Debate with Monckton

SMH Online plan to put up a live feed of the debate. I’ll put up a link to the page if this happens.

The format is now settled: Monckton opens the batting with a 15 minute presentation. Then I go for 15 minutes. Then we put two questions to each other (alternating). Then its questions from the audience. And finally we each get five minutes each to close things.

Friday February 12th, 12:30 – 2:30 Grand Ballroom, Hilton Hotel, 488 George St Sydney

$30 at the door, preregister by emailing cool@exemail.com.au

Comments

  1. #1 Nils Ross
    February 11, 2010

    I’d hoped to get some work done tomorrow, but I suppose I could just do as the denialists think we scientists do and make up some data, thus allowing me to watch the debate (sarcasm).

  2. #2 Margaret
    February 11, 2010

    Long time reader, never posted before, Tim. I just wanted to wish you all the best tomorrow. I’ll definitely watch the SMH feed.

    I am so appalled by the way that the climate debate has turned in recent months in Australia. It also really disturbs me that some experts in the field have declined to take the fight right up to these deniers. I understand that they feel that giving oxygen to the likes of Monckton is counter-productive, but doing so has the effect of letting the general public think that he and his ilk have the scientists running scared. I admire and respect your determination.

    Cheers,

    Margaret

  3. #3 Nils Ross
    February 11, 2010

    Seriously, I’ll be frantically collecting data. Is there going to be a recording somewhere I’ll be able to access?

  4. #4 Ken Miles
    February 11, 2010

    Good luck. Hope you expose some of his delusions.

  5. #5 JamesA
    February 11, 2010

    Thanks to the pesky timezones, I won’t be able to watch it live. Will it be available to watch afterwards?

    Anyway, all the best. I can perfectly understand why some people feel debating him is a waste of oxygen, but someone needs to knock him off his perch. Just don’t let teh stoopid get to you; regardless of everything else, scientific fact is on your side and none of his bluster will ever change that.

  6. #6 winnebgao
    February 11, 2010

    Good luck Tim. I assume the 12:30 start is Sydney time. If my geographic calculations are accurate that means it will be 6:30 Thursday here in Wisconsin.

  7. #7 Mattb
    February 11, 2010

    Enjoy the boos – it is World Climate Entertainment and you’re the bad guy – play up to the crowd and have fun:) At the end of the day if you do lose – well heck you’re only a computer scientist what would they expect;)

  8. #8 Joseph
    February 11, 2010

    I think it would be interesting to come up with questions that Monckton might ask Tim.

    From what I’ve seen, one on mitigation is a shoe-in. He’ll ask something like: “How do you know that Kyoto will result in significantly reduced warming? Prove it.”

    I’d also expect one on SwiftHack.

  9. #9 JamesA
    February 11, 2010

    Who can say what he’ll ask? Any self-respecting denialist will always have a selection of misdirecting questions ready to go, things like “how accurate have climate model projections been since 2000?” or “how can you prove that CO2 is the sole cause of recent warming?”. I wouldn’t expect a pro like his lordship to be any different.

    Personally, my favourite tack when faced with this is rather than to go defensive on behalf of the science, I simply answer the question and explain why it is irrelevant. Then I point out that in asking such a stupid question, they’re betraying the fact that they don’t actually understand what they’re talking about. The instant you say “you’d know this if you’d actually read the IPCC report”, they tend to go very quiet.

  10. #10 Dave
    February 11, 2010

    > The instant you say “you’d know this if you’d actually read the IPCC report”, they tend to go very quiet.

    Not Monckton. Monckton is more likely to say he has, and that he’s checked the math and found it to be wrong.

    At which point it descends into he said/she said, with Monckton with the crowd bias on his side from the outset, and the advantage of not actually needing to be right, just needing to spread doubt.

    Hell, even if he’s *wrong* he can just spin it as bravely seeking truth and asking the questions no-one dares to ask.

  11. #11 Mark S
    February 11, 2010

    Excellent on the live feed…can someone tell me if I’m correct that this is Thursday, 8:30pm US eastern?

  12. #12 Steve L
    February 11, 2010

    I suspect Tim already has a short list of questions for Monckton. But I think it would be smart to dress them up with a bunch of reminders that Monckton is put forward as an ‘expert’ who disagrees with the consensus — but he is not an expert, he’s just an ideologue who disagrees with any consensus that supports government intervention. That’s all the other side has, and it would be wise to be able to list a bunch of them in rapid succession. Also I think it would be wise to include in the questions a bunch of Monckton’s misstatements/overstatements/lies — to show a pattern (eg. use Monckton’s incorrect statements regarding Littlemore’s boss in their debate [it's important that he get caught in the ad hom and being incorrect]). It’s best to do it during the lead up to the question.

