Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« What's the deal with Norfolk Police? | Main | BBC review of science coming »
Tuesday
Jul192011

The National Press Club debate 

An interesting debate between Monckton and an economist called Richard Dennis.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (105)

A remarkably clear presentation on the science and economics from Monkton, a pathetic presentation on both from Dr. Dennis.

Several years ago I was a warmist. After doing hundreds of hours of reading, I became a lukewarmer, just like Monkton. My take is that the journalists simply cannot take the time nor have the skills to do their own homework as I did(retired engineer). It is un unfortunate fact but the profession of journalism simply is not up to the challenge.

Gradually, the scientific literature is discarding the wild claims of the IPCC, and soon the IPCC will have to eliminate its scary overtones and get closer to Monktons position.

We are all fortunate to have such an articulate person as Monkton to reduce the level of hysteria on this subject.

Jul 19, 2011 at 4:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd_B

Just watched the video and can see why warmists dislike his Lordship so thoroughly - he speaks courteously and directly to each point and question, is unruffled in the face of ignorance and thinly-veiled rudeness and makes his case unerringly.
Denniss, the economist, in contrast, begin with a 'cancer' analogy not too dissimilar to the infamous false analogy Paul Nurse used in his underhanded televised attack on James Dellingpole, then persisted with fruitlessly repeated arguments based on consensus and authority. Denniss also played 'the good but a tad unsophisticated Aussie bloke' to appeal to his home crowd. Judging by comments on Australian blogs, his tactic didn't work.

Jul 19, 2011 at 5:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

2 thoughts ocurred to me during the video.

1. Should the warming, whatever that may be, not be due to mans' influence, how are we going to deal with it if it is as significant as the doomsayers suggest. All the money and technology may have been used up to the wrong end. If we're all living in caves as the lights go out, how will we battle the warming?

That's the opposite argument of the pro warmist in the video which is if we do nothing then we may be doomed so we'd better do something. What if the something was the wrong tactic altogether.

2. I dislike the fact that communism or fascism or whatever politics appears in many of these videos. I'd like to see every diversion into politics fielded with more actual science ... negative or positive ... that is to say true science.

Steve Lewis

Jul 19, 2011 at 5:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterstephen lewis

Another barn storming performance from Lord Monckton but maybe the opposition in Dr Denis was a bit weak. He seemed to have just the one argument - 'consensus'.

Pity he had not read Climate Etc.

Jul 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterJosh

When in Australia a couple of years' ago, I talked to a Socialist Alliance group in Fremantle using the Trotskyite language I acquired from knowing Socialist Labour League people in the late 1960s.

They opened up that they hoped the green movement was the entry point for the new revolution. In the UK, the Socialist Alliance is the reformed SWP people, an alliance of the Trotskyites rising from their 1970's political deathbeds..

The politics is being coordinated in the English speaking World. This economist is the tie-wearing front. In the UK only a few weeks' ago, Nurse, who acknowledges he used to sell the Socialist Worker paper, openly called for scientists to become active in this politics.

What of course these people fail to realise is that the windmills, a proxy for c. 80% permanent reliance on imported fossil fuels, are an attempt to recreate feudal control. This is control of power prices by subsidy-farming landowners, including the Royal Family, via 30 years' de facto control of the National Grid as the taxation mechanism with no representation.

Jul 19, 2011 at 6:10 PM | Unregistered Commenteralistair

Just like watching a heavyweight sparring with a bantom weight.
The two analogies used by Dr Dennis were (I thought) embarrasing. I would have been happy to debate with this gentleman because he has no argument to support his position.

Jul 19, 2011 at 6:12 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

I watched the first 30 minutes. I agree as to the assymetry of the debate. Dennis' cancer analogy was so lame, LM didn't even bother to belittle it.

Jul 19, 2011 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

Oh dear……………I had to stop watching at 30.00 mins. It’s too embarrassing.

Is this the best ‘carbonista’ they could throw at the good Lord ?? It appears that Gillard herself wrote Dennis’s lines, which are lines that don’t take a lot of brain power to remember.

England: 1 dec/ 1000

Australia: 9/10 (100% chance to follow-on)

This is the score at lunch on day 1

Jul 19, 2011 at 7:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterWhat ?

If they did not know before, Australians can now see the calibre of their government's advisers. Assuming Dennis has been exposed to and absorbed all that the government knows so that he may do his cost benefit analysis, then he is damned by its paucity. If there was a stronger argument than the one he has presented here then why did he hold back? Either there is none or he is incapable of articulating it. Whichever is the case, government policy is being poorly served.

