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 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Tim begins…I’m a computer scientist with my 1st degree in maths, as much an amateur at climate science as Lord Monckton.

    1st thing to note – CO2 levels shot up from about the 1950′s.
    2nd thing – radiative forcing. Incoming shortwave radiation; outgoing longwave radiation. If more energy coming in than going out, planet will warm. Difference in energy is “radiative forcing”.

    Agrees with Monckton – climate sensitivity is most important question. But “in the long run” is the important caveat. Full amount of warming due to forcing may take a couple of hundred years. Low sensitivity, no big problem; high sensitivity gives us real problems.

  2. #2 Rabs
    February 11, 2010

    We can’t see the slides on the video. :/

  3. #3 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    Nervy start from Tim, but he’s getting into his stride nicely now. Seems comfortable and confident talking about the science of climate sensitivity, which is a good sign.

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Going through calculation of sensitivity from simple equation.

    Does Monckton think climate scientists are fools?

    Monckton breaks in [I think this was a recording from another Monckton presentation, can't hear very clearly] – they made a fraud in order to ignore the implications of Pinker’s paper.

    Monckton breaks in again – Pinker is a satellite nerd who only cares about that, not global warming.

    Pinker speaks [recording] – you can’t compare these two numbers in the way Monckton does; the IPCC did it right.

    Pinker’s detailed description will be up at the website.

    Summary from Tim: clouds have two effects on radiative forcing. They block some incoming shortware radiation; they block some outgoing longwave radiation. Monckton’s mistake was only looking at blocking incoming radiation; not blocking outgoing.

    [Comment submission held for moderation at this point. Will keep going and try with extended comment in case the first one doesn't make it but a subsequent one does.]

    Let’s look at last Ice Age – best way to get a handle on climate sensitivity is to look at a very different climate; bunch of factors (drawn from Plimer’s Heaven & Earth) – ice albedo, vegetation cover, dust, CO2, and so on…

  5. #5 Chris
    February 11, 2010

    Tim wiped the floor with him. Science FTW!

  6. #6 Harold Brooks
    February 11, 2010

    Re: 69 (Marred)
    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.

    That’s not a key point discovered by Smith, nor were stations deleted. The large number of stations in the database prior to 1990 is the result of a large-scale effort to go to stations that did (and many still do not) transmit their observations in any electronic form, copy the hand-written observations down and then digitize them. Stations weren’t dropped–there is a period where someone has gone and collected a lot of old observations.

    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).

    Since the trends are computed based off of the anomalies compared to long-term records at stations, changing from “historically cooler” stations to other stations doesn’t have an impact of warming. If people averaged absolute temperatures, and not anomalies, it might matter, but since they use the anomalies, it doesn’t. (Actually, it might matter if higher latitudes have been warming more rapidly than lower latitudes, but the impact of the change would be to underestimate the warming trend, rather than overestimate it.)

    Smith’s lack of understanding of where and how the time series of the number of stations in the record came about and the nonsense about selection bias to warmer stations indicates he has no idea of how the average temperature calculations are done.

  7. #7 Donald Oats
    February 11, 2010

    trolls -n 5 -t “IPCC” -o “http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid”

  8. #8 P. Lewis
    February 11, 2010

    No net accumulation of heat in the oceans over >50 years??

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Monckton’s 1st question: how can the 750M year-ago ice age have 300,000ppm in the atmosphere and still have huge mile thick ice sheets at the equator?

    Tim Lambert: you have to do the calculation with *all* of the factors, not just CO2.

    Tim’s 1st question: if Pinker’s correction is accurate, how will you correct the record?

    Monckton: I will firstly check with Pinker and the IPCC, but her conclusion is to do with low clouds and theirs is high cloud. Let’s look at other ways to determine that we have low climate sensitivity. Argo buoys, ocean surface cooling over last 6 years.

    Douglas and Knox 2009 (sp?) analysing last 68 years finds no accumulation of energy in the ocean. If that’s true, doesn’t that raise questions about the magnitude of the radiative forcing [?].

