It is so on

I will be debating Christopher Monckton this Friday.

John Smeed emails:

The Grand Ballroom at the Sydney Hilton Hotel is booked for 12.30pm to 2.30pm on Friday 12 February 2010 where it was planned that Alan Jones would MC a Lord Monckton lecture.

I have now rearranged this function to become a ‘Presidential Style’ debate (like the format used in the USA Presidential elections) on DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND ? with Alan Jones as the Moderator.

Each speaker will present a 10-15 minute Synopsis of his argument

The Moderator, Alan Jones, will ask a sequence of say four (4) relevant questions with the order of speaking being reversed each question.

Questions will be received from the floor, again with the order of speaking being reversed each question.

Each speaker will be given a five (5) minute summary time at the end of the question time

Moderator will close the debate

Comments

  1. #1 VikingMoose
    February 9, 2010

    Tim – every time I see the title to this post, I think of Mayor West from “Family Guy”: “What’s this? A Yelling contest? I say GAME ON” [yells]
    :)

  2. #2 Betula
    February 9, 2010

    Dave @298…

    I answered this question on open thread 39, @152.

  3. #3 toby
    February 9, 2010

    Tim,

    The moderator Alan Jones was quoted on MediaWatch as a climate change sceptic and is a mate of Monckton’s.

    You should have insisted on a change of moderator.

    Your best best is to give Monckton enough rope to hang himself. Remember a rapier is better that a bludgeon when dealing with arrogant bastards.

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    February 9, 2010

    Bruce Barrett had been debunked and discredited.

    His claims about Arctic sea ice have been shown to be wrong, as are his false claims about glaciers, the Amazon, and…er…*everything* else!

  5. #5 Mark
    February 9, 2010

    Betula writes:

    >I answered this question on open thread 39, @152.

    And he quite contradicted himself in providing that answer.

    < http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#c2261309>

  6. #6 Bruce Barrett
    February 10, 2010

    Friends, Crazies, Warmers, and Lemmings,

    Let’s recap the post;

    No one has denied that the IPCC is inherently a political organization that uses grey reports, conclusions provided by insurance companies, the WWF and other political pressure groups.

    No one has linked to any conclusive science other than a thirty year decrease in Arctic sea ice which has at least temporarily recovered; along with charts based upon disputed ground station homogenized data that shows that temperatures have increased by .12C in the past decade, but have not passed previous highs.

    No one has countered the simple reality that CO2 emissions are not going to stop, drop, or slow any time soon.

    No one has countered the apocalyptic, cataclismic, catastrophic, warnings that are spoon fed to the press on a monthly basis by the high priests of anthropogenic global warming.

    Please read that summary and tell me if it doesn’t make you all sound like a bunch of tools? What nation is going to put itself at an enormous economic disadvantage to keep temperatures rising past .12C per decade? This also demonstrates a slowing of warming, which is contrary to all of your alarmist rhetoric.

    If there is global warming and IF there is AGW, the only logical thing to do is determine how to adapt and benefit from it. Or you can all just put your collective heads in the sand and tell each other how clever you believe you are.

    By the way Lotharsson here are the estimates from the different IPCC reports;

    Let’s look at earlier IPCC projections to get a sense of how climate change findings have evolved since 1990. Although each report stated its projections in ways that make it somewhat difficult to make direct comparisons, here’s the gist of them. In 1990, the FAR found that computer climate models projected that global mean surface temperature could increase by about 1 degree Celsius above the present value by 2025 and 3 degrees Celsius before the end of the next century. The “best estimate” for sea level rise due to melting glaciers and thermal expansion was about 60 centimeters (25 inches) by 2100.

    In 1996, the SAR lowered the projected increase in average global temperatures by 2100 of about 1.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 with a best estimate of 2 degrees Celsius ((3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The SAR forecasted that sea-level could rise between 15 to 94 centimeters (6 to 37) inches by 2100 with a best estimate of 50 centimeters (20 inches). In 2001, the TAR widened the projected range of projected temperature increases by 2100 to 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit). On the other hand, the TAR dropped its estimates of sea level rise by 2100 to 9 to 88 centimeters (4 to 35 inches) with a mean estimate of 45 centimeters (18 inches).

    So what does the latest report foresee? The Summary offers six scenarios for possible temperature increases by the end of this century. In the low scenario the likely range of temperature increase between 1.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (2 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit) with a best estimate of 1.8 Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit). In the worst case scenario, average temperature rises to between 2.4 Celsius and 6.4 Celsius (4.3 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) with a best estimate of 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit). Except for the worst case scenario, the top temperatures are lower than the maximum projected by the TAR in 2001.

