The National Press Club debate

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

Comments

[monty]

PaulM: I'll try and keep this simple.

The point that deniers make is that "the MWP was warmer than present". Current warming is global in extent....it covers most of the Southern Hemisphere and most (if not all) of the Northern Hemisphere. As a result, deniers tried to show that the MWP (and LIA) was also global in extent and that therefore the hockey stick should have an uneven shaft rather than the straight shaft shown by reconstructions by Mann and others. However, the evidence is that neither the MWP nor the LIA were synchronous in both hemispheres, nor is there any evidence that the MWP was GLOBALLY warmer than now. In fact the tropics were cold during the European MWP.

I'm glad you don't claim the MWP was global (maybe you are not a denier?), but it means that you will be at odds with the vast majority of your denier friends.

[lapogus]

@ Monty and other gullible fools:

MWP warmer 1000 years ago - Saragasso Sea:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/274/5292/1503.abstract

MWP just as warm 1000 years ago, Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, Nature 2009:
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162

MWP and Minoan warmer - Greenland Ice cores - real science - http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Ste2009a.pdf

MWP tree ring paleoclimate study paper - California was 3.2C warmer than today in the MWP. Reference: Millar, C.I., King, J.C., Westfall, R.D., Alden, H.A. and Delany, D.L. 2006. Late Holocene forest dynamics, volcanism, and climate change at Whitewing Mountain and San Joaquin Ridge, Mono County, Sierra Nevada, CA, USA. Quaternary Research 66: 273-287. http://co2science.org/articles/V10/N4/C3.php

MWP Japan, cherry flowering dates paper - "The reconstructed tenth century March mean temperatures were around 7°C, indicating warmer conditions than at present." Abstract: http://www.springerlink.com/content/e13r57081qk84930/

MWP Georgia, Caucasian monastry high altitude kept cattle well above present arable limit. Climatic optima in the mountains of Georgia during Middle Age: results of palynological investigation of Navenakhari settlement and Betlemi monastery - http://www.inqua2011.ch/?a=programme&subnavi=abstract&id=2042&sessionid=8

Finally, as you like finding hockey sticks please try to find one here - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/yamal-treering-proxy-temperature-reconstructions-dont-match-local-thermometer-records/ or here: http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

As I usually remark in this situation, enjoy the Holocene while it lasts:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

[monty]

lapogus: Thanks for confirming what I have been arguing.....that the MWP was essentially a Northern Hemisphere event!!

To prove a global MWP you will have to demonstrate sustained high temperatures are synchronous GLOBALLY. It is not enough to say that it was warm in one place at (say) 900 AD and warm in another at (say) 1100 AD and then pretend that this proves a common MWP event. This is one of the mistakes Soon and Balliunas makes and is also done by the denier icecap website for instance.

Similarly with the LIA. For instance the central Patagonia 'LIA' occurred at the end of the 19th century, while in southern Patagonia it was 300 years earlier! Clearly not the same event.

[lapogus]

Monty -

The IPCC position is at odds with the findings of many other scientists. For example, research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics report on a recent paper using proxies, which verifies the occurrence of the MWP: [http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/press/pr0310.html] “A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.” - source: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/MWP_Globality.htm

MWP Peruvian Andes - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1003719108.abstract
analysis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/study-on-paleo-rainfall-records-clearly-shows-existence-of-mwp-and-lia-in-southern-hemisphere/

I get the impression that you are in denial about something.

[BBD]

Surely this discussion will be more constructive if everyone strives to remain polite?

The use of the term 'denier' is as counter-productive as speculation about the intellect of other commenters.

[Snotrocket]

Have to admit, this has been one of the most fascinating series of comments I have read on this blog. I have really found it interesting and illuminating. Not so much for the debate of science (of CAGW), but more for the 'science' of debate (if I can call it that).

While I could not presume to argue against Monty's (self) qualification and Nick's stonewall attacks of 'deniers', I have come to a point that makes me question the arrogance of the 'warmers': If I was qualified in any of the sciences sufficient to argue that CAGW was happening, it would behove me to think long and hard about the fact that what I was advocating was not so much that humankind may have to adapt to a very slight increase in warming over the next 100 years or so (and it has obviously done that before in history), but that it would need to take TRILLIONS of dollars out of respective economies in order to try to STOP it happening.

