewed literature.
Do you want to wrongly assert that Lindzen has not published in the peer reviewed literature, too?
Or will you apologise for your mistake?
Richard
>>Wayne Richards says: July 20, 2011 at 11:01 pm
>>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.
Not quite right. The UK Labour party actually banned these hereditary peers from Westminster, no matter when they inherited the title.
And you can see their point here. Here was a socialist-communist party, desperately trying to pass laws to destroy the nation, and you have an upper house filled not only with patriots – but patriots with an education ten times more advanced than any Labour supporter, who can knock their deranged argument for a six. The only option for these socialist-communists was to destroy the Lords, in order to continue with their destruction of the nation. Perhaps you can see why the Lords are not going down without a fight.
I am not to well up on Aussie politics, but it looks like you have the same cabal of traitors over there too.
.
I may not like his flashier stunts, and even some arguments of his, but I do recognize the man knows how to twist some arms.
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.
PhilJourdan: “Monckton clearly stated (at the outset) and has made clear that he is NOT a sitting member of the House of Lords, but he IS a member of the house of Lords.”
Not according to a letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments addressed specifically to Monckton, and asking “…that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication”.
Further: “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.”
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
I don’t think you could get a clearer statement than that. The House of Lords is very clearly of the view that Monckton is not a member, and also cites a legal precedent to that affect.
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”.
That’s a keeper. Thanks!
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 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. Even if it was predictable that warming continues and humans are causing it partially, that does not equate a fatal disease. Warming of the climate may have many different consequences, some of which may be desirable, maybe others not so. But none will be fatal to the human race in any way. The idea that warming must necessarily have catastrophic consequences is conjecture by political interest group. The majority of scientists, even those that predict warming, say no such thing.
Second the remedy. As opposed to cancer treatment, which is proven to work in many cases, the supposed remedy against “climate change” is unproven. There is no evidence whatsoever that the human race has the power to willfully manipulate world climate. Even if all the mechanisms supposed by the global warming scare were true, it does not follow that humanity has the power to reverse them.
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.
tokyoboy:
At July 21, 2011 at 12:57 am you ask;
“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?”
I offer the following “clue” some of which I have previously posted on WUWT.
Variations in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 above about 200 ppmv have so small an effect on global temperature that they cannot be discerned from the ‘noise’ of other effects on the global temperature.
This is because the greenhouse effect (GHG) operates as follows.
The Earth’s surface is heated by the Sun and the heated surface loses this heat. One of the ways the surface loses heat is to emit heat radiation (i.e. infra red radiation, IR). This IR is energy.
Some of the IR from the surface passes through the atmosphere to space. But CO2 in the air absorbs some of the IR from the surface and re-emits it as radiation in random directions. So, half the re-emitted energy goes up and half goes downwards. The re-emitted energy that goes downwards is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and heats it some more. Hence, the effect of CO2 in the air is to increase the Earth’s surface temperature by ‘catching’ some of the energy from the surface and ‘recirculating’ some of the energy it ‘catches’ back to the surface: i.e.
The Sun heats the surface by giving it energy,
The surface loses the energy from the Sun,
CO2 in the air returns some of the energy lost from the surface back to the surface.
Hence, the surface is inhibited in its ability to lose heat it gets from the Sun so is hotter than it would be without CO2 in the air.
The effect declines logarithmically because as each increment of CO2 is added to the air there is less IR from the surface available for additional CO2 to absorb.
The above explanation of the GHG is agreed and reported by the IPCC. But the IPCC uses a large ‘climate sensitivity’ for the effect of CO2 on global temperature. To be precise, the IPCC uses several values of ‘climate sensitivtiy’ as ‘fiddle factors’ to get their climate models to work.
An analogy for this logarithmic effect is paper over a window in a room. Light (i.e. radiated energy) enters the room through the window. A sheet of paper covering the glass absorbs some of the light from outside so prevents its entering the room (as CO2 absorbs some IR from the Earth’s surface and prevents it entering space). A second sheet of paper absorbs additional light so even less light enters the room. Consider that each sheet of paper absorbs half the light that falls on it (i.e. a ‘sensitivity’ of 50%, then the first sheet absorbs half the light that passes through the glass but the second sheet absorbs a quarter of the light that passes through the glass, etc. When 10 sheets cover the glass then an eleventh sheet makes little difference to how much light enters the room.
Similarly, the first 20 ppm of CO2 in the air absorbs much IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the first sheet of paper absorbs much of the light through the window). But the tenth 20 ppm of CO2 absorbs little IR from the Earth’s surface (just as the tenth sheet of paper absorbs little of the light through the window).
Of course, all of this ignores the other ways that heat is lost from the surface (i.e. evaporation and conduction) and ignores other ways that heat is inhibited from entering and leaving the surface (e.g. effects of clouds). And it ignores water vapour which is by far the most effective greenhouse gas (it absorbs over the entire IR spectrum but CO2 only absorbs the IR from the surface over two narrow bands of wavelength). And it ignores several other important factors.
These factors may enhance the effect of CO2 on global temperature (i.e. be a positive feedback”), or may inhibit the effect of CO2 on global temperature (i.e. be a negative feedback”).
The IPCC assumes the net effect of the feedbacks is positive but there are reasons to doubt this. And, importantly, the feedbacks must be positive to provide discernible global warming from additional CO2 in the air because the existing atmospheric CO2 concentration is ~390 ppmv so almost all the IR that CO2 can absorb is absorbed in the atmosphere.
Importantly, empirical studies do not suggest that the feedbacks are positive. For example, the 8 ‘natural experiments’ of Idso; see
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Idso_CO2_induced_Global_Warming.htm
He finds;
“Best estimate 0.10 C/W/m2. The corresponds to a temperature increase of 0.37 Celsius for a doubling of CO2.”
Also, please see my above post at July 21, 2011 at 1:12 am .
So, CO2 follows temperature at all time scales. This is because of two effects.
As I explain above, at levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration above 200 ppmv any variations in the concentration can only have trivial effect on temperature which is too small to be observable. And atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 390 ppmv
But variations in temperature significantly affect atmospheric CO2 concentration.
At longer time scales the effect of the temperature on CO2 is mostly because of exchange of CO2 between air and ocean. And at shorter time scales because of biological response to atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I hope this helps as a “clue”.
Richard
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.
The reason that opposition to the science Genetically Modified Crops is so popular while the same people so strongly support the science of Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) concerns the central leftist philosophy of the Green Movement. Following the dictums MMGW Western technology, civilization and its economy will be weakened and therefore the Left supports it. GM crops is a solution to population growth and strengthens the economy of the West thereby opposed by the Greens. It is not about Science or even being Green, it is about political goals.