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.
Ken Hall says:
July 21, 2011 at 2:57 am
I would like to sell you an Anomalymometer.
It comes equipped with no scale, and therefore no data can be read from it.
The computer model software enclosed will display the results, should you need to see something.
You have to trust me when I claim that the results my model produces from it are concensus.
You cannot afford the price tag, since it is in the $Billions. You’ll need a grant, which your government will fund you. Live long and prosper: The taxpayers will foot the bill.
Let’s clear up this issue of whether Monckton is an heriditary peer of the realm.
He is, just check the current list of peers..
http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/Roll%20of%20the%20Peerage.pdf
The other question is semantics. Is he entitled to sit in the House of Lords? The answer is yes he is entitled. I am not, not being a peer currently, but he is.
However, he is currently not elected to be a current sitting member. That is decided by voting of current sitting members when a vacancy arises, in the 92 heriditary peers allowed to sit at any one time. It is perfectly possible that Monckton could be elected to sit at some time in the future because he is entitled to do so, being a peer of the realm, whereas non-peers cannot ever be elected because they are not entitled to sit.
Alan.
Brendan H and Ralph:
Your discussion of whether or not Chris Mockton is a noble Lord and, therefore, is a Member of he House of Lords is an attempt to side-track discussion of the debate which is the subject of this thread.
Please take your ‘red herring’ elsewhere.
The debate was about the reality and magnitude of AGW together with consideration of the need for actions to avoid or mitigate AGW. It was NOT about whether or not Chris is a Lord (and, incidentally, he is).
Richard Dennis argued for acceptance of consensus and what that suggested should be done, but Lord Monkton argued for consideration of the implications of climate sensitivity and what that suggested should be done. So, this thread is about the performances of those two debators and the validity of their arguments concerning the asserted consensus, climate sensitivity, and what should be done about AGW.
I repeat, take your ‘red herring’ elsewhere.
Richard
SteveE says:
July 20, 2011 at 11:43 am
Steve, please carefully look at the charts found here:
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2
The author uses HADCRUT3 data to falsify the AGW/CAGW hypothesis. Even during the modern warming period, CO2 concentrations did not go hand in hand with increases in global temps as measured by HADCRUT3. While correlation does not prove causality, there must be correlation if there is causality.
Whatever effect CO2 has on global temps, it is easily swamped by other factors, many of which we know nothing about.
For those of us that live in Australia and suffering the repeated misrepresentation and downright lies perpetrated in the name of science, one thing that Lord Monckton did so well for us is set out the difference between carbon dioxide and the stuff that politicians continual hammer by endlessly repeating, Big polluters, carbon pollution, dirty carbon pollution, complete with background of steam issuing from stacks or cooling ponds.
He simply set out the difference in terms that anyone can understand between particulate emission and the benefits of the trace gas carbon dioxide. Also, that a carbon tax is a waste of our effort and industry and will achieve nothing in real terms except make Australia less competitive and put people out of work.
I am grateful for the clarity of his words, they expose the lies of our political opportunists and their green cohorts who resort to such deception to try and hold onto power and think they can fool the voters of Australia, who by the way are one step smarter and way ahead of them.
Brendan, you must have skipped over all the other posts that clearly show Monckton is a member of the House of Lords, just without sitting. He also clearly stated that the opinion of the Clerk of the House is irrelevant given the authority of the queen. But all of that is irrelevant since I am correct and you are wrong. He never said he was a “Sitting Member”. If you want to change the subject now, in light of the numerous responses demonstrating Monckton is correct, please direct your errors to them.
As for me, I can only thank god for a little thing called a revolution 235 years ago, and that I do not have to memorize mnemonics, or go around bowing to people because some fop could not keep his johnson in his pants.
Excellent point, Most non-medical people think that a “fever” is a sickness, when in fact the “fever” is merely the body fighting the sickness. in other words, it is a sign of healing. The analogy of CAGW and the human body is flawed on that level alone.
Brendan H says:
July 21, 2011 at 2:22 am
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.