And there I see the twin arrogances of the warmers: that they are SO right: no doubt, it's settled; and that they have NO qualms about setting policies that will tax the first world back to the third world and probably kill off the third world in the process.

So I may not know the science, but I can spot an arrogance when I see it. And Monty and Nick, you share as much of that arrogance as you claim to exist in your opponents.

What it must be, to be right.

[monty]

lapogus: you do realize that report you link to is the one by Soon and Balliunas (you know...the ones whose methodology is so bad I use it to see if my undergraduate classes can spot the errors?). It is also published in a journal called Energy and Environment....which is not ISI listed, is barely refereed and the Editor at the time was Sonja Boehmer-Christiansson (a well known sceptic at Hull University who wasn't even a scientist!).

Don't you think that if they could show IPCC wrong, they would have published in a reputable journal? Like Nature, Science, PNAS, Holocene, IJC, JGR etc? There are dozens of good journals to publish in. I know, because I've published in about 20 of them.

I wonder why they chose a sceptic journal? Maybe because their study wasn't good enough to get into a mainstream one?

Snotrocket: I'm not arrogant...just pissed off with deniers pretending to be sceptics. The arrogance comes from people who don't understand the science pretending to know more than the professional scientists.

[monty]

Snotrocket: you said that "humankind may have to adapt to a very slight increase in warming over the next 100 years or so". If climate sensitivity is anywhere near what we think it is, the warming will be very considerable.

Of course, the same deniers who argue for a global MWP and LIA will be the same deniers who argue for low sensitivity!! Have you worked out the problem yet? They can't have it both ways.

[Bishop Hill]

Monty

I'm interested in your thoughts on S&B. In HSI I said that the chief objection to it was their use of precipitation proxies for a temp reconstruction. Is this right?

[Bishop Hill]

Monty

Re your earlier comments about other proxies showing hockey sticks, I'd also be interested in your thoughts on the proxies used in Mann 2008. I think it's fair to say that there are not many hockey sticks in there.

[monty]

Bishop Hill: it's certainly one of them....they claimed ANY climate anomaly (drier, wetter, colder, warmer) supported their interpretation! Bizarre!

But I also go back to the issue that they looked for a climate anomaly lasting 50 years or so over a wide time period (900-1300 if I remember rightly) and if they found it (which they were bound to do) than they claimed the existence of the MWP. This is just rubbish and about as unscientific and uncritical as you can get. When they got it into the journal Climate Research, it was so flawed, along with the peer-review process, that it lead to the resignation of half the editorial board. They rightly felt that the editor (de Freitas) who was a well known sceptic had just let it through because he liked the message.

In my experience, nothing like this has happened to a journal before.

[monty]

Bishop Hill: I haven't looked carefully at Mann 2008 so couldn't comment until I do.

But surely, the central issue is that there are loads of non-tree ring reconstructions that show hockey sticks (I've even produced some, and I'm not a member of the 'hockey team').

In other words, even IF Mann, Bradley and Hughes 98 was completely flawed (which it clearly isn't), we have compelling evidence that the late 20th century is anomalously warm compared with past 1000 years or so )and some glacial evidence suggests much longer).

[Mac]

@ Monty

The fact that you continuously ad-hom Monkton shows you are a troll and not who you claim to be.

There are multiple papers with multiple views on the MWP and you should know this...if you are who and what you claim to be of course. Most at least acknowledge that proxies do not always provide adequate sensitivity, but those capable of resolving temps of less than 1 deg indicate the MWP was global in nature.

[monty]

Mac: I'm afraid you are wrong. Why don't you try to update Soon and Balliunas (and make a better job of it)? You will then be in a position to argue with me. How do you explain the fact that the central Patagonia 'LIA' is 300 years later than the southern Patagonia 'LIA'? You can hardly argue for a synchronous LIA on that basis can you?

I'm off-line now....it's late.
Goodbye all.

[Bishop Hill]

Monty

Re precip proxies:
OK, so if we agree that you shouldn't use precip proxies for temp reconstructions, why do people like Mann and Crowley get away with doing it?