    Tim: new papers need looking at; probably will turn out to be wrong; surface/air[?] temperatures clearly going up.

    Looking at several lines on Monckton’s trend line graph.

    [Monckton: you didn't say "lies" did you [hard to hear the rest]].

    When you calculate trend lines you need to calculate uncertainty…as you go to shorter and shorter time period, the trend gets more and more uncertain.

    Monckton: I’m calling the IPCC graphs “The Great Lie” because you may not apply multiple trend lines to a stochastic data set and then draw conclusions about an acceleration in the warming rate from the trend lines.

    Look at this data set starting from 1993/1997/2001/2005; these four trend lines show we’re heading for a new ice age, so the method is wrong.

    Could start in 1905 vs 1945 and show slowdown in warming.

    [Can't see the graph, but he's saying 3 parallel warming periods, but no acceleration].

    Between 1695 & 1735 central England went up 2.2 degrees C vs 0.7 degrees C in 20th Century.

    Tim’s response: you’re statistically wrong. Need 20-30 years to have a statistically valid trend.

    Monckton: there’s extreme uncertainty over the last 25 years [25 years' data?]

  10. #10 John Cross
    February 11, 2010

    Wow, Tim wiped the floor with him in the opening round. Tim appeared a bit nervous, but it was brilliant to have a video clip of Pinker refuting Monckton’s interpretation of Linker!

    Excellent Tim! No question who won the opening round!!

    John

  11. #11 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    And here comes Alan Jones, abusing the chair with some bizarre argument about anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere…

  12. #12 Stu
    February 11, 2010

    I’m not able to watch this (I’m at work – no streaming allowed) but it sounds like Tim’s doing fine.

    I will ask, what’s all this about 300,000ppm CO2? The atmosphere wasn’t close to 30% carbon dioxide 750 million years ago, was it?

  13. #13 Chris
    February 11, 2010

    The first questioner is completely clueless!

  14. #14 PB
    February 11, 2010

    Jesus. CO2 in the ocean… cloud factor… tides… How can someone so stupid parade their ignorance so willingly…

    I can’t bear it.

  15. #15 carrot eater
    February 11, 2010

    That must be a reference to the Sturtian snowball earths, but I don’t think CO2 was anywhere near 30% then, or anytime after 4 billion years ago. I’d have to check that, but that might be something Monckton slipped by because Tim doesn’t know the entire geological history of the earth by heart.

  16. #16 SCPritch
    February 11, 2010

    Tim is doing just fine.

  17. #17 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    Does anyone have an reasonably accurate figure for the CO2 concentration 750million years? Best I can find is around 5000ppmv 600million years ago.

  18. #18 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    And now he’s he’s bringing Pachauri’s race into the equation. Classy, Chris, very classy. Nothing like a bit of old-fashioned foreigners-taking-our-jobs alarmism though.

  19. #19 SCPritch
    February 11, 2010

    OK, this debate is almost all over. The questions from the audience are just too whacky.

  20. #20 Dave R
    February 11, 2010

    The 750 million years ago question was about the “Snowball Earth” period. Wikipedia [says](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth#Breaking_out_of_global_glaciation)

    The carbon dioxide levels necessary to unfreeze the Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere.[53] Since the Earth was almost completely covered with ice, carbon dioxide could not be withdrawn from the atmosphere by release of alkaline metal ions weathering out of siliceous rocks. Over 4 to 30 million years, enough CO2 and methane, mainly emitted by volcanoes, would accumulate to finally cause enough greenhouse effect to make surface ice melt in the tropics until a band of permanently ice-free land and water developed

  21. #21 anthony
    February 11, 2010

    Jones: Where does the money go?

    Monckton: It goes to pollies and bankers. Does anybody want that?

    Audience Member: Noooooo

    Bring on the panto horse!

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    [One of my earlier posts was held up for moderation for some reason. The gap should get filled in eventually.]

    Alan Jones: what percentage of CO2 present in atmosphere is naturally occurring vs manmade; given our piddling population isn’t our contribution infinitesimal?

    Tim: About 30-40% is human activity. [Monckton?: 39%]

    AJ: Does Monckton agree?

