As readers have seen here and here, Monckton presented a presentation to committee members of the California Assembly yesterday at the invitation of Assemblywoman Shannon Grove of Bakersfield. There were no Democratic members present during the presentation that I was aware of, as they made their intentions known early on.
The slide show in entirety is presented below, click to download and view the PDF file.
Monckton_ca_assembly_presentation (PDF 11.2 MB)
=================================
And here’s the summary:
Testimony of
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
California State Assembly
21 March 2012
IN the 6 decades since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to 2 F°/century. The IPCC’s central estimate is that in the 9 decades to 2100 the rate will be 6 F°/century, three times the observed rate.
Two-thirds of the warming predicted by the IPCC’s (non-peer-reviewed) models is supposed to arise from temperature feedbacks. None of these feedbacks can be measured. There is no consensus about how big they are. There are powerful scientific reasons to suspect the IPCC has very greatly overstated them.
The principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC Assessment Reports are questionable:
- 2007: The IPCC twice concludes that the rate of warming is speeding up and we are to blame. But it uses a false statistical technique to reach its conclusion.
- 2001: The IPCC concludes that today’s temperatures are warmer than in 1300 years. How it reached this conclusion is under criminal investigation.
- 1995: The scientists had concluded that no discernible human effect on climate could be found. Just one man rewrote the report to say the opposite.
- 1990: The IPCC predicted rapid warming. A generation has passed and the predicted warming has not happened. This and many other predictions are overblown:
- Global temperature is rising more slowly than IPCC’s least estimate;
- Sea level has been rising for eight years at just 1.3 inches/century;
- Ocean heat content has barely risen in 6 years;
- Hurricanes and tropical cyclones are quieter than for 30 years;
- Global sea-ice extent has changed little in 30 years;
- Methane concentration is up just 20 parts per billion since 2000;
- The tropical hot-spot the IPCC predicts as our footprint is absent;
- Outgoing radiation is escaping to space much as usual.
California’s carbon tax, with other statewide measures to curb CO2 emissions, will cost $450 billion by 2020. Even if 25% of California’s emissions are abated by 2020, just 0.4% of global emissions will have been abated; CO2 concentration by 2020, instead of the business-as-usual 413 parts per million by volume the IPCC predicts, will be 412.9 ppmv; just one-thousandth of a Fahrenheit degree of warming will be abated; the cost of abating the 0.3 F° warming the IPCC predicts to 2020 by measures as cost-(in)effective as California’s policies would be $180 trillion, or $25,500 per head of global population, or a third of global GDP over the period; and the cost of preventing the 6 F° warming the IPCC predicts by 2100 would be $2700 trillion, or more than 10 times the maximum 3%-of-GDP cost of climate-related damage arising from not mitigating this predicted 21st-century warming at all.
Environmental over-regulation, cap-and-tax, “renewable”-energy mandates, and a 40-year ban on most offshore drilling are crippling California. The Monterey Shale holds 15 billion barrels of oil, yet over-regulation has cut production by more than a third to just 200 million barrels a year. Now 11% are jobless in California, second only to Nevada in the US (50% are jobless in construction); the 2012/13 State deficit is $6 billion; unfunded pension liabilities are $250 billion; 50,000 rich Californians (one-third of them) fled in 2007-2009, taking their businesses and jobs with them: twice as many firms fled the once-Golden State in 2011 as in 2010; Intel says it will never build another plant here; Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in just one month; Boeing, Toyota, Apple, Facebook, and DirecTV have all fled. The wagons are heading East.
The bottom line: No policy to abate global warming by taxing, trading, regulating, reducing, or replacing greenhouse-gas emissions will prove cost-effective solely on grounds of the welfare benefit from climate mitigation. CO2 mitigation strategies that are inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective; strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of any warming that may occur is many times more cost-effective. Since the premium greatly exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. Every red cent spent now on trying to stop global warming is a red cent wasted. Don’t mitigate: sit back, enjoy the sunshine, and adapt only if and when and to the extent necessary. That, however unfashionable, is the economically prudent and scientifically sensible course.
Nah, doesn’t wash. The CO2 climb is not responding in any way, up or down, to human emissions. Its steady rise is in flat contradiction to any linkage.
Unless Obama resigns — then he’ll gain credibility on climate issues. Take a look at this:
In reply to Cedric Katesby,
“Cedric Katesby says:
March 24, 2012 at 8:13 am
Monckton will hopefully find the time to come back to WUWT and be ready to debate his critics.