One could, if one were prone to persuasion by your blatant use of the logical fallacies of the types known as the Red Herring as well as Poisoning the Well.
I know, I know, it’s a troll thing, and it’s all you’ve got, so I suppose you can’t be blamed.
R. Gates:
Monckton’s remarks at 41:10 are, in part, an abridged version of a well known argument by skeptics. Because he abridged it, it probably went over the heads of most of his audience. The temperature increase that should be expected from a doubling of the CO2 level is in the neighborhood of 1.1 C. or 1.5 C. (I forget), if there is no positive feedback. The increase without feedbacks is logarithmic, not linear. The 0.9 C. increase is approximately what the increase should be for the 40 percent increase of CO2 that has taken place since 1750, if there is no positive feedback. (This is not in dispute.) Apparently, then, there is no positive feedback, so we should expect an additional 0.2 C. or 0.7 C. by the time we have doubled the CO2 level.
He not only abridged the argument, but he mixed it in with evidence for a per-century warming. So his entire remarks at 41:10 were somewhat incoherent. However, the argument which he abridged is valid.
I apologize for not knowing the exact numbers.
Monckton was world class again. It would be nice to thank him in person some day, with some coldmartinis.
I thought it wise of him not to pursue the ‘red herring’ medical anology that his opponent offered up. Monckton is an experienced campaigner.
Christopher M, take care. Perhaps we are past ‘seeing the end of the beginning” in eliminating IPCC focused AGWist pseudo-science.
John
PhilJourdan says:
July 21, 2011 at 5:03 am
anorak2 says:
July 21, 2011 at 2:47 am
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.
Excellent point, Most non-medical people think that a “fever” is a sickness, when in fact the “fever” is merely the body fighting the sickness. in other words, it is a sign of healing. The analogy of CAGW and the human body is flawed on that level alone.
——
Are you suggesting that global warming is Earth’s own “fever” trying to get rid of the “virus” of humanity?
“KenB says:
July 21, 2011 at 4:57 am
…they can fool the voters of Australia, who by the way are one step smarter and way ahead of them.”
Over the years living in Australia and being exposed to “gutter” politics (IMO – like gutter press, The Sun, The News of The World type toilet paper tabloids), all the while not qualifying to be able to vote albeit a full taxpayer, I am not convinced Australian voters are *that* smart, voting maybe compulsory, but those ticking the boxes really DON’T have a clue of the concequences. An analogy I like about Australia, climate change and “carbon” taxes which is “Australians are asleep at the wheel.” Could not have said it better.
With reference to Monckton’s status as a Member of the House of Lords:
“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″
http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/
Seems he’s been caught talking rubbish again…
“SteveE says:
July 21, 2011 at 6:49 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.
Richard S Courtney ,
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.
Also, I’ve still not seen an actual peered reviewed piece of climate research put out by Lord Monckton. If someone wants to point the way to it, I’ll be glad to look at it. He claims to be an “expert” in climate sensitivity, so where is his research? More importantly, it seems the IPCC could use his expertise if he is such a leading authority in this area.
“SteveE says:
July 21, 2011 at 6:49 am
Are you suggesting that global warming is Earth’s own “fever” trying to get rid of the “virus” of humanity?”
LOL Funniest thing I have read in a while. In the oceans there are more viruses there, in the H2O, than all the viruses that affect land based creatures, including humans. There is more biomass represented by insects than all other creatures on this rock. Healthy forrests emit more CH4, and CO2, than ALL of human activity put together. Termites emit more CH4 thans ALL of human activity put together. Emissions of GHG from human activity is the pimple on the bum of a Blue Whale.
Tucci78
“Americans just don’t give a damn about the hereditary titles that are such a big frelking deal in the U.K. ”
I think that far fewer people in the UK think they are a big deal than you imagine. I am sure that most people with titles find that they are fawned over far more in the US than the UK.
Given that I’m British and, like most of the people I know, think that the whole peerage thing is silly, archaic nonsense at best, egregious at worse, Monckton still has the right to call himself a Lord, as much as anyone does.