    M: Up to a point. There used to be heaps (dolomite, curly mallee). But if you count the CO2 elsewhere (not in the atmosphere) the manmade level is tiny.

    TL: The stuff in the ground is not relevant; it’s the level in the atmosphere.

    M: Back to 750M years ago when that level of CO2 was in the atmosphere; that gives 22 degrees C.

    TL: You’re ignoring every *other* forcing.

    M: The ice albedo isn’t enough of a countervailing effect.

    AJ: Manmade CO2 is infinitely less than 39%.

    M & TL: agree in atmosphere it’s 39%.

    M: repeats previous position to cut off debate

    Q to TL: How much CO2 is in the ocean; [M: 70 times as much in the ocean as the atmosphere]. How much bearing does the CO2 in the ocean have on clouds and radiative forcing. [Somehow this is supposed to show that cloud factors are wrong.]

    TL: [very confused with questioner who is not clear - who thinks clouds are formed from CO2(!)]

    Q to M: Is it true CO2 in atmosphere in Mars is also increasing despite lack of industrial revolution.

    M: Haven’t recently looked; some dry ice which probably evaporated – NASA SUVs ;-)

    Q to ?: Local council actually/preparing to spend money predicated on ETS (plus carbon market)

    M: No. ETS can set so low a price that it makes no benefit to climate; or so high a price it shuts down industries all over Australia [what, no middle ground? Tut, tut - fallacy of the excluded middle.] If so you’ll be transferring your industries to China which is just not going to have an ETS (despite their letter to the Secretariat of the UN Convention).

    EU Commissars now make “90%” of the laws in UK, mandated an ETS. Closing down a steel factory gives government carbon credits; industry will go to Pachauri’s India…

    You’re going to shut down Australia’s economy for no climate effect.

    Q: 1976 UN Treaty on weather modification technology; why aren’t we using it to deal with climate change?

    AJ: Bit removed, anyone have a comment?

    M: Very briefly, no :-)

    Q to TL: If ocean levels rise by several metre & glaciers melt, isn’t the good news that one of the first impacts will be the submersion of the desalination plant? ;-)

    Q: Skeptical about gov’t using environment for [can't hear - extra tax?]

    M: Extra tax goes to making pollies & bankers richer.

    Q to both: 7 natural warming/cooling cycles since 1018[?]; why is this one the only one that’s attributed to man when natural cycles are ignored (based on sunspot cycle).

    TL: Sunspot activity affects climate; right now lowest sunspot activity for 100 years. We should be “back to temperatures of 1900″. Last Jan warmest ever in satellite record.

    M: Back 600M years (beginning of Cambrian). From then till now most of time temp has been up to 7 degrees C warmer than now.

    Each of previous 4 inter-glacial periods; up to 6 C warmer than now; no SUVs or power stations.

    Holocene (current interglacial) at end of Younger Dryas; optimum (warmest point) 6000 years ago [etc.] Hundreds of papers by lots of scientists from countries claim MWP was worldwide and warmer than now.

    Hence today’s warming is nothing to worry about.

  23. #23 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    Tim should be letting Monckton field some of these first. Here’s the ‘adjustment’ question from the audience. He has to start getting the last word.

  24. #24 carrot eater
    February 11, 2010

    Right, which alone points in the direction that Monckton made up a number out of his behind. If you would need 13% CO2 to get out of that snowball earth, you sure didn’t have 30% going into it.

    I’m sure I have a couple papers about this period lying around somewhere; more tomorrow. I really doubt 30% CO2 at any point in the last 3-4 billion years.

  25. #25 Powellipanta
    February 11, 2010

    This is the most relevant paper regarding Neoproterozoic CO2 levels, is one of the most highly cited Earth Sci papers of the last couple of decades. CO2 might have reached about 120k, which was enough to bust the earth out of a full-blown “ice-house” state (earth would still be frozen solid now, otherwise).