Re MBH98
You better tell me what is naive and rubbish about my book so we can discuss why you think MBH98 is clearly not wrong.

Re Non-tree ring reconstructions
Can you give me some examples of these papers.

[Robert Austin]

Monty,

Overpeck to Deming, "We have to get rid of the medieval warm period".

Why should we trust the paleoclimate community after machinations like this. Add to it a liberal dose of "hide the decline" and other paleoclimate tomfoolery and you have a long uphill battle to restore respectability to your scientific niche. As for Spielhagen et al 2011, that's rather recent. I will wait for the review of Steve McIntyre or some other able skeptic before crediting it. After all, how often have we seen a hockey stick resurrected from the dead only to be easily slain by skeptics because of the use of the same old tricks.

[Robert Austin]

Monty,

I second the good Bishop's motion requesting that you explain your reasoning that his book is trash and why MBH98 has some scientific credibility.

[Michael]

The NPC debate' has been very useful for at least one reason; it's demonstrated, yet again, that 'climate skeptic' = gullible dupe.

Monckton throws out a fib/fabrication/falsohood a minute and the 'climate skeptics' lap it up.

"Member of the house of lords" - lie. Anyone who is a real skeptic would be very sceptical of someone who misrespresents themselves so blatantly.

'Expert in climate sensitivity' - ha!. One article submitted to the APS Newsletter which " presents letters, commentary, book reviews, and non-peer-reviewed articles on the relations of physics and the physics community to government and society".

And with this, for true sceptics, Monckton shows his devious and dishonest slight of hand. Best of all, he displays the calcluating nature of his dishonesty. Make no mistake, this is a carefully crafted disception.

Monckton waffled on about the important of peer review, and then slides in the reference to his own article in the "reviewed literature". Huh? Reviewed literature? What happened to the 'peer-reviewed literature" that he was saying so was important? Nothing, but Monckton knows that his silly piece on climate sensitivity was not peer-viewed and carries all the scientific gravitas of a letter to the editor. Having played the peer-reviewed card, he hoped that some would not notice him shifting the goal-posts to just 'reviewed'.

And of course it was 'reviewed' , just like someone reads the letters to the editor before they are published.

This points to Moncktons sophistry - he wants to protect himself from charges of lying, so he creates a deception without a direct lie.

There is a word for these kind of people - charlatan.

It speaks volumes of the 'climate skeptics' that they are taken in by a fairly obvious charlatan.

[Iren]

Michael, I can't refute your statement about expertise in climate sensitivity because I'm not a scientist. However, in much the same way as you do, I can call into question all your statements because of your comment on the ridiculous and irrelevant "Lord" issue. Please read for yourself Lord Monckton's view on the matter and then try to wipe the egg off your face. Perhaps its a little too nuanced for you:

“The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch. Only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 Act was a general law. The then Government, realizing this defect, took three maladroit steps: it wrote asking expelled Peers to return their Letters Patent (though that does not annul them); in 2009 it withdrew the passes admitting expelled Peers to the House (and implying they were members); and it told the enquiry clerks to deny they were members: but a written Parliamentary Answer by the Lord President of the Council admits that general legislation cannot annul Letters Patent, so I am The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (as my passport shows), a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote, and I have never pretended otherwise.”

This is the sort of nonsense he has to put up with for telling the simple truth.

[Michael]

Iren,

People who blatantly lie about something so easy to check, raise a red flag for real sceptics.

Monckton was asked directly about the letter from the House of Lords's, telling him he is not, and never has been, a Member of the House of Lords. He ducked the question, getting the mod to read out his passport - and then quickly changed the topic.

Anyone with even a tiny shred of integrity would, at this point, would just 'fess up or shut up. In Oz, even some of the die-hard deniers in the media have been embarrassed by this and have requested Monckton to quit it.

Monckton is a charlatan, and those who are gullible enough to be taken in by his one-man circus have no business calling themselves sceptics (though one could consider them sceptics in the same sense that Monckton is a Member of the House of Lords - ie. in their imaginations.).