    This demonstrates that not only are you an ass but an ignorant ass, willing to damage other people’s interest based upon your feelings, and your aggregation of a thousand points of green.

  7. #7 jakerman
    February 10, 2010

    Lets recap just one criticism of Bruce Barrett’s Gish Galloping:

    When Bruce tries to talk climate science, Bruce gets things wrong, [badly wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2259843). Bruce is unreliable. Nuff said?

  8. #8 BarrettAudit
    February 10, 2010

    Bruce Barrett

    “… biggest fraud in history … I am not trying to drive the world into the stone age … enormous economic disadvantage … willing to damage other people’s interest … cry for CO2 reduction is nothing more than a grab for money and power … giant scam … religion of AGW … my anti-social behavior … What is your freaking delusion? … trying to damage the world economy … ”

    Cringeing Chicken Little alarmism Bruce! “Stop burning coal and we’ll all be roooned I tellya!” shouts Bruce, the fellow who still rides around on a hay-burnin’ pony ‘cos the introduction of expensive automobiles 100 years ago totally destroyed the world economy, as we all learn today in school. Not really Bruce.

    Calm down a little. Cooler heads than yours are at work and the consensus is that the sky may not in fact fall when you and your pony get dragged squealing into the twenty-first century Bruce.

  9. #9 David Irving (no relation)
    February 10, 2010

    Bruce, tl;dr.

  10. #10 David Irving (no relation)
    February 10, 2010

    Bruce, tl;dr.

  11. #11 Chris O'Neill
    February 10, 2010

    Crazy Bruce Barrett,

    Let’s recap what you are;

    You have not denied that you are a bullsh!tting comedian. Your comedy has provided us with an excellent demonstration by example of how anyone who talks about just 10 years of weather data as if that’s all we need to know climate is just giving a comedy performance. Thank you very much.

  12. #12 Phil M
    February 10, 2010

    Lets recap:

    No one has denied that Monckton & Bruce are political activists & propaganda machines.

    No one denies that various front groups, pr groups, lobbyists & fossil fuel industries have supplied you with your information that has not stood up to logic let alone peer reviewed science.

    No one denies that your “conclusive evidence” is just a goal post moving exercise. No matter where the evidence comes from you will say its unreliable, but yours is ok. No matter who it comes from, you will say its not conclusive enough, but yours is. Its just a pointless delaying tactic most deniers use because they WONT look at the evidence. Or if they think they HAVE the evidence, then why dont they submit a paper or write an email to the scientists in question? Why battle it out on the blogs? Does what happens here change the science? You are just being a propagandist. Maybe they dont want it to end up in the newsletter scrap heap like Moncktons did with a dirty big disclaimer above it saying “this paper is a joke”.

    > “If there is global warming and IF there is AGW, the only > logical thing to do is determine how to adapt and benefit > from it. Or you can all just put your collective heads in > the sand and tell each other how clever you believe you > > are.”

    If there is harm to come from smoking & IF it causes CANCER, the only logical thing to do is determine how to adapt & benefit from it….. You realise how stupid the adapt position sounds?

    > “willing to damage other people’s interest based upon > “your feelings.

    Translation: “willing to hurt certain industries profits to protect lives of your fellow human beings & generations to come.” Despicable.

    What if we create a better world for nothing eh?

  13. #13 Proud Sceptic
    February 10, 2010

    Facts = Science

    Faith = what we see reading through the thread here.

    This has to be the wackiest forum I have seen. I have my popcorn; looking forward to the debate on Friday.

    Should be a good crowd; I’ll be able to identify the Deltoid cheer squad by the alfoil hats I suspect. What a bunch of beanies……

    My prediction? Monckton by a TKO in the 2nd. CentreBet is giving 2 to 1 on.

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    February 10, 2010

    This demonstrates that not only are you an ass but an ignorant ass, willing to damage other people’s interest based upon your feelings, and your aggregation of a thousand points of green.

    I love a good non sequitur in the evening. It smells like…victory.
    ;-)

    Bruce, you first claimed the models were no good without any evidence.

    I called you on it, and linked to a post comparing forecasts reported in earlier IPCC reports with actual outcomes, noting that forecasts are ranges of outcomes depending on various circumstances.

    You now respond with a couple of data points from forecasts (at least you started posting ranges), without showing how they show that the older models were no good.

    Miss the point much?

  15. #15 Anonymous
    February 10, 2010

    Proud skeptic, is your post @313 built on ‘facts’ or the the other ‘f’ word?

    Though I wouldn’t disagree about this thread having a higher than usual contribution of wackies.
    ;)

  16. #16 MikeB
    February 10, 2010

    re #295 – Bud – I missed that interview (although I thought it was Bob Watson up against Lindzen and Lomborg, with Watson not exactly shining and the interviewer was dreadful), but Hulme has had a pretty poor track record at getting the message out for a while.