    Science 28 August 1998: Vol. 281. no. 5381, pp. 1342 – 1346

    A Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth
    Paul F. Hoffman, * Alan J. Kaufman, Galen P. Halverson, Daniel P. Schrag

    Negative carbon isotope anomalies in carbonate rocks bracketing Neoproterozoic glacial deposits in Namibia, combined with estimates of thermal subsidence history, suggest that biological productivity in the surface ocean collapsed for millions of years. This collapse can be explained by a global glaciation (that is, a snowball Earth), which ended abruptly when subaerial volcanic outgassing raised atmospheric carbon dioxide to about 350 times the modern level. The rapid termination would have resulted in a warming of the snowball Earth to extreme greenhouse conditions. The transfer of atmospheric carbon dioxide to the ocean would result in the rapid precipitation of calcium carbonate in warm surface waters, producing the cap carbonate rocks observed globally.

  26. #26 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    Nils Axel-Morner?

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Q: GISS – that’s adjusted data. Compared to BOM[?] data. [Mackay?] Adjusted lower in ’30′s/40′s; higher in 80′s/90′s to make it look warmer.

    TL: People used to complain about this graph because the data wasn’t adjusted (for UHI). Now they’re complaining that they are adjusting the data.

    And you can do the whole graph without adjustments without significant change.

    Looking at all the stations in total shows definite warming. Details all publicly available – data and code. A team has reimplemented it and it checks out.

    M: Watts has checked 1200 US stations and adjusted data changed between 1999 and 2008 to match what questioner says. Major inquiry going on into this around the world (including Australian stations). To-be published paper says satellites more or less reliable, but [Joe Daleo[sp?]] concludes 1850-1980 ground records are unreliable.

    TL: Watts’ group claimed number of stations is changing which is used to make it look warmer. Those guys made fundamental programming errors; don’t understand how it’s done.

    Q: [hard to hear] data on rising sea levels over last 40 years? [T: 20 years, 3.2mm per year] I know from reliable sources that 40 year increase admitted by government has only been 1cm.

    TL: Interesting, but this graph comes from CSIRO…

    Q: [can't hear] [When did authorities start saying humans were causing warming]

    M: 1938, Calendar[sp?] ;-)

    TL: …

    M: History…1958 onwards Mauna Loa CO2 measurements.

    Q: I met people designing carbon credit package in 1985 who weren’t talking about global warming, so they were more concerned with money than science… [Not really a question]

    Q to both: Since Copenhagen, can we limit global increase in temp to 2 C like pollies claim was agreed?

    M: Canute.

    Q to both: when can I buy a seaside house? How much is ocean going to rise [translation]?

    TL: need to allow for 90cm this century

    M: Hasn’t worried Gore.

    TL: His > 90cm above sea level.

    M: Central UN estimate 43cm over 100 years compared to 20cm last 100 years. Niklaus Merner [sp?] wrote a lot of papers and expects 10+/-10cm.

    TL: UN did not say their estimate was 43cm; up to 59cm not counting accelerating icesheets – if they start to melt at much faster rate we don’t really know how much impact they will have.

  28. #28 Boris
    February 11, 2010

    Tim’s busy! We can say whatever we want! Piss. Ass. Tits.

  29. #29 Stu
    February 11, 2010

    Boris, you can say those things when Tim is here. He loves at least one of those three.

    More seriously… is Monckton citing a dowser!?

  30. #30 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    “It is not about climatology it is about freedom”

    WTF!? can anyone say, PROPAGANDA and RHETORIC!

  31. #31 It's not about climatology, it's about freedom
    February 11, 2010

    Science is boring. Let’s talk about world government and totalitarian econazis instead.

  32. #32 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    MapleLeaf yes YOU can

  33. #33 WotWot
    February 11, 2010

    Missed the debate, got held up with other stuff, and have not got time to read all this thread.

    What was the overall outcome?

    Thanks

  34. #34 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    I guess it depends on your point of view..

    If your an ALARMEST Tim wiped the floor with’em

    If your a REALIST then he got whacked..

  35. #35 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    The WATBOTS are still here.

    Oh, the lies by Munchkin, I can’t bear it! The crowd are, just as expected, gobbling it up like candy.