[Bishop Hill]

Monty's IP address seems to be in St Austell, Cornwall. I wonder which university he works at? :-)

[stephen lewis]

To Bishophill

I haven't frequented as often as I did, but it appears that the forum has gained some ground in credibility as you now have at least 3 trolls. When I last spent time here there was only zedsdeadbed.

I can only assume that your forum has become more of creditable and thus needs to be discredited.

I stand by my original comments that many appear to focus on politics to argue their case (this is less so with sceptics but happens nonetheless) and personal attacks (almost solely attributed to global warming believers)

I describe myself as a cynic, I have come to understand that almost everyone lies as there is usually a motive that will benefit themselves or their group that they seek to belong to. The question is "how big is the lie?"

For nearly 15 years I have been listening to reports that we're getting hotter and we'll have less rain and less snow etc etc. Then when more rain and more snow appears the that is global warming too but they will be rare events. The when they occur more often this is climate change we can expect this, then if we have better summers you can expect reports to say" we told you so - we're warming" and so the endless cycle goes on.

I am, I admit, a mere mortal but even I can see China advancing with 1000's more cars, factories, power stations, building programmes and India doing the same. Meanwhile I am being asked to keep the standby led switched off whilst warehouses (and that is seemingly what's left of our industry) leave thousands of lights on all night, we illuminate old (and derelict) castles throughout the night.

There are lies from all sides but on balance the lies are with global warming conspiracies. The reason that MWP period seems to be Northern hemisphere only is that's where most of the humans lived who wrote things down... thus we have anecdotal information to corroborate any science, thus making it difficult to dispute. Unlike the southern hemisphere where there is none/very little. Thus any science that is available can be more easily questioned where there were no "stories" told. That's my unscientific approach.

As a layman it truly is difficult because we are fed science without truly knowing how true it is. One things for sure, I have come to understand that I had better believe my instincts. Thus far the weather here would appear not ot have got any warmer or colder than I recall in 1980/1981 where we had a lot of
snow and very poor summers. My stepfather got so hacked off he started to go abroad for his holiday due to lack of sun and I struggled to deliver newspapers because fo the snow. That sems to pretty well what has happened in 2009/2010.

I also remember in the late 1980's insisting that the company I worked for hired air con units as we were literally sweating buckets.. thus it was very hot. This has not happened in the last 6 years to my knowledge.

Anecdotal.. true. But at least observed physically and I suspect without all the massaging of data would give a graph that was generally level with spikes in specific years.

[lapogus]

Monty - I appreciate you dropping by here, but not your use of the offensive deniers label. But that, just like the question over Monckton's hereditary status is a distraction from the main issue. I note that while you continue to denigrate the Soon and Balliunis paper, you fail to address the others I listed which do clearly suggest that the MWP was indeed a global event. I also find your assertion that the MWP was not a global and synchronous event extemely puzzling. Do you know of any mechanism which could explain how for example California (whose climate is very much determined by the Pacific) could be up to 3C warmer during the MWP, yet the rest of the land masses around the ocean not be correspondingly warmer? [ http://co2science.org/articles/V10/N4/C3.php ]. The temperature reconstruction from Japanese flowering dates also suggest that the north western Pacific was warmer at the same time. Are you suggesting that despite heat transfer via ocean circulation and currents (and atmospheric circulation), the northern Pacific could warm up yet the southern remain cool? Likewise the Atlantic? Please explain how this could come about, as it sounds very unlikely to me, from a thermodynamic perspective at least. The fact that (despite your protestations) proxy studies do clearly suggest that southern hemisphere temperatures did rise in the MWP (e.g. the Peruvian Andes study detailed above and also in South Africa - http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_coldaircave.php - and more at http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php ) make this claim of the MWP being an event peculiar to the northern hemisphere appear to be yet more alarmist clutching at straws - and complete bollocks.

I also note that you side-stepped my question on the whereabouts of a hockeystick in long term data derived not from tree rings or sediments etc., but from thermometers. So I repeat: please can you advise me where the hockey stick is in the following graph: http://oi49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

You also seem very confident that the IPCC estimates for climate sensitivity are correct, which frankly I find bewildering, considering your claims to be a genuine sceptic scientist. Did you not see Nic Lewis' recent exposition of the IPCC's shenanigans? - http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/ ?