    He wrote an article in the Guardian a couple of years back http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange which I thought at first was supporting the views of Fred Singer, et al, it was that wishy washy.

    He then wrote a little later that ‘Campaigners, media and some scientists seem to be appealing to fear in order to generate a sense of urgency’, and this was bad, even if it was the IPCC itself who said such things. The conference where he said that got full coverage in all the media. Thanks Mike.

    As a champion for his fellow researchers, he’s a total dud. But where are the media friendly UK based climate researchers who can do this kind of stuff instead? Even those who go on ‘Home Planet’ and say Stott is wrong, do it so quietly and nicely it wants to make you cry. David King is the only bloke (apart from Monbiot and Goldacre)who gets the job done right.

    Put it this way, medics wouldn’t put up with this sort of crap on the BBC. Instead they’d be really horrible to the Beeb and have their really good spokesman from the BMA on like a shot. They have real media savvy.

    Facts are not enough. You have to actually fight for them to be heard. So get someone who can fight.

  17. #17 Turboblocke
    February 10, 2010
  18. #18 wildlifer
    February 10, 2010

    Bruce is a Poe…

  19. #19 Lotharsson
    February 10, 2010

    Facts are not enough. You have to actually fight for them to be heard. So get someone who can fight.

    +1000

  20. #20 Sparrow
    February 10, 2010

    Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate
    HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE
    And who is the IPCC’s esteemed head? A Goat named Pachy who writes steamy Mills and Boon Novel, titilating science!

  21. #21 Bud
    February 10, 2010

    re #295 – Bud – I missed that interview (although I thought it was Bob Watson up against Lindzen and Lomborg, with Watson not exactly shining and the interviewer was dreadful), but Hulme has had a pretty poor track record at getting the message out for a while.

    I actually did watch the interview – and you’re right, it was Watson. My bad. Spot on with the rest of your comments as well.

  22. #22 chek
    February 10, 2010

    Sparrow, thanks for giving us your insight into the mental tinnitus that drives yer average denier’s “understanding”.

  23. #23 MikeB
    February 10, 2010

    Bud – I stopped watching it after ten minutes, I just couldn’t take the stupid any longer. It burned, and burned bad.

  24. #24 Hawk-and-Cat
    February 11, 2010

    Sparrow, who would call a goat Pachy? I find it very hard to believe that someone would name a goat that. Seriously. No it is funny. Did you self-apply the “Sparrow”? Are you full of chirrup in the mornings? I bet you flit. Are you a flitty sort of guy? Do you peck the hay seeds? Are you little but with a proud puffy chest? My name is Hawk-and-Cat and I want to eat you partly because you’re my prey species and partly because you’re a tit. Get it? A tit is like a sparrow but double entendre city and it’s also setting up… tit for tat Sparrow. See what I did there? Chirrup! Cheep, cheep.

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    February 11, 2010

    >Just read the [transcript of Jones' interview with Malcolm Turnbull:](http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=3901)

    One thing Turnbull said in that was:

    “Look I’m very familiar with it and I can assure you so is Ian Macfarlane, so is Andrew Robb so is Greg Hunt.”

    With colleagues like Robb and Hunt, who needs enemies.

  26. #26 Jeff Harvey
    February 11, 2010

    *And what is wrong with Lomborg’s “key message”?*

    Pretty well everything. He does not understand basic ecology and hashes up the biodiversity chapter completely. His predictions with respect to poverty and starvation are already defunct. He screwed up the chapters on forest cover and acid rain, presumably because these were fields beyond his competence. And he knows damned well that there will never be a fiscal priority to alleviating water shortages and hunger in the developing world, allowing his to use this theme forever in his talks arguing that we should not give climatye change mitigation priority.

    That is probably why he avoids me like the plague now – he did not turn up at two venues where I was an invited speaker and debater, one in which he pulled out at the last minute and the other in which he declined to attend.

    Andrews, if you want to debate me on these issues I will gladly oblige. But as much as Lomborg’s “facts” are hardly daunting, I suspect that yours will be even thinner.

  27. #27 Jeff Harvey
    February 11, 2010

    Brainless Bruce Barrett,

    Please tell me your sources of information with respect to tropic forest loss. The fact is that over the past century the world has lost 7 million square km of tropical forests out of an original total of about 14 million sq. km. And this is only via direct deforestation; this tells us nothigng about the deleterious effects of high-grade logging and fire that have already affected some 35% of the forests in the Amazon basin, rendering them more susceptible to future fires, altering microclimates and seriously undermining their resilience. It also tells us nothing about the effects on the riotous biodiversity that inhabits the forest understory in this region.