Looking forward to it.”
No need to wait for Monckton. Observational evidence and logic is unequivocally on the side of the so called “skeptics”.
Do you have any logical arguments to defend the extreme AGW position which is that the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be catastrophic?
Why has there only been half of the IPCC warming due to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2? CO2 warming is logarithmic which means each subsequent increase in CO2 has less and less effect. The mechanism saturates.
The key scientific issue “skeptic vs catastrophic warming” is the planet’s response to a change in forcing which is called feedback.
Is the planet’s feedback response to a change in forcing positive (planet amplifies forcing changes) or negative (planet resists forcing changes)?
Have you read Lindzen and Choi’s 2011 paper (fourth published paper that supports the same conclusion) that uses satellite measurement of top of the atmosphere radiation changes Vs changes in planetary temperature to confirm the assertion that the planet’s response to a change in forcing is negative (planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes)?
Lindzen and Choi found that planetary cloud – primarily in the tropics – increases to reflect more sunlight off into space to resist forcing changes. That is negative feedback. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will therefore result in less than 1.2C of warming rather than the IPCC predicted 3C to 5C. Based on Lindzen’s results a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in roughly 0.5C to 0.8C of warming. Lindzen conservatively estimates 0.8C warming and then notes the likely number is less. There will therefore not be catastrophic warming.
In fact 0.8C of warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 most of which will be at high latitudes will result in an expansion of the biosphere. (Crop yield at higher latitudes is limited by night temperatures and number of frost free days.)
Catastrophic global warming requires positive feedback to amplify the warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 by a factor of 3 to 5. If the feedback is negative as found by Lindzen and Choi the warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 0.8C.
Scientifically and logically if Lindzen and Choi finding is correct a significant portion of the 20th century warming was due to another mechanism. I can if you are interested explain in detail with links to papers to explain what that other mechanism is. (Solar wind burst that create a space charge differential in the ionosphere which remove cloud forming ions by Tinsley’s electroscavenging mechanism.)
Are your aware that there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlates with cosmogenic isotope changes? The cosmogenic isotope changes are caused by changes to the solar magnetic cycle which in turn changes the solar heliosphere. The solar heliosphere blocks and deflects galactic cosmic rays (mostly high velocity protons) that strike the earth’s atmosphere creating muons which then create massive numbers of cloud forming ions.
Solanski’s comment that solar changes were likely not responsible for the 20th century warming even though solar activity was the highest in 10,000 years during the last 40 years of the 20th century and even thought there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes (smoking gun evidence that the sun is the cause of the cycles, the question then is what it the mechanism), is incorrect. Solanski’s comment is based on changes in TSI (total solar radiation) not electroscavenging.
Solanski is correct changes in TSI did not a significant portion of the 20th century warming. Changes in planetary cloud cover which were caused by solar wind bursts did.
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
“On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various
criticisms are taken into account. ….
….we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise.
… We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity.”
This is a succinct explanation of why the extreme AGW science is based on a lie.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/files/2012/02/gw1.gif
I see Realclimate has a comment with showing this graph. It should be noted the lack of warming logically supports Lindzen and Choi’s finding.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/files/2012/02/15yr-temps.gif
“The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”
Further explanation and support to my above comments.
http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt760405/PDF/2005MmSAI..76..969G.pdf
Once again about global warming and solar activity K. Georgieva, C. Bianchi, and B. Kirov
We show that the index commonly used for quantifying long-term changes in solar activity, the sunspot number, accounts for only one part of solar activity and using this index leads to the underestimation of the role of solar activity in the global warming in the recent decades. A more suitable index is the geomagnetic activity which reflects all solar activity, and it is highly correlated to global temperature variations in the whole period for which we have data.