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???
You have serious logic problems and a poor grasp of words such as science, relevance, facts, ad hominem, up, down.
Perhaps you should return, when you have corrected your own deficiencies, and worry less about a small defect in Lord Monckton’s title. GK
Brendan H says: Brendan H says:
July 21, 2011 at 2:16 am
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.
Brendan you argue against your own statement. Your orginal post said that he claimed he had the right to sit in the house of Lords. The below clearly says he does not have the right to sit in the house and he has “never pretended otherwise”. Now you say his claim is rejected by the House of Lords.
Lord Monckton:
“… a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”
So to be clearer Brendan please retract your statement concerning the right to sit in 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.
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.
NewBusters: The Global Warming Debate Al Gore Refused To Have
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/07/21/global-warming-debate-al-gore-refused-have
A. Mole July 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm:
This last is EXACTLY the result I’ve gotten every single time I’ve discussed this with anyone who knows things about this issue from main stream media articles and from TV. When they can’t argue the points themselves, they come back to the Pre-Cautionary Principle, “Well, shouldn’t we do something in CASE they are right?” A: That is a hypothetical, and B: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And make no mistake, CAGW IS an extraordinary proof. It is shameful that so many in science are willing to give them a pass on this.
As to the debate itself, Monckton time and time again brought in numbers, numbers, numbers, and references to specific scientists and specific papers. His appeal was for people to think for themselves, while Denniss always appealed to people to accept what those of authority said (which is basically like our parents saying, “Because I said so!”. Denniss had only one argument: Be afraid because these men of renown has said you should be afraid. He brought in no facts other than that there was a consensus. *
@Dale Rainwater. Dave July 20, 2011 at 11:33 am:
There is a debate with Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton.from 4 years ago at MIT, with three people on each side.* * The debate went essentially the same as this one. The warmists repeatedly appealed to authority, and they brought in far fewer facts. A poll of the audience was taken both before and after the debate. I don’t recall the exact numbers reported, but it was WAY heavy for the warmists beforehand and was a clear majority for the skeptical position afterward. The skeptics won, handily.
* That consensus, BTW, was first asserted in the 1980s, applied to only the attendees at one pro-AGW conference, and has been repeatedly claimed ever since. When looked at closely, the claim is much, much weaker than asserted. This has been covered on WUWT before.
* * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY – This is a 10-part video.
RE: SteveE says:
July 21, 2011 at 7:14 am
With reference to Monckton’s status as a Member of the House of Lords:
…
————————————————————————————————–
Lord Monckton’s status has NOTHING to do with AGW, why even bother to bring up this point?
Unless it’s an “ad hominem” attack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hardly – I did not make the analogy and I also called it flawed. Your reading skills need some honing.
>>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.
It would be nice for the peerage issue to be a complete side-issue and thus a complete kipper, but it is not. So as long as the Liberal-Left continue to use it as a rod to lash Monckton, it is an issue that needs explanation. If Al Gore had claimed to be a Lord, and was found to be a complete fraud, his entire AGW argument would, of course, have been sunk without trace. He very nearly tripped himself up with that stupid internet claim.
As it happens, Monckton is a real Viscount, a genuine peer of the realm, and therefore he has the right to use the title of Lord – whether the socialists and communists in Westminster like it or not. A Lord is a peer of the realm, and not just some Labour sycophant who has received a gong from Tony Blair and so sits in the upper house. Thus the many complaints by the AGW lefties just looks like envious sour grapes. One of their hated hereditary aristocracy is quite obviously light-years ahead of them in education, and they do not like it one bit. Inbred hereditary Lords are all bumbling idiots, they will claim, while this one runs rings around the brain-dead lefty Aussie reporters and makes them look like complete fools.
.
P.S. Richard, please do explain why fractured coal seams are good for the UK coal industry. We are dying to hear an explanation. Shame you did not go to a private school, you might have an answer for us…. 😉
.