    In answering questions I don’t think Tim should try to explain the science very much. Point to references like James suggests. It’s not Tim’s job to explain climate change. It’s Tim’s job to show that Monckton is a jerk who tells falsehoods intentionally or unintentionally — whatever it takes to support his preconceived notions.

  13. #13 Alex
    February 11, 2010

    Give em’ hell.

  14. #14 Dano
    February 11, 2010

    Remember: he likely is going to use certain tactics to distract and dissemble. You need to point this out and state you are going to respond to the issue, not the distraction. And the issue is _____, not _____.

    Keep on track and you’ll wipe the floor with him. Focus. He doesn’t have a chance if you remember not to fall for his tactics. Fish in a barrel if you focus. Go git ‘em.

    Best,

    D

  15. #15 Eli Rabett
    February 11, 2010

    Going second is good, because you can use the time to show how Monckton has been wrong without him having much of a comeback.

    Eli kind of likes starting with the House of Lords symbol, morphing into the Nobel Prize claim because you can use them to show how Monckton is deceptive in everything….How can you trust someone who misleads you on even such simple things

  16. #16 Arthur Smith
    February 11, 2010

    Tim, not sure what you’re planning for your presentation, but I think it might be effective to find some way of fitting in Jim Prall’s lists of top climate scientists:

    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

    For example, you could start by just listing the top Australians (Pep Canadell, #111, Ann Henderson-Sellers, #122, Roger Francey, #204, Paul Fraser, #232, etc…), then generously expand to include the English, then everybody. Where are the so-called skeptics on this list?

    Similarly a list of organizations who have stated their position on the matter: National Science Academy of Australia, FASTS, Geological Society of Australia, AMOS, Australian Coral Reef Society, Australian Medical Association, Engineers Australia – plus all those organizations in essentially every other country in the world…

    If you find that approach useful, the focus of the challenge to Monckton could simply be why he feels he is right and all those people are wrong?

  17. #17 jules
    February 11, 2010

    Tim,

    If you haven’t seen it already, try watching the debate between Monbiot anan Plimer.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPenmY5kYcc

    Of course, such a debate is possible only if the moderator is well informed.

    good luck.

  18. #18 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    $30 at the door. Who gets the proceeds? Munchkin? I bloody hope not! Tim, that goes for you too :)

    Hopefully the proceeds are going to charity….

    Sorry of if the money issue has been addressed elsewhere.

    If Munchkin is getting money, that is something to raise with the audience. Who to believe, moi, or that guy over there getting paid to spout BS.

  19. #19 Hank Roberts
    February 11, 2010

    One thought: have a dedicated URL (a tinyurl or something comparably short, something easy to write down or remember).

    Mention that you’ll put followup material solely for this event at that link, and do so, even if it’s pointers to here.

    Something you’ll moderate that they can’t rush out and overwhelm with crap while you’re still leaving the building.

  20. #20 petwer
    February 11, 2010

    haha. good luck with that. i think u may have bitten off more than u can chew. i shall watch with a scientific impartiality.

  21. #21 Craig Stone
    February 11, 2010

    I’d agree with petwer’s comment Tim. The days of the Carbon Religion are numbered, and it seems that another nail is being driven into the coffin almost daily. If AR4 wasn’t so loaded with non peer-reviewed rubbish it might have survived. I, fortunately, have had a longstanding distrust for the fascism which has been creeping into every aspect of the global economy (including science) for years now, so it wasn’t too difficult for me to let go of my equally longstanding belief in any significant AGW effect. I wish you luck anyway.

  22. #22 John Campbell
    February 11, 2010

    Mark S said: …can someone tell me if I’m correct that this is Thursday, 8:30pm US eastern?

    That’s what I make it.

  23. #23 Michael D Smith
    February 11, 2010

    Someone in a state of denial will be crushed. It won’t be Monckton. Should be fun to watch.

  24. #24 Bob Mount
    February 11, 2010

    Monkton is at least as well qualified to debate Mann-made Global Warming as Al Gore. I also see that the science content on this blog site is just as thin as in IPCC AR4. Luckily for all of us, an AR5 now seems highly unlikely.

  25. #25 Ross Jackson
    February 11, 2010

    I can’t help liking Monckton! The Truth is that Climate Science HAS been corrupted by Advocacy & Politics. Both sides need to clean up their act. There will be no political will for major action on CO2 now, so lets get real and concentrate on what we can do!

    1. Buy up large bio-corridors to allow habitats to move with climate change (whatever the cause it will happen, and we can’t stop it – so give wildlife the chance to move.) This is urgently needed!

    2. Go Nuclear – That will reduce emissions without (a) destoying our jobs or (b) reducing our living standards. Anything else is foolish. You’ll never reduce emissions without nuclear power. Go ask the French. We can’t afford to wait 20 years! It is time for the environmental movement to adopt nuclear power & QUICKLY!