In Figure 6 the long-term variations in global temperature are compared to the long-term variations in geomagnetic activity as expressed by the ak-index (Nevanlinna and Kataja 2003). The correlation between the two quantities is 0.85 with p<0.01 for the whole period studied. It could therefore be concluded that both the decreasing correlation between sunspot number and geomagnetic activity, and the deviation of the global temperature long-term trend from solar activity as expressed by sunspot index are due to the increased number of high-speed streams of solar wind on the declining phase and in the minimum of sunspot cycle in the last decades.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/5/1721/2005/acp-5-1721-2005.html
Analysis of the decrease in the tropical mean outgoing shortwave radiation at the top of atmosphere for the period 1984–2000
All cloud types show a linearly decreasing trend over the study period, with the low-level clouds having the largest trend, equal to −3.9±0.3% in absolute values or −9.9±0.8% per decade in relative terms. Of course, there are still some uncertainties, since the changes in low-level clouds derived from the ISCCP-D2 data, are not necessarily consistent with changes derived from the second Stratospheric Aerosols and Gas Experiment (SAGE II, Wang et al., 2002) and synoptic observations (Norris, 1999). Nevertheless, note that SAGE II tropical clouds refer to uppermost opaque clouds (with vertical optical depth greater than 0.025 at 1.02μm), while the aforementioned synoptic cloud observations are taken over oceans only. The midlevel clouds decreased by 1.4±0.2% in absolute values or by 6.6±0.8% per decade in relative terms, while the high-level ones also decreased by 1.2±0.4% or 3±0.9% per decade in relative terms, i.e. less than low and middle clouds. Thus, the VIS/IR mean tropical (30_ S–30_ N) low-level clouds are found to have undergone the greatest decrease during the period 1984–2000, in agreement with the findings of Chen et al. (2002) and Lin et al. (2004).
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JA014342.shtml
If the Sun is so quiet, why is the Earth ringing? A comparison of two solar minimum intervals.
Observations from the recent Whole Heliosphere Interval (WHI) solar minimum campaign are compared to last cycle's Whole Sun Month (WSM) to demonstrate that sunspot numbers, while providing a good measure of solar activity, do not provide sufficient information to gauge solar and heliospheric magnetic complexity and its effect at the Earth. The present solar minimum is exceptionally quiet, with sunspot numbers at their lowest in 75 years and solar wind magnetic field strength lower than ever observed. Despite, or perhaps because of, a global weakness in the heliospheric magnetic field, large near-equatorial coronal holes lingered even as the sunspots disappeared. Consequently, for the months surrounding the WHI campaign, strong, long, and recurring high-speed streams in the solar wind intercepted the Earth in contrast to the weaker and more sporadic streams that occurred around the time of last cycle's WSM campaign.
William: This is good review paper if you are interested in the mechanisms by which solar magnetic cycle changes modulate planetary clouds. Note there is more than one mechanism. I see there was an incorrect comment at Realclimate that alleged that planetary clouds do not track GCR. Prior to 1997 planetary cloud cover tracked GCR with a 95% significance. Post 1998 solar wind bursts removed cloud forming ions.
http://www.utdallas.edu/physics/pdf/Atmos_060302.pdf
Atmospheric Ionization and Clouds as Links Between Solar Activity and Climate
Observations of changes in cloud properties that correlate with the 11-year cycles in space particle fluxes are reviewed. The correlations can be understood in terms of one or both of two microphysical processes; ion mediated nucleation (IMN) and electroscavenging. IMN relies on the presence of ions to provide the condensation sites for sulfuric acid and water vapors to produce new aerosol particles, which, under certain conditions, might grow into sizes that can be activated as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). Electroscavenging depends on the buildup of space charge at the tops and bottoms of clouds as the vertical current density (Jz) in the global electric circuit encounters the increased electrical resistivity of the clouds. Space charge is electrostatic charge density due to a difference between the concentrations of positive and negative ions. Calculations indicate that this electrostatic charge on aerosol particles can enhance the rate at which they are scavenged by cloud droplets. The aerosol particles for which scavenging is important are those that act as insitu ice forming nuclei (IFN) and CCN. Both IMN and electroscavenging depend on the presence of atmospheric ions that are generated, in regions of the atmosphere relevant for effects on clouds, by galactic cosmic rays (GCR). The space charge depends, in addition, on the magnitude of Jz. The magnitude of Jz depends not only on the GCR flux, but also on the fluxes of MeV electrons from the radiation belts, and the ionospheric potentials generated by the solar wind, that can vary independently of the GCR flux. The roles of GCR and Jz in cloud processes are the speculative links in a series connecting solar activity, the solar wind, GCR, clouds and climate. This article reviews the correlated cloud variations and the two mechanisms proposed as possible explanations for these links.