Jul 19, 2011 at 8:03 PM | Unregistered Commentersimpleseekeraftertruth

Monckton debates well.
But his response to the question about his title was weird and lame and he therefore becomes something of a liability.
He is clearly not a member of the house of Lords and so should stop claiming that he is.

Jul 19, 2011 at 9:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrederick Bloggsworth

The ABC planned to run the debate later in the evening. It turned out to be a "no show" . The ABC is just like the BBC.

Jul 19, 2011 at 10:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss

"not a member of the house of Lords"

As I understand it, he's a Viscount and therefore gets addressed as Lord - it's very arcane, but so is the whole of English Aristocracy!

I like him a lot, even though he does appear like a creation of P G Wodehouse. I think some Australians would find him hard to take even if he declared Ned Kelly a hero and drank Castlemaine 4X...

Jul 19, 2011 at 11:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

The vast majority of Lords cannot sit in the house of Lords scene the rules changed some years ago .
However Monckton is a much a entitled to be called a 'Lord' as any other person.

Jul 19, 2011 at 11:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

And this was the only comment I could find in the Sydney Morning Herald (Warmist Central):

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/oh-lord-theres-a-climate-sceptic-in-the-house-20110719-1hn9a.html

Clearly they judged that Monckton wiped the floor with Dennis or they would be crowing from the rooftops and analysing every little slip of Monckton's tongue. From what I can find, the egregious Australian Broadcasting Commission has not reported the event anywhere in its news headlines - more evidence that the debate did not go their way.

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterMique

From the Q&A session, I think it is fair to say the "National press" were quite hostile to Monckton. Although the applause from the back of room (lesser well known publications/journos?) for the points he made was quite striking.

No one seemed in the least bit interested in what Dennis had to say, not that any of it really seemed to make any sort of coherent sense. His main points were of local political interest I think. Both parties support a 5% reduction in carbon emissions, the debate was how to best achieve this - Dennis favours the current governments approach (Labour). He also suggested that sceptics should be "sceptical" of the economics of Abbotts (Liberal) proposals.

I think he will find that sceptics are highly "sceptical" of endorsing either, a point that he doesn't really seem to get with his rather narrow (party political) world view.

Altogether a pretty poor showing from the National press and Dennis.

Jul 20, 2011 at 7:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterGSW

Monckton twice made the claim that he was a "specialist" or expert on climate sensitivity,that he had "written papers in the reviewed literature" on the subject and that he "lectured at faculty level" on the subject. This is untrue.

He claimed that unnamed scientists associated with the IPCC reports were "under criminal investigation" for data manipulation,tampering and fraud. This is untrue.

Monckton claimed that Australia was now regarded as a "sovereign risk" because of the pending carbon price legislation. This is untrue. Check the ratings agencies.

He claimed his recent smearing of Prof Ross Garnaut as "fascist" was an "inadvertent" act. This is untrue,as he had very deliberately constructed a slide in his presentation showing Garnaut's name above a Nazi swastika.

He claimed that the CET was not bad as a proxy for global temperature-"it's at the right latitude [!]",and that CO2 increase since 1750 was almost equivalent to a doubling of concentration. He says "all" the evidence points to a 1C rise per century from double CO2. This is untrue.

He then upbraids the journalist audience for being unwilling to discover how extensive the literature on GW is,telling them forcefully to "get on with your work". Given what they have allowed him to get away with here,he is right about that at least.

Jul 20, 2011 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterNick

"He claimed that unnamed scientists associated with the IPCC reports were "under criminal investigation" for data manipulation, tampering and fraud. This is untrue."

Michael Mann is not associated with the IPCC reports? He is, indeed, under investigation by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for misuse of public funds, after having been "cleared" by his own university in very much the same sort of circumstances as the 3 U.K. whitewashes of the CRU.

I'm not sure about Monckton's lectures on sensitivity, but he quoted chapter and verse of a peer reviewed paper on sensitivity he has published. He also mentioned that the two editors were sacked because they accepted it. That is the real scandal. When scientists of the calibre of Lindzen and Choy have problems getting papers published and face delaying tactics lasting years then there is something very rotten in the state of Denmark. A level playing field it is not.

Jul 20, 2011 at 10:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterIren

Oh, that 'Lord' canard again.

In the UK a person who is a Viscount is addressed as 'Lord'. Viscount Monckton of Brentchley is an extant hereditary peerage, currently held by Christopher Monckton. According to proper etiquette (see Debrette's) he should be addressed as 'Lord Monckton'.