    Tell me Bruce: what is your scientific pedigree, or are you just another idiot illustrating the Dunning-Kruger effect? What do you know about context and trait mediated processes in ecological communities? What do you know about interaction network webs in ecology and response and effect traits in species and genetically distinct populations? What do you know about the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning? What do you know about edge effects and island biogeography theory, focusing on the Terborgh-Soule models of exponential decay in predicting extinction rates? What do you know about the research at Biodepth and Cedar Creek? What do you know about tipping points in non-linear ecological dynamics? About ecosystem services?

    Once you answer me all of these questions with “nothing”, then you can explain the rest of the contributors to this thread what an armchair expert you are on the way the world works.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Chris O’Neill:

    Alan Jones is a moron, or at least plays one on radio:

    …supposing this is just the new religion like Y2K… They were wrong on Y2K.

    Yeah, Alan, no Y2K disaster happened because enormous effort went into averting the problems. And that proves it was never a problem in the first place to you? Idiot!

    Unfortunately Turnbull humours him on that assertion to make a point later, which was a mistake, but at least Turnbull has some principle:

    Well Alan the alternative to that is to do nothing about climate change which I think is reckless.

  29. #29 Peter Pan
    February 11, 2010

    Good luck Tim.

    Not sure if you’re still reading this far down but I would try and keep it as simple as possible and use analogies where possible and then qualify them.

    If you go first I’d suggest attempting to steal his thunder.
    Something along the lines of “Lord Monckton” will try to tell you this (eg: it hasn’t warmed for a decade) when in fact it’s remained warmer than ever even though the sun hasn’t been this weak in a century.

    Quickly preview his short term graphs and then show them plotted as part of the longer trend and show how insignificant they are.

    I’m sure it won’t be a level playing field for you.

  30. #30 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    328 Lotharsson,

    It’s funny how this lie won’t die, given that a *lot* of people work in IT at various levels and know what really happened. At our place, we set up a project to:-

    Check our own code. I was one of those searching many Cobol sources for date calculations and comparisons. We found very few problems, as it happened, but it needed to be done.

    Ensure that our software suppliers were doing/had done the same.

    Ran a date-shifted environment on the mainframe to carry out testing.

  31. #31 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    320 Sparrow,

    It is clear that you are a bird-brain, but “Parrot” would’ve better matched your post.

  32. #32 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    TrueSceptic, not only that, but the recent EFTPOS “2016″ debacle shows that it was a real problem. Someone had treated BCD as binary and no-one had tested for dates where the difference mattered…

  33. #33 Westerner
    February 11, 2010

    As Monckton is a skilled and eloquent public performer he will undoubtedly make mincemeat of you. Still, I suppose you are brave, however foolish.

  34. #34 d-ro
    February 11, 2010

    In your opening remarks, explain to the audience that having seen Monckton give interviews and having examined his claims, you apologize in advance that you will likely devote most of your speaking time to correcting his errors.

    Then get on the horse and ride

  35. #35 Snertly
    February 11, 2010

    You must realize that for me to explain the particulars of the facts and science involved in this matter, to a person of your… umm.. abilities, is rather difficult.

    So it would be, for you, a rational choice to accept what I say because I am presented as an authority on the subject matter.

    Once you have made that choice, understanding vast amounts of physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, teledildonics, plate tectonics, and the many other areas of science that impact upon this issue becomes extraordinarily easy.

    Therefore, I would, for your benefit, suggest and encourage your acceptance with all possible haste.

  36. #36 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    332 Lotharsson,

    I hadn’t heard of that one. Can I say “doh!”?

    At least our problems were just about comparing 2-digit years, which we rarely did as it was standard practice to use the built-in binary date routines.

    BCD < -> binary is as bad as Microsoft not knowing that 2000 was a leap year until rather late in the day!

  37. #37 Betula
    February 11, 2010

    JH @327…

    What part of your comment answers a question or proves someone’s statement wrong? In fact, what is the purpose of the comment, other than to give yourself a pat on the back for being able to listen to yourself?

    Can I play too?