William Astley says:
March 24, 2012 at 10:01 am
……………
When you are inputting wrong variable you are unlikely to get correct result. Sunspot number is subjective variable (10 for group + 1 for each spot, larger may get more) is in no way a correct measure, and anyway the Earth response is far more complex than just TSI, which for all practical purposes is constant.
Far considering long term temperature changes, far more important is the solar magnetic output, fraction of which impacts the Earth, and is measured by number of geomagnetic indices; the maximum daily value of the Ap index is shown in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
and it clearly shows degree of disparity with the SSN.
Equatorial regions receive more or less constant amount of energy, regardless of the solar activity. If more of that energy is transferred pole-ward by the oceanic currents, less is radiated back to space from the equatorial and subequatorial regions; result = global warming. The opposite is true too, less energy moved pole-ward = global cooling.
The intensity of oceanic circulation can be directly correlated to the sun-Earth magnetic link; as an example the next link shows what happens in the North Atlantic:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GTCa.htm
Once you consider correct variable you are more likely to get good result.
This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. – Anthony
However, Monckton should be given a fair chance to debate his critics. Please don’t censor him. He is the best representative of science that genuine climate skeptics have. Let him show by example how to be genuinely dispassionate and logical. That way he can turn the tables on them.
They’ve exposed themselves completely and now it will be easy for Monckton to swoop down on them and clean up. The man is utterly fearless and is always ready for a debate. Should be very interesting. Nobody understands the science like Monckton.
[SNIP: Cedric, Anthony thanked you once for posting the Hadfield Video and stated his intention to not give any more space to Mr. Hadfield. Posting a different version of that video constitutes “giving space”. Please don’t do that. As a courtesy, I will e-mail your link to Anthony, but his hearing disability will likely render your second version no more intelligible than the first. -REP]
Lightrain says:
March 24, 2012 at 12:09 am
WE CAN’T WIN!
If the Warmistas can get any plans to lower CO2 approved and temperatures drop as Coolistas believe the Warmistas will claim that they’ve saved the world and there’ll be nothing we can do to stop this B$. We need a goal line stand long enough to see a significant drop in temperatures before they take credit where none is due.
————————————–
If we cool off quickly, then the alarmism is diminished as well as the threat to ‘the children’ as it would show that the planet can cool off quickly and will not take hundreds to thousands of years as the warmists claim.
Currently the mitigation strategies actually seem to have the effect of increasing emissions as for example backup generation is required when too many windmills begin to make up too much of the grid energy. It takes a lot of energy to create and replace all the infrastructure that the warmists claim must be destroyed and replaced, and that energy isn’t going to come from solar or wind, but from fossil fuels . Even the gigantic cement bases for the wind mills require emissions in their creation. So emissions are not going to be reduced much in the near future, so we get to continue to conduct the experiment to find the climate sensitivity to CO₂ forcing.
If the level of CO₂ does reach a point where it is no longer rising, this means that one of the variables’ in trying to calculate the climate sensitivity becomes a constant, and it is much easier to do calculations than with varying, umm, variables. It might make it easier to calculate the equilibrium time of forcing to temperature as well.
As you and I both know that the logarithmic nature of additional CO₂ means that we probably will not see the warming the warmists predict, and it is highly unlikely that the levels of CO₂ will not continue as they have been for decades, this will further help show that climate sensitivity is low if temperatures remain cool.
Then there is the sea ice. I wouldn’t be surprised if we don’t see sea level extents get any lower than they did in the late summer of 2007 for the rest of this century, let alone have an ice free event.
So there are so many ways that the warmists will not, and can not win. They just don’t know it yet.
This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. – Anthony
===========================================================================
That’s a pity Anthony, Hadfield speaks rather highly of you in the video.
[snip]
Cedric and SPM,
Hadfield was given several generous opportunities to disseminate his anti-Monckton propaganda here. His modus operandi amounts to a cowardly drive-by shooting, without ever manning up and facing the man he is accusing. That is because Peter Hadfield is a chicken. Is there any doubt? Even so, Anthony has allowed him to repeatedly post his one-sided, ad hominem attacks. Fine. He got the opportunity to do his multiple smears from the safety of his studio, where he hides out from any real debate with his tail between his legs.
Peter Hadfield is clearly a coward who is afraid to face Lord Monckton in an honest, moderated debate. Hadfield is simply a chicken. And I am tired of concern trolls who carry Hadfield’s water for him, trying to get his propaganda posted here again and again. If the cowardly Peter Hadfield wants more publicity, he needs to face Lord Monckton in a real debate, where the whole world can watch it on YouTube and see Peter Hadfield’s nose being rubbed in the playground dirt.