It has got nothing whatsoever to do with whether he has a seat in the House of Lords - that's a complete red herring. Nearly all hereditary peers were entitled to sit in the House of Lords until the House of Lords Act 1999, when it was limited to 92 persons. But those not chosen didn't lose their hereditary peerages (which continue in perpetuity until the title becomes extinct through failure to produce a male heir), and they are still properly addressed as 'Lord'. You don't have to be part of the legislature to be a Lord.

Jul 20, 2011 at 10:16 AM | Unregistered CommenterScientistForTruth

Monckton claims that Al Saperstein and Jeffrey Marque,the two editors of the APS' Physics & Society quarterly newsletter,were sacked because they published his article in the 07/2008 issue. This is untrue. Monckton has pronounced this a truth "inferentially" in one of his prolix and self-absorbed musings on the matter.

Fact is the gentlemen had been co-editing the newsletter for five years,Saperstein had been sole editor, and Marque news editor, for the seven years prior to that,and they both resigned at the end of 2008.

For the record,Monckton claims that his article "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" was peer-reviewed and published in a journal. The APS has three journal outlets,and Monckton was in none of those. His article was in the society's quarterly newsletter.

Jul 20, 2011 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterNick

Just seen the debate. Monckton was wrong about almost all aspects of the science (sensitivity, MWP etc) and utterly misleading about the cost of mitigation, the precautionary principle and the nature of consensus. I can't understand why people take him seriously. He has no scientific qualifications, no scientific publications and believes additionally that he has found cures for a wide range of diseases that ALL of medical science has failed to find! He is clearly deranged.

However, he says what the deniers want to hear so that's good enough for them! So much for critical thinking....

Jul 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM | Unregistered Commentermonty

I'll also add,re the APS newsletter,that the editorial positions were unpaid.

Jul 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterNick

@ Nick - good trolling. I won't rise to it.

@ Monty - likewise, and please keep denying the existence of the MWP, it gives your argument so much credibility.

Jul 20, 2011 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Lapogus: the MWP (like the LIA) was not a synchronous event globally. The few sceptic attempts to suggest that they were have been unbelievably crass (eg Soon and Baliunas 2003). I'm a paleoclimatologist so my credibility on this isn't at issue.

Monckton is wrong about the MWP (it was mainly a Northern European event which occurred at widely different times in different places) and it wasn't warmer than present. The LIA is similar (occurred in the early 20th century in some places, and in the 17th century in others)

He is also wrong about his central question....climate sensitivity. How can you explain the paleoclimate record with low S? You can't.

In addition....any views on his claims to have a cure for HIV and influenza? Do you think it adds or detracts from his credibility?

Jul 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

lapogus,you can't rise to it. I understand. And in response to your trolling,nobody denies the existence of an MWP,but Monckton it seems is willing to be unskeptical and particularly unthorough when it suits him.Nobody can say with any authority that it was warmer then than now,but Monckton will.He also leaves the details of its temporal and physical extent unraised in his NPC offering,all the while excoriating journalists for not acknowledging and digging into the mountain of scientific literature on climate matters. They need to 'get to work' while he refuses to fairly deal with what he has encountered. Oh well,all for a good cause ,eh?

Jul 20, 2011 at 12:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterNick

@Nick

I see you raised the 'Monckton called Garnaut a Nazi' incident. Note that Monckton was heavily criticised by many sceptics at the time. However, without wishing to excuse him, it is worth contrasting this reaction to that which greeted Rajendra Pachauri's comparison on Bjorn Lomborg to Hitler.

Jul 20, 2011 at 12:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterProgContra

"I'm a paleoclimatologist so my credibility on this isn't at issue."
I think many of us would agree with you on that Monty.
To rephrase a comment from McShane and Wyner, I am sure that your credibility meets the standards of your discipline.

Jul 20, 2011 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

PaulM: I guess you are all a bit upset at your failure to get rid of hockey sticks. It's a little inconvenient for you that hockey sticks seem to be appearing everywhere (glaciers, boreholes, forams, sediment supply etc....not just in the tree record). Seems that Mann was right after all!

By the way....any views on Monckton's cure for HIV and influenza? I'm trying to gauge his credibility.

Jul 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

He can call himself a Lord if he wants. However he goes further than this. Monckton claims that he is a "member of the upper house of the UK legislature". This is not true.

He is not and has never been a member of the House of Lords because he inherited his title from his father in 2006, a full 7 years after the passing of the law which abolished of the right of hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords. The House of Lords clerk even published a statement to this effect (which Monckton called "impertinence").