Perhaps since you are so confident that the planet has such a high sensitivity to CO2, you could provide some empirical evidence which proves that the slight temperature increase of the late 20th century, is linked to the increase concentration of atmospheric CO2? (and by empirical I mean observed, in the real world, not 'data' generated by a computer model).

[Snotrocket]

Monty: You say: "I'm not arrogant...just pissed off with deniers pretending to be sceptics." And then, in the same breath, you admit you are arrogant, because of "...people who don't understand the science pretending to know more than the professional scientists".

Yep, that's the arrogance I'm talking about. Only the elders in the Church are entitled to lead the inquisition and interpret the runes. But you, you're like a rabid fox who has invaded another's territory and pissed all over the place to spoil the patch, before running off. In fact, far from being a Monty, I figure you should be a Rommel - or Dr Rommel if that is the correct title.

You came on the Bish's blog and your first act was to be gratuitously rude about his book - and through that, himself. It was not an accident that you did that. It was planned. It is a fact that in negotiation seminars one is encouraged to get straight in with a 'low bid' so that you can 'belittle' the other side and cause them to spend time protecting their bid. Rather like the man who wants $10 for something: He means $8, he'll take 6, it's worth four, so bid him two.

But you did it in such a way that I really believe you haven't read the HSI. You may have skimmed it, but I doubt you read it,otherwise you would be able to offer some small crumb of comfort for the scholarly work that has gone into it (as a 'lecturer, I'd hope that you are more positive to your students' papers).

Anyway, you go on to answer my point about adapting to GW: "If climate sensitivity is anywhere near what we think it is, the warming will be very considerable." So even you can only think of If. Let me know when it's a When.

Oh, and feel free to come back to my other question about how you feel about your decisions affecting the taxing of the population for many trillions of dollars.

[Fred Bloggs]

The issue I have with Monckton claiming to be a "member" of the upper house of the UK legislature is that it gives him a credibility that he simply does not have. He was neither elected nor appointed but he would like to make you think that he was.

Monckton is an odd character who debates well but is not and should not be a spokesman for climate scepticism. He probably loves Australia because for them he is probably perceived as the epitome of the english eccentric and provides great entertainment value from that alone.

The problem is that true sceptics like Lindzen are too busy actually doing physics and fulfilling their teaching obligations to strut around the world making such speeches.

[Fred Bloggs]

@Bishop Hill

Perhaps Cornwall is the location of Monty's holiday home.

[lapogus]

@ Fred - if so I hope it isn't like Al Gore's Florida residence and on the shoreline, with all that Greenland and Antarctic ice melting it would be deeply ironic.

[Iren]

"The issue I have with Monckton claiming to be a "member" of the upper house of the UK legislature is that it gives him a credibility that he simply does not have. He was neither elected nor appointed but he would like to make you think that he was. "

Good God, just a poor antipodean here, but surely in the British aristocracy a hereditary peer would far outweigh a political hack rewarded with a life peerage to continue to support their respective party in gratitude.

Michael, did you even read Lord Monckton's response in my earlier response? Where does he blatantly lie? My point was that he scrupulously and comprehensively stated the exact position.

[lapogus]

As a mere Perthshire peasant I have to agree with Iren, in that Monckton has simply stated the facts over his hereditary title and could not have made the situation any clearer. Given the dubious role they have played in Highland history I generally don't have much regard for the aristocracy or landed gentry (English and Scottish), but for what it is worth I have met Monckton a couple of times in Rannoch and he seemed like a decent chap to me. Lord Pearson likewise, though I have only spoken to him on the phone. I have never met Lord Whimbourne, but did spend a night at his Rannoch residence once (as guest of course) but that is another story and I digress. I note that Monty has gone quiet, must have been the old empirical evidence question.

[Michael]

Iren,

Yes.

The people who are best placed to say who is a member of the House of Lords, would be the House of Lords.

That body says that Monckton is a lying fool.

Anyone who takes on his delusions as their own, are showing an amazing amount of credulousness.