But the fact is that Hadfield is a chicken, and deathly afraid to debate Lord Monckton face to face. So you folks can go run along now to your thinly-trafficked echo chamber blogs, and complain that your chicken potholer isn’t being given even more free time on the internet’s Best Science & Technology site.
Zeke Hausfather says:
March 23, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Anthony,
…. Speaking as someone who has started a tech company and is based in San Francisco, there is really no other place in the country that I would rather be located. Having talked to friends who are executives at both Facebook and Apple, there is no place they would rather be headquartered either.
_____________________________________
That is because none of you have bothered to look at The Research Triangle in NC with more Ph.D.s per capita then any other area in the USA. It is a lot less crowded with good highways and much lower land prices. It is also a very pretty state and very friendly. So give it a peek as well as looking at Texas Anthony. We moved here from the NH/MA border and are very happy we moved. I do NOT miss the traffic jams up north.
http://www.rtp.org/
http://raleighdurham.about.com/od/VisitRaleighDurhamChapelHill/u/Things-To-Know-About-Living-In-Raleigh-Durham-And-Chapel-Hill.htm
Matt says:
March 23, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Well, yesterday I found out that Monckton is a birther…
________________________________
Mud slinging and nothing to do with the topic.
rogerkni says:
March 24, 2012 at 9:09 am
Unless Obama resigns — then he’ll gain credibility on climate issues. Take a look at this:
“For the past couple of years, Vice President Joe Biden has quietly assembled an A-team of advisers who would, without doubt, be considered the nucleus of a presidential campaign ….
_________________________________
I think it is Hillary Clinton that is more likely to sucessfully challenge Obama than Biden. As Sec. of State she now has the political clout she was lacking in 2008. I think Obama has become way too toxic to be run as the Democratic candidate. Heck he seems more interested in taking vacations and going on fund raising trips than acting as president. Since he is the executive he acts thru his cabinet yet he only met with them 12 times in the first two years!
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/president_obama_year_in_numbers_gmxQqJMk9n4XBqb3OzBsnN
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/03/obamas-numbers-vacations-16-golf-90-fundraisers-100/326531
@louis:
Simply untrue. This “name change” never happened:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=global+warming%2Cclimate+change&year_start=1970&year_end=2010&corpus=5&smoothing=3
As you can see, the two terms have been in virtually equal use for forty years.
chrisd3,
What color is the sky on your planet? Here on earth it’s blue, and here the term “climate change” has taken over, particularly from the original scare term: “runaway global warming”.
BTW, there is extremely strong evidence that the planet’s warming since the LIA is entirely natural. There has been no accelerated warming, as was widely predicted. That’s why it’s called “climate change” now. That nebulous term covers everything and explains nothing.
@smokey:
I showed you the data. Go argue with Google. Point out that their computers are counting words incorrectly, or whatever your argument is.
chrisd3,
Your chart confirms exactly what I wrote, that the worthless term “climate change” has taken over from “global warming” — which at least is a natural explanation of a real event since the LIA, and thus not caused by CO2 to any measurable degree.
Now, about my point that there has been no accelerated warming. I take it your silence is concurrence.
@smoky:
Um, what the chart shows is that there has been very little difference in the usage of the two terms, going all the way back to 1970. In fact, “global warming” was only used more than “climate change” for the brief period from 1989 to 1996, and then only by a very slight margin.
I have no idea how you can look at that chart and see anything different.
As for the rest, no, the only inference you can make is that I ignored the parts of your comment that had nothing to do with what I said.
Smokes,
There’s no point taking it any further. Your blind devotion to Monckton clearly precludes you from making any rational comment.
People like Monckton and yourself do your cause no good whatsoever.
Cheers.
Gail Combs says:
[SNIP: Roger, I’m really very sorry, but this conversation is heading into areas Anthony really does not want discussed at WUWT and which violates site policy. Please stick with the topic of the thread. -REP]
Smokey says:
March 25, 2012 at 5:26 am
Hi Smokey,
Could you please quote some of the ad hominem attacks you are talking about please? I wasn’t aware of any, just the ones from Monckton.