    But if all you want to do is moan, chant, rave & do nothing about CO2, feel free to continue, but it will not save the planet.

  26. #26 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Aaah, denialist trolls everywhere I see. Their bravado is comical and suggests that they are actually concerned and trying to cover up their angst with bluster and intimidation.

    Lord Munchkin is going to try and lie his way though another talk/debate. Nothing new there. Sooner or later though he will trip up badly, either with a scientist or even better, the law.

  27. #27 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    I love how the term “denier” is used. It’s like people can’t even be open to the idea that someone has a different opinion. I’ve watched most of Monktons debates he is always logical and never runs from showing where he gets his info from, unlike others who just use name calling and protest his facts as lies while showing no proof. It should be an interesting reaming. Especially since the IPCC’s report has been totally discredited on every level. Temprature manipulations in Austraila, China, Russia, and africa. Sourcing non-peer reviewed information from activist groups. Using a magazine article as a source for galcier melt. It just gets funnier. I wonder who the true deniers are.

  28. #28 Soren K
    February 11, 2010

    “If they are going to include my blog on their list of the top 30 science blogs, I can’t help but link to them. There are some good blogs on their list which is only marred by the inclusion of Anthony Watts’ anti-science blog.”

    -ooooooh, aren’t you the Mr. Prissy.

    If that’s the standard of your debate, you’re gonna get ripped to pieces by Monckton.

  29. #29 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    hahahha. Same thing over and over: empty accusation and no information. He LIES! Yes, he LIES. You are a denier. You are a troll! Its snowing because of global warming!

  30. #30 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    11 Mark S,

    Try [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zones)

    If you have an iPhone, the Clock app is excellent for this. On a Mac there are widgets that do the same; I assume there are Windows equivalents.

  31. #31 guthrie
    February 11, 2010

    I refer the newcomers to the sidebar where Monckton has a sub category all to himself about the lies he spews.

    Marred – your post contains no facts. Would you like to return when you have learnt some?

  32. #32 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    that’s funny. Because my statements were factual. Just read posts above from your regulars. But i do agree, the funny part is just my personal opinion.

  33. #33 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    21 Craig,

    You’re in the wrong place. You want [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/).

  34. #34 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Marred, go here for a breakdown (just one of many out there) of his lies:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/media_watch_on_monckton.php#comments

    or here

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/ask_monckton_a_question.php

    Now look at the slides and read the discussion at #9 and others’ comments.

    His “science” has been refuted over and over, now you need to take the time to actually read the refutations of his diatribes.

    The hot air and misinformation Marred is coming from Munchkin, and you are gobbling it up like it is candy.

  35. #35 Steve Lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    Going to intresting watching this one.. Facts vs. speculation..

    James Hansen can’t get his facts right either.. so this should be fun.

  36. #36 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    32 Marred,

    You too.

    If you think you stated facts, then you are a liar, stupid, or delusional. That is *not* an ad hom, BTW, it’s a description.

  37. #37 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    bahahaha you source media watch! bhaahhaha and say the graphi was from John Mclean but dont say wether it was a valid graph nor do you say if the slight warming is statistically relevant. bahahahahah

  38. #38 Majorajam
    February 11, 2010

    Realize the numbers of people offering advice here has approached and surpassed parody levels some time ago, but jules above made a good point that bears echoing. Do note Monbiot’s performance against Plimer. Why was he successful? Because he stayed on his front foot, and on the attack.

    Plimer certainly laid the bait- throwing out stuff like, ‘the CRU emails evidence the greatest crime of academic integrity in history’ along the way. He was clearly prepared to debate the CRU emails and all of the aspects of climate science he could distort for effect to a lay person audience, (e.g. ‘these predictions are based on models not entirely dissimilar to the kind that predicted CDO’s weren’t risky’, etc.).

    And yet Monbiot slammed that door shut. Parrying soundly before quickly shifting back to the attack, as for example with the pivot straight from Plimer’s feeble CRU accusations to his accusations of Plimer’s egregious violations of academic integrity. Plimer wasn’t remotely able to answer for his lies, and was from there totally on the defensive. The result was that he got destroyed.

    The takeaway is this: to win against charlatans you have to shine the light on their behavior or lay people who know no better will lend credibility to their meritless attacks. In short, you have to attack and do so more than you defend. And that’s all there is to it.

  39. #39 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Marred, can you not read? Did you read post #9 and others pertaining to that? I and others did not cite media watch to refute Munchkin’s fallacious claims. His lies and deception about Arctic sea ice can easily be refuted using NSIDC data, for example. His claims are also refuted using (non cherry-picked) data from NASA, and other reputable agencies.