[John Whitman]

After I finished watching the video, I had the impression that the media in the audience was uncomfortable with not be in control of the messages of Monckton. They seemed to be twitching with lack of ability to manipulate the dialog. These people are used to being the message about IPCC AGWist agenda (and associated pseudo-science). The media is not experienced in being the hapless receiver of a skeptical message that is clear and well said . . . especially not experienced with sitting there while the skeptical message is being live broadcast in direct comparison to the so-called consensus view.

I loved watching the media squirm.

John

[Michael]

The only people who should be squirming are those who were gullible enough to fall for Moncktons lies.

But some are happy to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

[John Whitman]

Michael

Jul 22, 2011 at 1:00 AM

""""""The only people who should be squirming are those who were gullible enough to fall for Moncktons lies.

But some are happy to have the wool pulled over their eyes.""""""

= = =

Michael,

Thanks for keeping the dialog alive. For me this is great exposure to the arguments of the AGWist protagonists of the IPCC supporting variety. Appreciate it.

Your comment shows very protective instincts.

I think all of your strongest protective instincts are much needed by the media as demonstrated by their uncomfortable and hapless showing at the debate of Monckton vs. Dennis in Australia. Should they (media) be happy at your arguments here in their defense . . . . maybe they would not be happy if they actual see your defenses. Do you have a formal representation agreement with them to cover your liability? If not maybe you should, you don't want those guys to turn on you for your weaker defenses of them. The media have a history of turning on the more fanatical acolytes of Gore. I see the media as distancing themselves from the more fanatical of the Gore cult members.

John

[Michael]

What are you babbling about John?

Monckton is an obvious charlatan.

Any real sceptic can see through his deceptions and obfuscations quickly enough. On the other hand, the gullible......

[John Whitman]

Michael
Jul 22, 2011 at 2:26 AM

""""""What are you babbling about John?

Monckton is an obvious charlatan.

Any real sceptic can see through his deceptions and obfuscations quickly enough. On the other hand, the gullible...... ''''''''''

-------------------------

Michael,

Appreciate you keeping this dialog alive. Again, thanks for the opportunity to continue learning about AGWist protagonist argument fallacies and lack of strategies.

You seem tense. Relax, it is OK to be the weakest link in the group of commenters struggling to reject the superior argument of Monckton at the debate. Probably someone who is in the weakest link position needs to resort to the baser levels of intellectual instinct.

Baser intellectual levels such as are indicated by using words like: babbling, charlatan, deceptions, obfuscations, gullible.

Question: Is your argument considered to be characteristic those who continually despoil Monckton? I would be disappointed there isn't anything more to learn in your anti-Monckton argument. I thought there would be more to learn of your position. : (

John

[LC]

I would guess that everyone here is perfectly well aware that Monckton is a buffoon on many issues. Nonetheless, a likeable eccentric who is just the latest in a long, long line of, typically british, eccentrics. He gets things wrong for sure and he certainly seems to sometimes, shall we say, stretch the truth. However, he often gets things right and he’s no fool when it comes to science and math. The thing that really, really annoys all our “visitors” though, is that even someone like Monckton consistently wipes the floor with whichever representative of the believers he’s debating. At least, as far as those in the audience are concerned. This is what really gets them. They can’t even beat Monckton and this is why they hate him.

[Michael]

John,

Thankyou for more content free gibberish.

All this handwaving, but no factual defence of Monckton's lies that I pointed out ealier. I guess this may point to the fact that those who defend Monckton actually know that he's talking a load of rubbish, but bow to the higher priority of defending the team.

LC,

Yes indeed, "Monckton is a buffoon on many issues"......AIDS, the common cold, the House of Lords, climate science.

Nevertheless, some people have such ideological /political blinkers on the later, that they refuse to acknowledge his buffoonary on climate science.

[Bishop Hill]

Michael

Could you moderate your tone a bit.

[Ed_B]

To all the trolls that have shown up to post endless personal attacks on Monckton:

it is boorrrinnggg!

Monckton won the dabate on his summaries of the science, so get over it.

Yes, I know you will keep posting attacks based on no science until everyone goes home.

[Michael]

Ed_B,

How does pointing to factual inaccuracies and deceptions amount to a 'personal attack'??