Also it seems that Monckton is the coward running away from the debate based on his email to Peter on the 22nd of March:
“I am on a very busy tour and will be still more busy when I return to the UK, so I do not know when I shall have further time to respond. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities and, while I try to accommodate them, other priorities must sometimes come first”
Perhaps your post would read better as:
“Monckton was given several generous opportunities to disseminate his anti-Hadfield propaganda here. His modus operandi amounts to a cowardly drive-by shooting, without ever manning up and facing the man he is accusing. That is because Monckton is a chicken. Is there any doubt? Even so, Anthony has allowed him to repeatedly post his one-sided, ad hominem attacks. Fine. He got the opportunity to do his multiple smears from the safety of his studio, where he hides out from any real debate with his tail between his legs.
Monckton is clearly a coward who is afraid to face Hadfield in an honest, moderated debate. Monckton is simply a chicken. And I am tired of concern trolls who carry Monckton’s water for him, trying to get his propaganda posted here again and again. If the cowardly Monckton wants more publicity, he needs to face Lord Monckton in a real debate, where the whole world can watch it on YouTube and see Monckton’s nose being rubbed in the playground dirt ”
Just a thought…
SteveE,
I am not going to go through all of potholer’s propaganda videos again to pick out his ad hominem attacks for you. Assign your homework to someone else. If you think potholer was being fair, that is your biased opinion. I think the rest of us know better.
Lord Monckton is not always right. No one is. But it is a verifiable fact that none of the alarmist crowd, including your chicken Peter Hadfield, will man up and debate Monckton. Instead, they take cheap potshots from the safety of the internet rather than engaging in a formal debate. Thus they are cowards, no? If no, then let’s get that debate going.
Hadfield was generously given the first opportunies to attack Lord Monckton, after he continuously sniveled to Anthony for exclusive time on WUWT to present his propaganda. As any normal person can see, it was an ad hominem attack on the person, not a discussion of the science.
Hadfield was the challenger. As expected, he played dirty. But since Hadfield was given the opportunity for the first challenge, he now presumes that he has the right to set the terms of any and all future debates. Apparently, so do you. But fair play does not work that way.
A formal debate is a verbal duel, with a specific scientific debate Question proposed, which is then debated in a moderated setting with fair and equal rules applying to both sides. Each side has an equal opportunity to speak. Hadfield cannot use his ad hominem video attacks in a real debate. Anthony gave him his chances. Now, it is Lord Monckton’s turn to set the debate agenda. If Hadfield refuses, it is only because he is a chicken – just like every alarmist from Mann down to the lowly Hugh Pepper. They are all terrified of debating Lord Monckton. Their pathetic reasons for hiding out from debates are really just lame excuses to hide their fear of losing the debate. That makes them cowards, no? They are afraid to debate. Potholer is afraid to debate, and you are carrying his water for him.
Since potholer was the challenger and thus had the first opportunities to take his best shots, basic fairness requires that this time Lord Monckton has the right to choose the debate setting. The rules of the duel [#16] require that as the challenged party, Lord Monckton now has the choice of weapons. Formal debate has been his choice in the past, but Hadfield like ther rest of the alarmist crowd is a chicken, afraid to engage in a real, honest, moderated debate.
Your failed attempt to paint the one being challenged as one who will not engage is due to the obvious fact that neither you, nor potholer, nor Mann, nor anyone else in the climate alarmism crowd has the stomach to go into a formal debate over the science with someone who kicks their sorry asses every time.
Hadfield had multiple chances to mount his attacks. Monckton then responded. As the one challenged, Monckton now has the right to set the debate agenda as his weapon of choice. And you know what? The alarmist chickens are scurrying away as usual, squawking their impotent excuses over their shoulders as they run and hide from a real debate. If I’m wrong, let’s set up a real debate between Hadfield and Lord Monckton. The gauntlet is down. Now we will see who the real coward is. Does potholer have the stones for a real debate? Or is he exactly what I say he is: a chicken.
Smokey,
You are clearly deluding yourself.
“Hadfield was generously given the first opportunies to attack Lord Monckton, after he continuously sniveled to Anthony for exclusive time on WUWT to present his propaganda. As any normal person can see, it was an ad hominem attack on the person, not a discussion of the science.”
This was the article published here on WUWT where Monckton responses to Peter’s video. Can’t exactly see how even you can argue that Hadfied was given the first opportunity on here given that Monckton wrote an article called: Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/
If you could please link to the personal attack that you claim was presented by Peter on WUWT that would really clear this matter up.