    A question. How old are you Marred?

    Another question for you. Why is the stratosphere cooling?

    Please don’t think that you are “special”, the scientists here deal with your type frequently and you always end up looking like a bunch of juvenile air heads, again, not an ad hom, just stating a fact. Look what happened when Bruce Barrett came here to try and ‘debate’ the scientists (on another thread, I’ll let you find it). He got a sound whipping.

    PS: So you question the authenticity of a graph by the Australian Bureau of Met. (http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4324) but blindly accept Munchkin’s graph. Uh huh.

    PPS: I do not think that you even understand a stat. sig. trend is.

  40. #40 Anonymous
    February 11, 2010

    Marred:

    protest his facts as lies while showing no proof

    You’re right. What Monckton says is fact. He has no need for proof.

  41. #41 clarencegirl
    February 11, 2010

    Looking forward to reading in MSM that you wiped the floor with Monckton.
    Don’t forget to put out media release immediately afterwards covering main points of your argument – you can be sure Monckton will be doing this.

  42. #42 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    I just love how anyone that questions the ideology of Global Warming.. I mean.. Climate Change is equated to “a Holocaust denier”

    There is no consensus. They cannot predict the future..

    The father of Global Warming James Hansen has never been right..

    He predicted a Snowball Earth in the 70′s..
    Manhattan under water by the 80′s
    An Ice free Arctic in the 90′s..
    Another Ice Free Arctic by 2010… and now 2025.

    All using the same computer models and the Greenhouse effect since the 70’s.
    The Mann Hockey Stick has been resoundingly disproved..
    Data has been proven to be manipulated. Contravening data was intentionally forced out of the media and reports.
    Scientist who disagree with the AGW crowd has found themselves without funding and pushed to the fringe..

    Consensus my a$$.

    This has become a religion. Facts be damned..

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

  43. #43 mb
    February 11, 2010

    I don’t know enough about Australia to hazard a guess as to how fruitful a dialogue with Monckton would be, but as it pertains to the broader issue of shaming his defenders by pointing out Monckton’s ever-growing list of lies, I am skeptical of its potential efficacy. If you look at message boards that affix any story in which Monckton’s lunacy or duplicity are paraded about for everyone to get a laugh at, his supporters simply ignore it and play martyr. Oh, why are you attacking the wondrous, logical Lord, instead of his science? No one refutes his magical science! Look at his enormous science! Why aren’t pointing out that Al Gore is fat?

    They don’t even have the slightest idea what they are talking about, and they don’t care that he’s full of shit. They just stupidly assume everyone else is at least as ignorant and duplicitous, and that the whole thing is a bit of political sport.

    Perhaps the only good that can come from such an event is personal satisfaction. I know that I would love to discuss mathematics in front of an audience (and camera) with Lord Monckton, who has apparently been doing a lot of interesting, if seemingly unpublished, research. Who in his right mind wouldn’t love the opportunity to discover a Ramanujan, who in his spare times cures AIDS?

  44. #44 Starwatcher
    February 11, 2010

    I don’t really understand why people take on Monckton in these debates. A verbal debate is a rather poor medium for discussing complex issues (especially science issues).

    Not to mention there is a serious lack of symmetry here, deniers have a huge advantage over the consensus guys.

    A consensus guy has to defend a large construct of knowledge, a denier can focus on one particular sub-subject, baffle with bullshit, and then pretend the whole enterprise rests on this one little tiny branch.

    A consensus guy has to defend his position while making no logical contradictions, a denier can snipe from different logically contradicting views.

    Any way you cut it, verbal debates are just a terrible medium for defending AGW. It would be better to do this in print, where you can cite your sources when calling Monckton out on his bullshit.

  45. #45 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Lindsey, do not be expected to be taken seriously when you spout nonsense like this @42:

    “He predicted a Snowball Earth in the 70′s.. Manhattan under water by the 80′s An Ice free Arctic in the 90′s.. Another Ice Free Arctic by 2010… and now 2025.”

    Show us the papers, and citations where these alleged statements were made. And good luck finding them….

    You also then further harm your credibility by referring us to an anti-science, political blog, WUWT.

    The story in question, regarding Darwin, has been soundly refuted on this very site, and by work published in journal papers.

    Are you familiar with consilience? And religion has nothing to do with the radiative forcing of GHGs.

  46. #46 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    Mapleleaf..

    Do your own work.. Simply Google James Hansen and Global Cooling..

    Everyone of those claims he asserted..

    Remember the now infamous Summer meeting on Global Warming where the heat was turned on..

    He predicted that Manhatten would be under water in 10 years.. It did not happen..neither did the Snowball effect.. The Artic has returned to nearly normal levels.