    What do you know about treating phytophthora? Can you tell me how often I should be checked for cholinesterase inhibitors if I frequently use an Organophosphate or Carbamate. What would you use to treat Bronze Birch Borers, Maujet or a Durban bark drench? What do you know about the percentage of C02 produced by a trees root system as compared to what is used during photosynthesis? What do you know about the best time of year to transplant a 12″ caliper Red Oak and how big do you think the root ball should be? Roughly, what would it weigh for transport? What would you recommend, if anything, to treat for Verticillium Wilt? What do you know about a phenoxy screen test? Why would you do one? Do you think a Southern Magnolia would fair well in Zone 6? What do you know about treating slime flux on a Black Birch? What do you know about using a Teupen to remove a decayed 90 foot White Pine over a house and a swimming pool? Would you plant a Nellie Stevens Holly in Northern Connecticut? Can you give me a situation where cutting down trees will help reduce C02? How would you treat for Necria canker? Fireblight? Cytospora? Would you treat a Crabapple with Orthene? How high would you install a cable in a 70 foot double leader Maple? What size cable? Would you feed a Spruce with endo or ecto mycorrhizae?

    According to your own logic @327, until you answer all of these question, you are brainless, and nothing but an armchair expert on the care and treatment of one of the worlds greatest natural resources.

    And like you, I haven’t answered any questions or proved anybody wrong.

  38. #38 truthseekr
    February 13, 2010

    Can’t get over how childish and nasty the people who can’t provide answers to Bruce’s basic questions are! When ya don’t have the facts, attack the person, seems to be the MO on here!

    truthseekr

  39. #39 Peter
    February 13, 2010

    Congrats Tim on your debate with Lord Monkton.

    Firstly I think this was incredibly important moment in the debate as you are the first AGW advocate to actually have the guts to get up and actually have a debate. I was very impressed with your performance, but was also impressed that Lord Monkton was not nearly as “mad” as many of your blog visitors made him out to be.

    All we have heard from your side for the past three years, is 30,000 peer reviewed scientists can’t be wrong, the science is settled, you the public are not qualified to have an opinion, and we Australians have to move ahead of the rest of the world to set a good example.

    What the AGW folks actually did was to push the agenda ahead of the speed at which the public was coming with you on the journey. This is the business world is called a bubble. All bubbles burst!

    In so doing your AGW folks have alienated every one and have the Government of day, (which took to the election a policy of 40-60% cuts, being first mover, leading by example) are now spooked and now pursuing a policy 5% cuts, and “we do no more and no less than the rest of the world”.

    Why? Because the AGW side have refused to allow a debate like this previously, and when challenged they have vilified and tried to shut down any contrary view with comments like – idiots, deniers and CC Skeptics.

    The debate was great, very interesting, thought provoking and addressed a much wider range of issues than I expected, and most importantly was conducted respectfully, considering Alan Jones’ obvious viewpoint.

    So thank you Tim, for participating in the debate. Even though I remain a “denier/skeptic” for the first time I saw someone sensible actually involved in something they knew something about and able to argue the toss respectfully, factually, and with true belief and obvious commitment. A far cry from the usual pundits the ABC put up to talk down at us all, and scream at anyone who dares to disagree with them.

    If your side had more people like you prepared to put in the hard yards, treat people respectfully, whilst still standing your ground as you have done, then the debate and actions arising might be in a different place, and the government not as spooked as they are in an election year.

  40. #40 P. Lewis
    February 13, 2010

    Peter says:

    What the AGW folks actually did was to push the agenda ahead of the speed at which the public was coming with you on the journey.

    Sorry, but the AGW folks, i.e. the scientists, work at the pace the science (and budgets) allows. If anything, it is slowed by the time taken for work to pass through review and the publication process. It’s not for scientists to slow down, it’s for other folk to keep up.

    And if it’s the politics angle you are referring to (notwithstanding that politics is the art of the possible), then scientists have been warning the public of the situation for 20 to 30 years at least, and in some cases much longer.

    And if it’s the media aspect to which you refer, well …

    The only people to benefit from tardiness are those that wish to do nothing or who wish to delay, for whatever personal or corporate reasons completely divorced from what the science says.

  41. #41 Chris O'Neill
    February 13, 2010

    Lotharsson:

    Alan Jones is a moron, or at least plays one on radio

    I’m guessing that you’re not from Australia, otherwise you would have known for a long time that Alan Jones (aka “The Parrot”) is a moron. One of the funniest programs on TV years ago was Media Watch http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ (still pretty funny, look at it now) during the time that Stuart Littlemore hosted it. Nearly every week Littlemore brought up a clanger spoken by Jones. Jones became well known for copying statements by one of his favorite pundits and trying to pass it off as if he wrote it himself.

    It’s interesting that not a lot has been said about Jones on this thread. I’m guessing it’s because anyone in Australia who’s not a mindless sycophant has known for a long time that Alan Jones is a moron and any discussion on the subject ended years ago.

  42. #42 Lotharsson
    February 13, 2010

    Peter,

    …but was also impressed that Lord Monkton was not nearly as “mad” as many of your blog visitors made him out to be.

