Christopher Monckton’s visit gets covered in the Sydney Morning Herald. On Monckton’s argument that climate sensitivity us just one-sixth of the generally accepted value:
The argument Lord Monckton mounted has been painstakingly picked apart by several eminent climate-change researchers, but it was an Australian computer scientist, Tim Lambert, who helped collate many of the flaws on his website.
“A lot of the equations used to cover it up were right, but the argument was complete gibberish,” Mr Lambert said.
The hypothesis took the lowest possible range of carbon dioxide’s known warming effect on climate, multiplied it by the lowest possible effect of the various feedbacks that amplify the warming effect, to give a figure well below that shown by any observation.
One of the implications of the hypothesis was that, given what we know about climate, there could not have been ice ages in the past.
“The hypothesis is completely inconsistent with the observations,” said Professor Matthew England, the co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of NSW.
“In science, the world isn’t wrong so the calculations must be wrong.”
John Quiggin reflects on whether it is wise to debate with Monckton:
There is, obviously, little to be achieved by debating lunatic conspiracy theorists, especially if they have plenty of practice and no scruples about lying and dodging questions (see Plimer doing both on Lateline a little while back, and Clive Hamilton’s expose of Monckton).
Graham Readfearn agreed to the debate with Monckton and Plimer. Various denialists are trying to help him with debate prep with their comments on his blog.