    He is and always has been WRONG..

  47. #47 Bulldog
    February 11, 2010

    “You also then further harm your credibility by referring us to an anti-science, political blog, WUWT.”

    Right…this blog is so much more credible. Give me a break, just because someone is skeptical of your view of the world does not make them “anti-science” and “political”.

  48. #48 guthrie
    February 11, 2010

    Hmm, lets see, marred.
    “Monckton is always logical” – except that if he did follow logic, he might not make so many mistakes.
    Where he gets his info from is frequently unclear, and his facts are cherry picked and lacking in context, as has been demonstrated on this blog many times.
    Then the IPCC, which has not been discredited upon any level at all. At least not amongst anyone who does science. As for temperature manipulations, there havn’t been any. You did know that the IPCC doesn’t do any direct science itself, therefore it cannot manipulate temperatures?

    As for the others, they might be correct, although it was hard to spot them for all the rubbish. But they don’t actually affect anything to do with the actual warming of the earth, which is ongoing.

  49. #49 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Bulldog, I would argue that you are not a true “skeptic”. Is this blog more credible, on the whole and as blogs go, yes, b/c it is frequented by real scientists and run by a real scientist, not a pseudo-scientist.

    Now I think we have engaged the trolls enough.

  50. #50 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    Guthrie.

    Lets see. Where should we start?

    Moncktons facts are cherry picked and lack context? Empty accusation as you provide nothing to support your claim.

    IPCC has not been discredited because they dont do direct science and temperatures cannot be manipulated. But the source for their temperatures, CRU, has been shown to have manipulated data over and over again. And even admitted so in their own emails. Search “Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming” on blogs.telegraph.co.uk.
    You just further my opinion that the writings on this blog are empty and unfactual.

  51. #51 Peter Pan
    February 11, 2010

    Bulldog | February 11, 2010 5:06 PM said

    ‘Give me a break, just because someone is skeptical of your view of the world does not make them “anti-science” and “political”.’

    No – but when their own data proves that their previous statements dressed up as science were in fact opinion and clearly wrong and yet they still refuse to admit it (like Anthony Watts has) then that does make them “anti-science” and “political”.

  52. #52 Steve L
    February 11, 2010

    I wish I had time to do this: compile a list of peer-reviewed research that Monckton has tried to use to bolster his case; then see how many times the authors of that research have noted that he’s using their work incorrectly.

  53. #54 Joseph
    February 11, 2010

    He predicted a Snowball Earth in the 70′s

    @Lindsey: At least pretend to be honest if you want to be taken seriously. Hansen never predicted any such thing. A different researcher, using software authored by James Hansen, might have.

  54. #55 Fran Barlow
    February 11, 2010

    Marred reposted the lying talking point …

    IPCC has not been discredited because they dont do direct science and temperatures cannot be manipulated. But the source for their temperatures, CRU, has been shown to have manipulated data over and over again. And even admitted so in their own emails.

    Plainly, the agnotologists think simply repeating claims often enough can suffice to make them so. Perception is reality, in their paradigm.

    Since their paradigm is a plea to be releived of facts about the world that sit uncomfortably with their cultural preferences and the right to turn untutored anecdote and gossip as meaningdul, especially if it comes from someone culturally near to them, the above episteme makes sense. Say it often and say it loud, and it will be so.

    Who’d have thought that these parochial pre-modern rednecks would render such stout support to such a postmodern approach to establishing knowledge? For the agnotologists here, quite clearly, “knowledge” is the preferred narrative and that can only be achieved through cultural struggle

  55. #56 Stu
    February 11, 2010

    Clarification to the above – it was originally modelling Venus, then was presumably applied to the Earth.

  56. #57 Twiggy
    February 11, 2010

    Good luck Tim. I think you will need it to debate someone who seems to have no concept of what the truth is and why it’s important.

  57. #58 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Lindsey, “The Artic has returned to nearly normal levels.”

    Wrong, the long term trend in Arctic sea ice is down. You cannot determine a stat. sig trend using just THREE data points. See here for the real data:

    LOOK at their Figure 3.

    As for Hansen and snowball earth, his research into that area was to try and determine climate sensitivity to changes in GHGs, CO2 in particular. He did not predict that is what would happen for God’s sakes!

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/sohl_01/

    I guess you read was the WUWT version of the truth.

    You can find a discussion of his climate projections produced in 1988 at RealClimate.

  58. #59 Paul UK
    February 11, 2010

    Marred said:
    >Because my statements were factual.

    erm, yes well. Prove it as Monckton would say.
    The evidence please.

    Marred said:
    >Sourcing non-peer reviewed information from activist groups. Using a magazine article as a source for galcier melt.