    He wasn’t in this case, possibly because he had a reasonably knowledgable opponent instead of a largely unquestioning audience.

    Try Googling for some videos of other performances and appearances (throw in “Hitler youth” or “communist world government” if you want some recent highlights). And check out carefully the slides Tim linked to. There’s plenty of material on the public record. He’s quite a colorful chap, that Monckton, and an accomplished speaker – but not highly prone to making sober statements grounded in reality.

    You might also find the Denialist Deck of Cards interesting. Study and compare with what’s happening in the political and PR domains with respect to global warming. Anything look familiar?

  43. #43 Lotharsson
    February 13, 2010

    Chris, I am from Australia, although I’ve spent years living overseas too. I was already fairly convinced that Alan Jones is a moron, but thought I’d reinforce it for anyone who wasn’t from Australia ;-)

  44. #44 AllanB
    February 13, 2010

    What a disappointment. I expected you to put Monckton in his place but he ruled the roost. You lost the argument. What the heck went wrong ? Are you doubting your position ?

  45. #45 stepanovich
    February 13, 2010

    > What a disappointment. I expected you to put Monckton in his place but he ruled the roost. You lost the argument. What the heck went wrong ? Are you doubting your position ?

    Yet another extremely detailed post-debate analysis.

  46. #46 Chris O'Neill
    February 13, 2010

    Lotharsson:

    He’s quite a colorful chap, that Monckton, and an accomplished speaker

    He also has a very nice voice and likes to throw in lots of irrelevant anecdotes that allow him to exploit that ability, e.g. he mentioned “natural or Napierian logarithms” at one point and also in relation to an island off the Indian coast that disappeared, he talked about the “Hoogli river” with a very smooth tone. No wonder a lot of people don’t care if what he’s saying is true or not, they’re just so reassured by the sound of his voice.

  47. #47 Sabretruthtiger
    February 14, 2010

    Go Monckton! We need warriors like him to fight against the evil, unscientific lies of AGW. It’s hard to believe anyone would be stupid enough to believe AGW with ZERO scientific evidence to support it, but then many are afraid to lose their jobs, many want to jump on the gravy train of the government-backed politically correct pseudo-consensus(the kind of people that would join in with a racist mob and kill jews to feel powerful and accepted), and many are just plain stupid.

    EDUCATION TIME

    Now here are the facts: The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years, well before humans could’ve had any impact, and cooled for the past 8 years. As the climate has been steadily warming naturally, independent of human influence, then of course the hottest days are going to be at the end of the record!!! So claiming the hottest days/years being evidence of AGW is a fallacy.

    The medieval Warm period was warmer than today, Global ice levels are normal and sea levels have not risen significantly for 60 years.

    Also climate models and IPCC predictions vastly exaggerate warming, they overstate CO2 levels, and exaggerate climate sensitivity forcing equations for CO2. They propose a fictional runaway feedback effect as the CO2 heats up the oceans which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a vicious circle. While this feedback does happen to a certain extent, not only is CO2 a lesser greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, the greenhouse effect is counterbalanced by other factors. For instance, the climate models vastly exaggerate upper tropospheric water vapour leading to understated Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and thus vastly exaggerating warming.
    In reality, Increased cumulonimbic convection and humidity creates more return flow subsidence and radiative mass sinking, leading to less upper tropospheric water vapour. This leads to more OLR escaping and thus less warming.

    The models also ignore or understate low level clouds resulting from increased humidity that reflects radiation back to space and cools the planet.

    The mid tropospheric hotspot that should be there according to the IPCCs greenhouse gas warming contribution projections is NOT there.

    Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) has studied the climate for 40 years and has plotted the satellite data that shows that Outgoing radiation goes UP with surface warming, NOT down as the IPCC suggests.

    Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.
    Corals, crustaceans and other life forms flourish with more CO2.

    Add to that all the data tampering and manipulation, for example the Darwin tampering, the elimination of weather stations from higher altitudes, the attempted removal of the mediaeval warming period, and the bullying of scientists who didn’t support the AGW scam, in other words the bullying of scientists with a least a shred of conscience and morality and guts as opposed to cowardly scumbag scientific worms and political doxies masquerading as journalists (you know who Im talking about)that don’t contribute to civilisation, only destroy,and you have a 100% certainty that AGW is a scam.

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2010

    And today’s winner for the gold-plated, how-much-nonsense-can-I-spout-in-one-breath prize goes to…

    Sabretruth[sic]tiger!

    One word of advice, STT: you should use alfoil for your anti-thought-control-ray hat, rather than the lead foil that you are obviously employing.

    Even Alice could have told you that.

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    February 14, 2010

    STT.