However I somehow feel that you’ll be acting like the Lord in not wanting to provide sources to your claim because you know that you can’t.
SteveE,
You keep trying to assign me homework. Sorry, but you are too impotent to be able to do that. If you believe that potholer’s videos are not ad hominem attacks, then it is you who are deluded.
Peter Hadfield sniveled continuously to Anthony to let him mount his attack on Monckton. Anthony finally agreed, and Hadfield attacked as expected; so he was the challenger.
As the challenged party, Monckton now has the right to choose the next debate setting, because the last challenge was done by potholer. Since you are carrying water for your cowardly pothole, maybe you can explain exactly why he is so terrified of a science debate with Monckton, where he cannot resort to his usual ad-hom attacks. In a fair and equal debate setting, Hadfield is clearly a coward. If not, he needs to man up and face Monckton in a real debate. But we all know he won’t; he’s a chicken.
All the excuses given for hiding out from a real debate are due to Hadfield’s cowardice. If I’m wrong, then let’s have that formal debate, for all the world to see. But it will never happen, will it? Because when it comes to the central issue – science – the alarmist crowd loses the debate. Thus they resort to personal attacks by chickens. If I’m wrong, let’s have that debate.
Smokey
The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim, otherwise it’s meaningless.
I have given you the sources that prove my point, you have so far failed to provide yours.
I guess that means you lose.
“This video then cements my decision not to provide any further space to Hadfield here. – Anthony”
The ‘skeptics’ always want a debate… until they start getting their but kicked.
Watts and friends running from verifiable facts as always.
SteveE,
You are still avoiding the central fact: Hadfield is too chicken to debate Lord Monckton. Nothing will make him any less chicken, except agreeing to a real debate.
Wake me when Hadfield adds his name to your list of losers here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/16/help-settle-the-renewable-energy-debate-at-the-economist
http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070316_notcrisis.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/05/agw-proponents-lose-yet-another-debate-down-under
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEPFmwvqdDo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEPFmwvqdDo&feature=related
Unlike Hadfield, at least they were willing to give it their best shot. Gavin Schmidt preposterously blamed the loss of his debate against Michael Crichton on the fact that Crichton was taller. Your pathetic excuses for Hadfield avoiding a real debate are just as preposterous.
We all know now that Hadfield is too chicken to go up against Monckton in a real debate. He is no different than Abraham, Sinclair, Schmidt, Gore, Mann, you, or any other deluded alarmists. Every one of you runs and hides out from a real, moderated debate with your tails tucked between your quivering hind legs. There’s no hiding the fact that you want to set the agenda for another drive-by ad-hom propaganda attack by pothole, because you know you would lose in a real, honest debate.
The reason you would lose is the same reason the alarmist crowd loses the debate here: you make endless predictions that all fail under scrutiny, you have no testable evidence to support your CAGW conjecture, and the ultimate Authority — the planet itself — is falsifying your entire narrative. So you try to frame the issue into a completely phony non-debate. It’s not a debate, son. It’s a cherry-picked propaganda hit piece.
This issue will always come back to the central fact: Peter Hadfield is a coward who can dish it out, but he can’t take it. He chickens out from a real debate. He hides out, like he’s hiding out right now. He cannot credibly defend his refusal to debate, after he has been given ample opportunity to practice his character assassination on his terms. But he won’t take part in a legitimate debate because he’s a chicken. Why are you carrying water for a chicken?
. . .
dolormin,
Like SteveE you suffer from psychological projection. Look at the links above. Your side got their butts kicked in every debate. So now you cheer from the sidelines and pretend that pothole’s cherry-picked video propaganda is a real debate. It is not, it is just an ad-hom hit piece. That makes you just another impotent defender of the pothole chicken. Get this: Hadfield is the one who is running away from a real debate. What’s your lame excuse for that?? Keep in mind that anything but “Hadfield is afraid of a real debate” is just an excuse. It must suck to try and prop up a chicken like Hadfield who is afraid to debate.
@smokey:
Science isn’t debated on a stage. It’s debated in the literature, where there is time to reflect, review the evidence, and prepare real responses. Oxford-style debates are sporting events. They’re a test of debating skills. They were never intended to ferret out the truth. That is not their purpose, and it never has been.