    WWF is an ‘activist’ group??
    Interesting that Marks and Spencer work with them.
    They also have a credit card!
    And sell commemorative coins designed by the Royal Mint.
    ooooh they are so revolutionary.

    Marred said:
    >Same thing over and over: empty accusation and no information.

    Empty accusation. hmmmm, where have I read that?

  59. #60 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Marred @50, I gave you links for goodness sakes!! I went though numerous of Munchkin’s slides, and then using actual facts from reputable scientific groups showed him to be either lying, distorting or cherry-picking. You should try it yourself sometime, it will be most enlightening.

    OK, now I’m done.

    Time for a run, -2 C and snow, but that is what YackTracks are for.

  60. #61 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    Fran Barlow

    You just took my statement which was supported by a reference which you have failed to list. You make a claim about “their paradigm”, which i presume you are including me, to be absent of facts that don’t fit “their” culture.

    Your statement has no support for said paradigm you profess we have. Further, you make assumptions about our culture and infer that we use gossip and hersay to support our beliefs so that we can feel comfortable within aforemention culture.

    Yet my statement contains no gossip, and the meaning is quite clear and supported by fact.

    Maybe, you thought by disguising your empty argument in big words you would hide its complete lack of intelligent, factual information and that it wouldn’t be read as presumptuous, ignorant swill.

  61. #63 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    MapleLeaf, i will check your links, i got caught up in other threads. I plan to research all claims of moncktons dishonesty.

  62. #64 Dave
    February 11, 2010

    Great – who linked this post and flooded it with cretins?

    Seriously s.lindsey, you can’t even be arsed to check that this site has *already* refuted every single point you’ve made in great detail. Just repeat the lie, ignore the evidence to the contrary, and accuse everyone else of the very things you are plainly guilty of… nice. Its like primary school.

  63. #65 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    Marred wrote;

    Sourcing non-peer reviewed information from activist groups. Using a magazine article as a source for galcier melt. It just gets funnier. I wonder who the true deniers are.

    It’s amusing how the denialists say they are so concerned about a few citation errors, while they treat as gospel the words of Monckton, the batty British peer who has a degree in Greek and Latin, and the blogs of Watts the radio weather reader, and McIntyre the mining director.

  64. #66 Dave
    February 11, 2010

    @marred

    This:

    > Yet my statement contains no gossip, and the meaning is quite clear and supported by fact.

    Is contradicted by this:

    > But the source for their temperatures, CRU, has been shown to have manipulated data over and over again. And even admitted so in their own emails.

    Its hard to know where to begin with this much wrongness… The claim that CRU have wrongfully manipulated data is an utter, utter lie. There is *no* evidence of this anywhere, least of all in the emails. None. This part of a vicious smear campaign, and you accept it and credulously repeat it here, presumably because it gels with your prejudices.

    I say again – this is a vicious lie.

    To claim it as fact, not gossip, is another lie.

    And please – “the source of their temperatures, CRU”? Do you even know how many papers are assessed by the IPCC, and how many diverse and confirming data sources there are? Do you *even realise* that virtually all of CRU’s data comes from NOAA where it is freely available for download by anybody? Do you even know how incredibly ill-informed you sound when you come out with sentences like that?

  65. #67 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    Michael

    wow. This is too easy. Another agument based on assumptions and no facts. Did i ever mentioned i believed everything Monckton said? Just goes to show that personal attacks and empty vapid statements are what is called debate for some here.

    GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC REPORT

    * Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
    * ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
    * Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
    * Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
    * GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
    * Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
    * Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
    * Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07

  66. #68 Dave
    February 11, 2010

    And Marred,

    > Moncktons facts are cherry picked and lack context? Empty accusation as you provide nothing to support your claim.

    You’ve been told already – check the sidebar on this blog, he’s got a section all to himself and he’s regularly shown himself to be a shameless liar (I’m still waiting for him to eat a few spoonfuls of DDT as he suggested would be perfectly safe…). Or do you plan on going through life with your eyes tightly shut and your mouth wide open?

  67. #69 Marred
    February 11, 2010

    Dave

    its funny how you missed my supporting statment. Made no mention of it. And you fail to mention that the CRU is being investigated for failing to respond to FOI requests for their data. interesting. And of course, you list nothing to support that the emails were lies and smear campagin. oh. should i list another.

    Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections — some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

    Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe. Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

    Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.
    It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

    For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

  68. #70 Dave
    February 11, 2010

    @Marred

    Speaking of

    > Another agument based on assumptions and no facts.

    What’s the point in that list of references? Looks like you’re *assuming* that the papers are incorrect because you *assume* the source cannot be trusted and you *assume* that this materially affects the content of the report and you *assume* that the report is compromised as a result.

    Still waiting for a fact to emerge…

    But hey, you didn’t even make an argument really. Just copied + pasted a bunch of stuff for reasons that aren’t entirely clear.