How does pointing out where Monckton gets the science wrong equate to 'no science'??

The gullible defenders of Monckton, by necessity, avoid the details and deal in vague assertions.

[NoIdea]

CLICK WALK ORANGE

Melancholy melon troll Michael
Depressed that the best of the pests
Was destroyed by Lord Monckton
In a simple public speaking test

The metallic Marvin Michael whines
In his efforts to degrade and snide
His rusty thinking is dull and never shines
His logic chip inserted really deep inside

Regurgitated melon bots
Easily spotted puppet frauds
Marionettes strings twisted lots
Apoplectic in the name of the Lords

[Mique]

@ Michael

"How does pointing to factual inaccuracies and deceptions amount to a 'personal attack'??"

You have not pointed to any factual innaccuracies and deceptions relevant to climate science. Your arguments have been nothing but ad hominem, appeals to authority and sheer rudeness and disrespect for people with a long and proven track record of logical argument.

How does pointing out where Monckton gets the science wrong equate to 'no science'??

I can find nothing from you that comes close to "pointing out where Monckton gets the science wrong".

The gullible defenders of Monckton, by necessity, avoid the details and deal in vague assertions.

There you go again with mindless abuse. Grow up, Michael.

[Michael]

The above from an appropriately named commentor.

Still no rational defence of Monckton's falsehoods, fibs and fabrications.

A glowing testament to climate 'skepticism'.

[Michael]

Mique,

Did you watch the video?

Did you listen to Monckton's bizarre 'explanation' of his 1 c deg climate sensitivity?

Did you hear him deliberately try to mislead about his 'reviewed' article?

Did you hear him lie, yet again, about being a member of the House of Lords?

His lie about him being an 'expert' in climate sensitivity?

etc etc etc

No one who falls for his tricks can honestly call themselves a sceptic. A sucker, dupe, too trusting....maybe. But certainly not a sceptic.

[John Whitman]

Michael said,

‘’’’The gullible defenders of Monckton, by necessity, avoid the details and deal in vague assertions.’’’’’

= = = = = = = = = =

Michael,

I do not know to whom you are referring when you endearingly say “gullible defenders of Monckton”, but regardless of your vague pejoratives, certainly Monckton needs no defenders at all. That is why he so clearly had the higher intellectual hand in the debate against someone who represented the AGWist agenda of the Australian variety. He won mostly because he needed no defenders in order to stand up by himself to dissect Dr. Dennis and the hostile media.

Although Monckton certainly needs no defenders, I think Monckton has a lot of hard earned respect from independent minds; there is considered support of his ruthless presentation and debate capability. He will continue a process of improvement as many supporters come forward to continuously improve his argument. World class and improving.

Monckton is a great old campaigner.

John

[pointman]

For goodness sake, what's happened to the standard of trolling lately? They used to field some real Panzergrenadiers who knew what they were doing. All that's sent against us nowadays is snivelling Volkssturm kids and pensioners with cardboard Panzerfausts.

Pointman

[Michael]

More vague assertions - "the higher intellectual hand".

Well, sophistry was, at one time, thought to be a wonderful intellectual quality......but now known to be the stock-in-trade of charlatans.

[pointman]

I shouldn't complain really. If they're down to "magen" batallions, I suppose the writing is on the wall for them. Perhaps we can get back to doing real science now.

Pointman

[John Whitman]

Michael
Jul 22, 2011 at 5:41 PM

''''''More vague assertions - "the higher intellectual hand".

Well, sophistry was, at one time, thought to be a wonderful intellectual quality......but now known to be the stock-in-trade of charlatans'''''

---------------------------

Michael,

Sophistry? Thank you. Indeed; your flattery of me is only exceeded by your consistent application to me of your unique sense of fair play.

A Suggested Proposal => Put your accusations in a format that is directly addressed to Monckton here on this thread. Reminder, your accusations against Monckton are systemic lying and being significantly/intentionally misleading regarding the key science issues. Do you go for it?

Perhaps Monckton would find his way to comment here. I am sure many here at BH are in frequent contact with him.

John

[Michael]

Gee John,

I've laid them out several times - the assembled herd can only handwave and waffle.