    If you are not simply a stunning example of a Poe that might be so Poe that it is obviously Poe, you might consider picking you three favourite claims from that rant above and actually provide the evidence that properly backs it up.

    Betchya can’t.

  50. #50 Chris O'Neill
    February 14, 2010

    Sabretruthtiger:

    Now here are the facts: The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years

    Wrong, wrong,wrong. No-one seriously disputes global temperature reconstructions for the past 400 years. Read the summary which says:

    “It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface tempera-
    ture was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
    comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by
    the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.”

    The temperature reconstructions in that report show very little trend from 1700 to 1900 followed by a very strong positive trend afterwards. Thus the claim:

    The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years

    is complete rubbish. Why are there so many arrogant ignoramuses around who think they know so much?

  51. #51 stepanovich
    February 14, 2010

    > many want to jump on the gravy train of the government-backed politically correct pseudo-consensus(the kind of people that would join in with a racist mob and kill jews to feel powerful and accepted), [...]

    > Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) [...]

    I’m calling Poe on this one.

    Oh, and a public service announcement: the animal which is sometimes misnamed as the “sabre-toothed tiger” is more correctly called the “sabre-toothed cat”.

  52. #52 Betula
    February 14, 2010

    Chris @346….

    “No wonder a lot of people don’t care if what he’s saying is true or not, they’re just so reassured by the sound of his voice.”

    Chris, try to stay on subject, this post is not about Obama.

  53. #53 Chris O'Neill
    February 14, 2010

    this post is not about Obama

    I forgot to mention, Monckton’s English accent greatly contributes to the effect of his voice. Thanks for reminding me about the accent.

  54. #54 Lotharsson
    February 14, 2010

    I have seen the light! Sabretruthtiger is correct!

    Wait, wait, hear me out!

    There’s clearly a new standard of evidence as … well, evidenced by the recent Daily Mail article about the BBC interview with Phil Jones. See, statistical significance isn’t important now and frankly it’s too hard for us normal folks to understand, so let’s all thank the journalists for simplifying it (and science!) for us. Now many more of us can become scientists at home – the great democratisation of the former religion of science can only be a good thing that liberates us all from the evil gravy train of those who would join in with…er, sorry, got off track a bit there.

    So, er, how does it go now? Any level of uncertainty expressed by a scientist means … well, they’re unsure – by definition! Just look up a dictionary like real journalists do! And common sense says that means in other words they don’t really know. In other words, they have no evidence, otherwise they would know, right? And you know a catchy way to put that state of affairs is that there is ZERO evidence! See? Using this simple and easy to understand democrafying standard, STT is absolutely correct that AGW has “ZERO scientific evidence to support it”!

    We can all breathe a sigh of relief.

    But just don’t go outside today. There’s zero evidence that you won’t be hit by a meteorite, and there’s 100% evidence that today it will both rain…and not rain. Hopefully the scientists will find some evidence one way or another soon – my stockpile is down to the last few cans of beans.
    ;-)

  55. #55 Lotharsson
    February 14, 2010

    I think people like STT clever enough to figure out that AGW is 100% certainly a scam must be clever enough to be making money from their deep insight. There must be a market somewhere, perhaps a betting market, where you can make money from the fools who believe in AGW. Perhaps he can let us in on the little secret of where such opportunities exist so that we, his new disciples, can ride on his coattails a little and share in the wealth.

    And if those opportunities don’t exist, perhaps it’s time to create them. So many fools who believe passionately in something that is 100% wrong – some of them can surely be persuaded to bet on it! I love a sure thing!

  56. #56 Snertly
    February 15, 2010

    Folks can say climate is not the same thing as winter until they’re blue in the face, but this winter may well have been a mortal blow to AGW. And this on top of CRU data leaks, discovery of just how weakly some of the IPCC’s data choices were sourced, etc., etc.

    Then there’s:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    Wherein Phil Jones seems to be making some admissions contrary to his earlier positions.

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    February 15, 2010

    “…but this winter may well have been a mortal blow to AGW”.

    Snertly, another scientific illiterate, makes his presence known.

    Yeh, Snertly, it must be so because temperatures in much of the Arctic have been at or near record high levels the past month…

  58. #58 Marco
    February 15, 2010

    @Snertly:
    First of all, you might benefit from checking the source of the Daily Mail article. As expected, the ‘translation’ of the Daily Mail of the Q&A that the BBC had is horrid:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    Second, the ‘mortal blow’ of this winter apparently results in UAH TLT showing its highest ever temperature anomaly for January, and several places all around the world sweltering in heat:
    >http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/>
    the following is even nicer, it shows an anomaly graph for the globe. Compare the red to the blue areas. Notice anything? Feeling any more humble?
    < http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2010/02/record_warmth_last_month_accor_1.html>

  59. #59 Richard Simons
    February 15, 2010

    Snertly: why should a winter that is milder than normal* be a mortal blow to AGW?

