Unfortunately, while Monckton has mastered the best arts of persuasion, he also succumbs to the worst of them when he engages in his made-for-the-stage histrionics. In Copenhagen, when a group of young activists interrupted a meeting, he berated them as Nazis and Hitler Youth. Elsewhere he has called on people to rise up and fight off a “bureaucratic communistic world government monster”. This extremist language damages his credibility.
But Albrechtsen’s faith in Monckton seems to be unshakeable.
When Monckton talks about the science he is powerful. Watch on YouTube his kerb-side interview of a well-meaning Greenpeace follower on the streets of Copenhagen last month. With detailed data behind him, he asks whether she is aware that there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures for 15 years. No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has in fact been global cooling in the past nine years? No, she is not. Whether she is aware that there has been virtually no change to the amount of sea ice? No, she does not. Whether, given her lack of knowledge about these facts, she is driven by faith, not facts. Yes, she is driven by faith, she says.
“global cooling in the past nine years” Do you trust Monckton or your lying eyes?
“there has been virtually no change to the amount of sea ice”? Do you trust Monckton or your lying eyes?
“there has been no statistically significant change in temperatures for 15 years” Unusually for a Monckton utterance, this is sort of true, but doesn’t mean what he thinks it does — that there hasn’t been any real warming in 15 years. The warming signal in temperatures is so strong that with just 15 years of data we can distinguish it from the noise. It will always be true that with noisy data you will need a certain amount before you can detect statistically significant effects. It doesn’t mean that such effects are not real. See Tamino for more on this.
Are there any real journalists left at The Australian?
Albrechtsen is no more qualified than Monckton on these points. But she ought to ask herself whether it makes sense to rely on the statistical judgement of a former political advisor (to climate arch-conspirator Margaret Thatcher no less) whose political judgement is so obviously flaky.
Was that one world government fear-mongering ‘measured’ Janet?