  36. #36 foram
    February 11, 2010

    [Still going](http://www.smh.com.au/)

  37. #37 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    Oh the horrors.. the horrors I say.. A non-believer.

    Heritic. Denier.. Flat Earther.. Got any more?

  38. #38 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    WotWot – still going on as I type but just about to sleep (it’s early morning in my part of the world).

    Tim wiped the floor with Monckton in their initial presentations on carbon sensitivity. But every single question from the floor has been hostile to Tim. Monckton has been confident, even when lying through his teeth, whilst Tim has had to resort to simply correcting and repeating people. Couple of times Tim simply said “you’re wrong” which probably didn’t go down great. But overall, Tim won on the science, Monckton on the irrelevent stuff (he scored points for being able to talk confidently on an obscure question about freak waves, though I’ve no clue if he was right or not).

  39. #39 Bud
    February 11, 2010

    Comment 137 should have read: “correcting people and repeating himself to people”. Like I said, it’s late…

  40. #40 Stu
    February 11, 2010

    S. Lindsey:

    “I guess it depends on your point of view..

    If your an ALARMEST Tim wiped the floor with’em

    If your a REALIST then he got whacked..”

    Would you not describe the notion that it’s all a scam to implement a communist global government as somewhat ALARMEST?

    More generally, have you ever approached anything rationally in your life?

  41. #41 Jody
    February 11, 2010

    I’m watching. Tim is talking about science, and winning on the science. But the science is detailed, nuanced and boring. Mockton is wining on the folksy, political, and emotional level, playing up small arguments into big battles and tiny differences into monumental disagreements.

    I actually don’t think it’s going well for Tim with the audience. I don’t know who the moderator is or where the people in the audience were drawn from, but it seems that both are rather hostile in aggregate.

  42. #42 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Oh this is good, Munchkin is saying ENSO is caused by undersea volcanoes.

    No, it is called delayed oscillator you twit!

  43. #43 MikeH
    February 11, 2010

    s.lindsey

    In an earlier post in response to a request for you to substantiate your claims you replied “Simply Google James Hansen and Global Cooling”.

    This is standard denier methodology .. if you see an unsubstantiated claim on more than one denier blog you classify it as a fact. This is not how science works you moron.

    Your cross-linked lies are so in-bred most of them would have two heads by now. You would not recognise a fact if it hit you between the eyes.

  44. #44 Mark S
    February 11, 2010

    Nice answer from Monkton: ‘The more warming, within reason, the better.’ Obviously this guy is living in his own little bubble of reality.

  45. #45 Amanda
    February 11, 2010

    I agree with Bud. Tim presented good scientific responses to all the flaws in Monckton’s arguments. The disadvantage was that the audience was overwhelmingly in support of Monckton and his charisma and snide remarks encouraged them so the general feeling of the room was against Tim.

    I would like to congratulate Tim on his ability to maintain a professional, unbaised and unemotional approach despite the inability to do the same by Monckton and the so called “mediator”.

  46. #46 Steve L
    February 11, 2010

    Groan, a bit disappointing. Monckton gets asked by the ‘moderator’ to speak at every opportunity; Tim has to interrupt and ask to reply.
    The moderator says something like, “Better to be skeptical than to be gullible.” I would ask people to be skeptical of a worldwide conspiracy of published scientists to push an idea that is wrong, to be skeptical that they’re all secretly agents of totalitarianism/communism/poverty, to be skeptical that someone who has been wrong as often as Monckton (his views on HIV AIDS, etc) is getting it right but everyone else is wrong.

  47. #47 wilful
    February 11, 2010

    Jody, the ‘moderator’ is one of Australia’s worst right-wing populist talkback radio hacks. Who’s been caught shilling on air and inciting racist violence.

  48. #48 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    “First we caught out noted global warming blogger Tim Lambert exaggerating IPCC predictions of sea level rises, only to have him reply that 59cm was in fact “similar” to 88cm.”
    “Intrigued, however, by Lambert’s inventiveness in coming up with excuses for errors and exaggerations, I then asked him this:

    Why did he last year claim “most experts” believed hurricanes had been getting stronger and more numerous, when both the World Meteorological Organisation and the IPCC have put out statements contradicting that specific claim?