    *At least, it has been where I live.

  60. #60 Snertly
    February 22, 2010

    Disagree as you wish, but I’ll bet my dollar on nothing substantial happening vis a vis legally enforceable carbon output limits, beyond what’s already in place, for at least the next two years.

    Any progress on this issue in the US, in the next year or two, will be sold, not on the basis of climate change, but on general environmental improvement, better efficiency/cost, and energy independence. All of which are good reasons.

    But the climate change movement and particularly the AGW faction, as a force in its own right, especially as the motivator for carbon trading and similar economic actions will experience extended doldrums as climate change science struggles to recover from lose of face.

    Speaking of which:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

  61. #61 jb
    March 4, 2010

    re: claim that about co2 from volcanoes on land and sea are far greater than man made, easly found on usgs site,
    usga information copied and pasted in:-
    Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

  62. #62 Chris
    March 12, 2010

    355 : I think people like STT clever enough to figure out that AGW is 100% certainly a scam must be clever enough to be making money from their deep insight. There must be a market somewhere, perhaps a betting market, where you can make money from the fools who believe in AGW. Perhaps he can let us in on the little secret of where such opportunities exist so that we, his new disciples, can ride on his coattails a little and share in the wealth.

    Interesting, didnt Piers Corbyn have his betting account shut down when he consistently predicted extreme weather events using solar weather ?

    http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5
    In 4,000 Weather Test Bets over 12 years with William Hill, Weather Action forecasts made a profit of some 40% (£20,000). The Odds were statistically fair and set by the Met Office before being shortened by William Hill by a standard 20%; the results were then provided by the Met Office for William Hill to settle each bet. Piers Corbyn was excluded by the bookies from such account betting in 2000.

  63. #63 Dave R
    March 12, 2010

    Chris:
    >didnt Piers Corbyn have his betting account shut down when he consistently predicted extreme weather events using solar weather ?

    Not as far as I’m aware, but if you have any evidence that he did then please provide it.

    Meanwhile you might want to learn about the difference between weather and __climate__, which Corbyn [apparently will not bet on](http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/trying-to-bet-on-climate-with-piers.html), despite the wild claims he makes about it.

  64. #64 Chris
    March 12, 2010

    The thing is, he can predict extreme events using solar techniques that are often accredited to ‘Climate Change’ e.g. Hurricanes, Blizzards, floods in france, uk, etc, etc weeks and sometimes months in advance.

    If you look at the link in post 362 you will see the link there about his William Hill betting account.

    There is another reference in this article, but you will need to search for ‘piers’ to find it.

    http://www.islandone.org/Foresight/Updates/Update10/Update10.1.html

    Perhaps just look around their website : http://www.weatheraction.com

  65. #65 GlobalTruth
    June 2, 2010

    Monckton is entirely correct on everything that I’ve ever heard him say.

    It’s so refreshing to finally hear the truth spoken in public by an adult instead of the childish lies from the scammers that try to make us believe in the fantasy nightmare of global warming/climate change/gnomes driving SUV’s.

    Gore has been caught in so many lies that a British judge doesn’t allow Inconvenient “truth” to be played in classrooms without some of the errors/lies being exposed before it’s played.

    31,000 scientists and the one of the founders of the Weather Channel say that AWG is a hoax.

    4500 of the 6000 weather reporting stations were closed because they didn’t give warmer temperatures more convenient to the scammers.

    AGW is a lie!
    Everyone listen to Moncton

  66. #66 jakerman
    June 2, 2010

    Wow GT, how long did you study each of these claims before you made them. You’ll find a detailed rebut on this site alone to almost every point you claim. Tell me which of your above claims do you think is your strongest argument and I’ll direct you to the relevant post on it..

  67. #67 Lotharsson
    June 2, 2010

    > Gore has been caught in so many lies that a British judge doesn’t allow Inconvenient “truth” to be played in classrooms without some of the errors/lies being exposed before it’s played.

    I wonder if Monckton told you that, given that:

    > Monckton is entirely correct on everything that I’ve ever heard him say.

    It seems that Monckton forgot to tell you that the judge said the film was **broadly correct** in its presentation of the science – and that the film Monckton was touting (which I think was The Great Global Warming Swindle) **was not** and could not be shown in schools.

    > 4500 of the 6000 weather reporting stations were closed because they didn’t give warmer temperatures more convenient to the scammers.

    [False](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/) – and those results have been [replicated by others](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/), including some of a “skeptic” bent.

    The certainty you have for many of your claims appears unjustified.