For him to get all precious and funny about it makes me think he is a bit of an oddity and hence it diminishes his credibility.

Jul 20, 2011 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrederick Bloggsworth

ProgContra,indeed many skeptics were horrified by Monckton's decision,and I'm happy to see it...but this is about his subsequent statement at the NPC debate where in response to a question he reiterated his apology to Garnaut,but clearly his following statement that his action was "inadvertent" is utterly disingenuous.He didn't go about making a slide display replete with Nazi insignia without an unambiguously deliberate intent to associate Garnaut's views with fascism.There can be nothing "inadvertent" about the choices made in assembling an AV presentation,surely? Oh,that Nazi flag thingy just slipped into the memory stick,beats me how,and with Garnaut's name on it and all....

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterNick

@Nick

Monckton does have a thick streak of self-promotion, and he shows a lack of judgement in many areas. My point, however, is that there are plenty of people on the sceptic side of the discussion who are more than willing to point these out. There seem to be fewer people on the AGW side willing to point to similarly outrageous comments from Rajendra Pachauri and others.

However, these are side issues, and from what I have seen his grasp of the argument is fairly solid - he is very good at pointing out that in the end a lot of the argument comes down to a disagreement on climate sensitivity.

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterProgContra

Monty, your trollery is actually drollery. For your continued education, read the Bishop's excellent Hockey Stick Illusion; it's a brilliant read and highly educational. Your beloved hockey stick of the Mann-made variety is long dead, totally discredited, trashed, totally wiped out. Even it's designer has said that it's not very important now that the Medieval Climate Anomaly is found to be a real, global event. But note that he has renamed it, hoping that this will confuse simple souls who haven't kept their eyes on which thimble the pea is under at any given time. And you are attempting to resurrect it? Good luck with that among people whose reading comprehension level has progressed beyond the Year One Oxford Reader Tree series.

Jul 20, 2011 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

ProgContra,if CS was all the argument was about,then Monckton's estimate would stand even more clearly like a shag on a rock as the unphysical outlier it is.In reality Monckton is all for throwing out quote and fact mined arguments like a second-rate journalist,while bare-facedly appealing for the argument to return to the basics of science and the scientific method.His tedious self-promotion and clumsy sciencyness is everywhere,at least in Australia presently,precisely because he is the tabloid-savvy know-all the media like.

In contrast,Pachauri is positively low-key outside India,despite numerous attempts to besmirch him from the low quality-control UK media. I don't know the context of those remarks on Lomborg,but they fit the bill as poor judgement in an off-the-cuff remark...a world away from the deliberate,purposeful construction of Monckton's slides. And M's gone the Godwin before...

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterNick

Alexander K: yes, I read the book. It's naive garbage...just the sort of stuff written by someone who doesn't understand climate science.

I notice no-one has addressed my point to PaulM. I repeat it here...

"It's a little inconvenient for you that hockey sticks seem to be appearing everywhere (glaciers, boreholes, forams, sediment supply etc....not just in the tree record). Seems that Mann was right after all!"

Doesn't the fact that hockey sticks exist in other proxies worry you at all? If not, then you are a denier rather than a sceptic.

By the way...what do you think of Monckton's claims to have a cure for AIDS and influenza? No-one else has answered this.

Jul 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

@Nick

This would be the same Rajendra Pachauri of voodoo science fame? I think we must live on different planets. I would not class Pachauri as low key. And as I have pointed out elsewhere, he is on our payroll and therefore his comments, and dubious financial affairs, are of far greater importance than Moncktons.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterProgContra

While I am a sceptic, I don't believe that some of Monckton's theories do the sceptic cause any good - 'though he is entitled to call himself a Lord, but not a member of the Upper House.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPFM

Monty,
I might have heeded your claims (your self-identification as be a paleoclimatologist) as a to "hockey sticks appearing everywhere" in the proxies but but for your statement:

"yes, I read the book. It's naive garbage...just the sort of stuff written by someone who doesn't understand climate science."

referring to "The Hockey Stick Illusion".

Having read the book and followed the climate proxy saga over the years, I can safely say that this statement completely dispels any credibility you gained by identifying yourself as a paleoclimatologist.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Austin

Monty, I'm calling you out, you're not a paleoclimate scientist else you would know that there are no papers other than those from the Hocket team suggesting there was no map.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Is it just me or does "Nick" come across as just a petulant, snarling punk?