  69. #71 Dave
    February 11, 2010

    @Marred

    > And you fail to mention that the CRU is being investigated for failing to respond to FOI requests for their data.

    Investigated does not equal wrongdoing (please see, eg. the recent exoneration of Mann in this matter) – so if that’s what you’re relying on, have the decency to admit its (biased) gossip, not fact. And also the subject of FOI compliance is very different to wrongful data manipulation, of which there was absolutely none. *You* brought it up in those terms, and *you* were repeating a complete lie by doing so, and *you* are now changing the subject to avoid admitting the lie.

    > And of course, you list nothing to support that the emails were lies and smear campagin.

    Hint: READ THE BLOG YOU ARE POSTING ON.

    The rest of your comment was a lazy copy+paste job of stuff we’ve all seen before, and isn’t any more true now.

  70. #72 Katielou
    February 11, 2010

    I’m yet another long term reader who has never posted before. I’ve reserved myself a seat at the Hilton today and will be cheering you on Tim. Good luck!

  71. #73 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    56 Stu,

    Yes, and IIRC at the time aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere were still increasing so “global dimming” was an issue: average insolation (at the surface) had been decreasing. This is why there were *some* predictions of global cooling.

    Of course, anti-pollution laws meant that the aerosol effect reduced rapidly from then on.

  72. #74 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Oh boy, WATOIDS do not understand anomalies. One of the primary reaosons for GISS being warmer then HaDCRU is because GISS does include the Arctic, whereas CRU does not. By allegedly (some sources state that there are numerous stations in the GHCN database) excluding those sites in northern Canada one is thus underestimating the warming. The absolute temperatures may be lower, but the anomalies are most definitely on the positive side.

    Canada is warming, especially at the higher latitudes, this from Environment Canada:

    http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/figmapt_e.html?season=Annual&date=2009

    Also, look here:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3905

    Actually LOOK at the image and read the text!! And it has warmed more since this image terminated in 2003.

    Oh, and earlier I should have said YakTrax.

    Oh, and Merred, stop moving the goal posts and please do stop cut and pasting BS from WTFUWT.

  73. #75 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    I just noticed something very odd about the temperature scale in that NASA figure. Any takers? They obviously have no clue what they are doing (sarc).

  74. #76 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Troll @67. All but one of the reports listed (I have not verified the list, was it from WG-2?) were about, alternative energy options *solar generation* for goodness sakes! So what? Do wouldn’t be so silly as to make the giant leap of logic to conclude that you think the reports in question refute the fact that GHGs warm the planet? Of course you do….

    You are right, this is just too easy. And don’t lie, you do believe everything Monckton says. Please go to his talk, slide provided here:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/8057274@N05/sets/72157623339675684/

    Prove us wrong, and tell us exactly what is wrong with most of his slides and explain why. Just limit yourselves to those with pretty figures for starters.

    I’m not holding my breath….

  75. #77 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    75 MapleLeaf,

    You mean they’ve put the – (minus) figure on the right, not the conventional left?

  76. #78 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    Marred writes:

    >*And of course, you list nothing to support that the emails were lies and smear campagin*

    Married, how did you get there, from here:

    >*The claim that CRU have wrongfully manipulated data is an utter, utter lie. There is no evidence of this anywhere, least of all in the emails. None. This part of a vicious smear campaign, and you accept it and credulously repeat it here, presumably because it gels with your prejudices.
    I say again – this is a vicious lie.
    To claim it as fact, not gossip, is another lie.*

    How about your address Dave’s actual statements rather that making up a strawman than you want to answer?

    And if you want evidence that the CRU hack was used as the basis of a smear job, there is ample evidence such as this “hide the decline” meme employed in a complete distortion and propaganda smear job < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk>. More evidence is the [erroneous Fox "News"](http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/029130BFDC78FA33/2/P70SlEqX7oY) claims made about “Climate Gate”.

  77. #79 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    Marred dissembles;

    wow. This is too easy. Another agument based on assumptions and no facts. Did i ever mentioned i believed everything Monckton said? Just goes to show that personal attacks and empty vapid statements are what is called debate for some here.

    GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING IPCC REPORT……….

    What’s with the meaningless list???

    If you even bothered to look at them, you’d se that the Greenpace reports cite the peer-reviewed literature. Heck, even your own list demonstrates that.

    And of course, they come out of the WGII report of AR4, not WGI which is the summary of the scientific detail.

    And the “Nobel Winning IPCC Report”?? – see, you do just believe everything the denialts throw up. A report did not win a Nobel Prize. You denialists seem to have an infinite capacity to get every detail wrong.

