The National Press Club debate

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

Comments

[Michael]

[NO] .

[pointman]

[removed- see comment above] Pointman

[Michael]

Just a fact.

Mockton apears very credible to the conspriacy-minded.

Not so to true sceptics and the rationally-minded.

[Michael]

Honourable mention to B/H too.

[Andrew Dorrell]

Richard Dennis won in my view. I can't understand why anyone would say otherwise. Perhaps he failed in not drawing to anyone's attention Chris Monckton's logical inconsistency: on the one hand he claims that the climate is chaotic and warming cannot be predicted; then he applies what appears to be a simple linear model to predict 1 degree of warming for a doubling of CO2. By his own thesis his own position is at best highly unreliable. But most of the things Dennis failed to say I think can be put down to politeness and or an unwillingness to speak on topics beyond his expertise and are are to his credit. He also didn't need to go there.

Dennis successfully pointed out the incredibility of the conspiracy argument; the unexplainable "balance" already afforded to climate skepticism - which goes well beyond the balance that would be afforded other opinions that conflict with scientific consensus; and the logical contradiction of both rejecting the need for action on climate and supporting a more costly policy - that is the Liberal's "direct action". He did this without speaking outside of his area of expertise - economics and risk management. I feel he successfully and respectfully pointed out that our peak scientific organisations not only deserve respect for their well considered conclusions but that they are in agreement on the need for action on climate change, as are all of our major political parties. He refrained from all possible shallow attacks on Lord Monckton himself - including asking why it was that he thought the resources rent tax had anything at all to do with the climate debate.

And as for the whole "Lord" debarcle... It would have been honest of Chris to simply point out, perhaps with reference to his passport, that he is a viscount and therefore entitled to the title of Lord, and that this is quite distinct from being a member of the house of lords - which he is not and has no right to claim. Claiming that his passport said he was a member of the house of lords goes only to indicate an unreasonable flexibility in interpretation of facts on his part - not in itself a reason to dismiss the man but certainly an indication that you should not believe things he says on face value and without question. With that in mind it is worth pointing out some others...

Beside the logical inconsistency in saying both that temperature rise is unpredictable and that it will be 1degree for a CO2 doubling (by his calculations), he offers incredibly weak argument such as "CO2 as plant food". It is equally valid to refer to oxygen as a toxin and ultimately it is the proportion of both in the atmosphere that is the important factor. The atmosphere of Venus provides a nearby example of one rich in CO2 and demonstrates clearly a greenhouse effect - check the surface temperatures, they can be found in old children's encyclopedias for those who don't trust the Internet. Again there is no new insight here and to all those climate scientists who learned about plants and CO2 back in high school biology such comments are only patronising and insulting to their far more extensive knowledge.

Well done Dennis. Thanks for your impeccable behavior and consistent, well reasoned and logically consistent argument. That's how it should be done.