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterSharpshooter

Geronimo: well you are wrong, unsurprisingly. Try Spielhagen et al 2011. Explain to me why the tropics were cool during the MWP (probably associated with strong La Nina)? If they were....then there is no coherent, global MWP is there?

Try being sceptical.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:54 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

It is easy to find fault with some of Monckton's claims, and noteworthy that many skeptics have criticised him.
But it is equally easy to find fault with the claims of those who claim to be paleoclimatologists.

"Lapogus: the MWP (like the LIA) was not a synchronous event globally. The few sceptic attempts to suggest that they were have been unbelievably crass (eg Soon and Baliunas 2003). "

Did Lapogus say this? No. Did S&B say it? No. They said in their conclusion 'widespread and near-synchronous'.

As for the 'guess' about being 'upset', this is a non sequitur even by the standards of paleoclimatology.

If Monty was really a paleoclimatologist, you would think he might be familiar with IPCC fig 6.10b, which shows a clear MWP around 1000AD, and does not look like a hockeystick (ignore the non-comparable instrumental data that the IPCC has drawn over the graph to try to mislead the reader).

So I still have no doubts regarding Monty's credibility.

Jul 20, 2011 at 4:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

PaulM: you can't even read a graph properly!

The figure refers to NORTHERN HEMISPHERE reconstruction. You deniers are arguing for a GLOBAL MWP. Do you not see the difference? Or are you too stupid to even get that far?

No wonder people like you have no credibility.

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

"So I still have no doubts regarding Monty's credibility."


I am laughing out loud with that comment. Monty is a CAGW troll that gratuitously calls himself a paleoclimatologist to bolster his flagging arguements.(he came across as just another CAGW Kool Aid drinking fool.)

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd_B

EdB: do you not accept that PaulM failed to understand the graph he linked to?

Since no other denier has answered this question, perhaps you can. What do you think of Monckton's claim to have developed a cure for AIDS and influenza? Does this make him credible?

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:17 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

"Does this make him credible?

Monty, you are flogging a dead horse here. Monckton wiped the floor with Dennis, get over it.

No amount of trolling or strawman arguements is going to change that.

CAGW is dead. AGW is real, but minor, and probably net net very beneficial. Get over it, get a life.

Why not take an interest in the CERN cloud results and how cosmic radiation is the missing driver of climate.(you know.. "it must be CO2 because we can't think of anything else".. well.. the missing 'anything else' has been proposed 15 years ago and hundreds of millions have been spent researching it. Standby for hard proof from CERN)

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd_B

EdB
Odd, isn't it, that none of you deniers will answer my very simple question about Monckton's cures for AIDS and influenza.

I'm also waiting for PaulM to admit his mistake in not knowing that the Northern Hemisphere wasn't the same as the Globe.

This site appears to be populated by the hard of thinking.

Jul 20, 2011 at 5:39 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

@ Monty

"I'm a paleoclimatologist so my credibility on this isn't at issue"

Really ? Well if you say so....but I'm afraid others may disagree based on some of your fellow "paleoclimatologist" colleagues less than satisfactory efforts.

Tip: the appeal to authority does not work on this forum.

BTW: if you are what you say you are, then post using your name....lets see.

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterMac

"This site appears to be populated by the hard of thinking"

you just described yourself!

Climate science has moved on, but you have not, why? Are you getting paid to push a political/economic view? Or are you a denier of science itself, that is, you have not been able to accept that the O2 that humankind is emmitting is beneficial?(eg, Monckton said 40% increase in crop outputs over the next 100 years, etc, etc.. not least of all, the greening of the Sahara.)

maybe you are a chicken little, or suffer religiosity, and you like to hold a sign "Repent: End of Times is nigh!"

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd_B

Mac: yeah sure I'm going to post my real name!

Perhaps you can explain to PaulM how to read a graph? I've tried but he doesn't want to speak to me for some reason.

While we are at it, what's your views on Monckton's cure for AIDS and influenza? Just asking, because no-one seems to want to answer this......

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM | Unregistered Commentermonty

"Monty" - just because Monckton may have some wacky ideas about totally unrelated fields doesn't necessarily invalidate his ideas on CAGW. To me he certainly appears to be a decent jobbing mathmatician. I assume that you have heard of Sir Isaac Newton? He spent more time studying and writing on alchemy than he did on "Principia Mathematica", does that invalidate all his work?

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterPogo

Monty, your inability to think logically precludes any rational debate. As I have already explained to you, I do not claim that the MWP was global.

Jul 20, 2011 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaulM

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>