    These so called ‘sceptics’ are an amazing bunch, if there is a sloppy citation, ala the IPCC report, they’ll all wailing and gnashing of teeth, no matter that the science is correct, but with the demonstrated lies and mis-representations of the denialati, they’re as gullible as a mob of Salem witch-burners.

  78. #80 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Hi TrueSceptic,

    Close. According to their legend/scale the blue areas have warmed and vice versa. The number on the RHS of the scale should be “+2.5C” not “-2.5 C”, and on the LHS “+2.5 C’ should be “-2.5C”.

  79. #81 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    80 MapleLeaf,

    That’s what I thought I said : the scale is reversed. :)

  80. #82 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    No worries TS. Sorry, my fault, misinterpreted your post.

  81. #83 TrueSceptic
    February 11, 2010

    82 MapleLeaf,

    No prob. I sometimes (often?) don’t spell things out clearly enough, it seems.

  82. #84 FJM
    February 11, 2010

    Any news on whether there will be a live feed or not yet? Can’t find anything on the SMH website.

    P.S. Give him hell Tim

  83. #85 Fran Barlow
    February 11, 2010

    There is a live feed (see above 12.30 AEDST) though if you are not in Australia you should reconcile the time for your location.

  84. #86 janama
    February 11, 2010

    I’ve just rung SMH online – they will be streaming it as a video at 12.30 – it will appear as a video on their main page in the picture top left!

    http://www.smh.com.au/

  85. #87 Nathan Myers
    February 11, 2010

    I doubt this will go well. He gets to lie, and you don’t. He doesn’t need to defend his lies, while you have to take your time trying to counter them. Lies take hardly any time or attention, while the truth takes concentration and logic. A public debate is a poor forum for facts or detailed logic.

    Your only hope is copious visual aids.

  86. #89 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    So Monckton’s first point is that Haiti couldn’t feed its population turning into severe food riots because they converted to biofuel production.

  87. #90 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    And he’s turning that into “millions of deaths resulted” from “not applying the precautionary principle” to mitigating measures.

    Apparently that may not be entirely true.

  88. #91 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Now he says CO2 is beneficial for agricultural yields, and for power generation to lift people out of poverty.

    And he claims CO2 emissions are correlated with life expectancy, and negatively correlated with child mortality.

  89. #92 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Now the “if we shut down the CO2 emissions for a year it would forestall 0.02 degrees C of warming” argument that IIRC Tim showed was fundamentally flawed some time ago.

    “Australia’s emissions would make virtually any difference because China is emitting so much”.

    “Focused adaptation to climate change … is orders of magnitude more effective than trying to prevent it”.

  90. #93 carrot eater
    February 11, 2010

    “And he claims CO2 emissions are correlated with life expectancy, and negatively correlated with child mortality.”

    Per capita emissions might, but so does pretty much anything that scales with per capita GDP. Pick anything that you find more of in developed countries than developing countries, and you can say the same thing. Though Europe has higher life expectancies and lower per capita emissions than the US, so it’s only useful for separating developed from third world.

  91. #94 FJM
    February 11, 2010

    300,000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere? He is ridiculous.

  92. #95 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Now the key scientific question – “How much warming will we get for a given level of CO2″.

    [BTW - don't assume my on-the-fly notes are entirely accurate.]

    Looking at a curly mallee (sp) tree in the Flinders Ranges, which grows only on a type of rock that is 40% CO2 (750M years ago), and there was a glacier there at 300,000ppm CO2.

    UN is using a bogus graph to demonstrate that “acceleration in temperature” is occurring. (UK Government said to confirm no acceleration.) [Graph not visible on SMH Online stream :-(] Some relatively rapid periods of warming; looking at satellite data; graph from Pinker et al 2005 (sp?) showing reduction in cloud cover leading to radiative forcing of 3.04 W/m^2 over 19 years. Compare with UN saying entire human effect from 1750′s is just over 1 W/m^2.

  93. #96 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    Now the “if we shut down the CO2 emissions for a year it would forestall 0.02 degrees C of warming” argument that IIRC Tim showed was fundamentally flawed some time ago.

    My jaw was hanging open during that entire strand of his argument. The guy has no shame.

  94. #97 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    [I'm not trying to do much analysis on the fly...mostly getting down the argument.]

    Climate sensitivity – his back of the envelope calculation gives him about 0.2 degrees C per doubling of CO2.

    More detailed calculation “by a mathematician” gave even lower numbers.

  95. #98 Michael
    February 11, 2010

    Following Monckton logic – CO2 is positively correlated with cancer.

  96. #99 SCPritch
    February 11, 2010

    Go Tim!

    Hey, Monckton’s back of envelope is peer reviewed so it must be true /giggle

  97. #100 carrot eater
    February 11, 2010

    300,000 ppm CO2?