    Lambert has replied here by saying I should have added that the IPCC thought that maybe in the future hurricanes would get stronger but less numerous, but of course that doesn’t answer my question at all. What’s more (and unmentioned by Lambert) the WMO suggests tropical cyclones globally could even decrease, according to some research. ”

    Any of this sound familure?

  49. #49 Anthony David
    February 11, 2010

    Brave man Tim. Moderator at a real debate would not argue on the side of one of the debaters. People who argue from the uncertainty of science will also have a difficult time arguing against a polemicist.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Q: With M’s 300,000ppm -> 22C isn’t that implying a non-linear relationship.

    M: Yes [...] natural logarithm.

    Q: I’m naval architect, freak waves are increasing frequency over 30-40 years. Moved from 100 year [?] to 200 year? What is reason for freak waves frequency increasing?

    M: First largely thought to be mythical until too much evidence accumulated. Mathematicians have concluded Schroedinger wave equation predicts/models freak waves.

    Q: Didn’t come here to primarily discuss climate; more concerned about totalitarian way governments treat discussion and suppress opinion. Spent my youth under very totalitarian government. Any government wants to get as much power as possible and take over media & education. My teacher friend doesn’t believe about CO2 but scared to tell it to his students…many others?

    AJ: many Aussies concerned about failure to listen to alternative viewpoint; virtually an intellectual scandal that this is the only debate that has occurred on this issue in Australia.

    Request was made to appear at National Press Club it was denied which gives validity to [censorship/suppression].

    Worry about children being taught that CO2 is a pollutant.

    Freedom that people died for to exchange views.

    M: You come from Czech Republic – have seen Hitler & Communism, and Vaclav Klaus’s book Blue Planet in Green Shackles – “it’s not about climatology, it’s about freedom”.

    Q: Pleased to see it’s not womankind being blamed for issues ;-) NY winter and London winter have been really cold, so where’s the global warming.

    TL: Doesn’t mean we don’t get winter anymore. Difference between weather (day to day) and climate (long term average). Snowstorm is about precipitation (questioner interjecting). Can I speak? [Q: no! You've changed the terminology from global warming to climate change.]

    Winter snow came from warmer weather in Manitoba; a big snow storm is because you have lots of precipitation.

    M: Merely 3 miserable northern hemisphere winters in a row don’t make a climate trend, nor do several hot summers Down Under.

    But there has been no statistically significant global warming for 15 years; begins to be long enough to raise questions of magnitude of climate sensitivity.

    Global cooling for 9 years.

    ClimateGate e-mail – can’t explain no global warming for decade and it’s a travesty.

    El Nino 1998-2001; falling back since then; can’t read too much into it – but it does raise sensitivity questions; raise an eyebrow and keep watching.

    Q to both: Ehrlich, Population Bomb, his view is humans are the problem so we need fewer humans. To M are you worried about the conflation of the two issues. To TL do you agree that population is a problem when my wife and I want to have lots of kids?

    TL: Controlling population is bad idea, against human rights and nature. It’s an engineering problem – redesign our economy to have same lifestyle without the emissions.

    M: If you stop people burning fossil fuels in poorer countries to have cheap electricity; that keeps them in poverty; population will increase beyond capacity of land to sustain them. So have to raise standards of living. Therefore the developing countries must burn as much fossil fuels as they need to stabilise population by lifting them out of poverty.

    In 1990′s[?] UN predicted 16-18 billion by 2080; now thought ~9B in 2050 – but limiting poor countries – or limiting to the point of poverty in rich countries – will give us more people and more CO2 overall.

    Q: economics; suggested Australia should wait for rest of world to do something. What happens if other countries have developed renewables later this century and we’re left to import it from them? Why shouldn’t we lead the world in these technologies?

    TL: [garbled on my feed]

    M: No. Every economic analysis but Stern shows that going to low-carbon economy is one of most destructive actions you can take.

    More than 5% wind power means you have to turn it off because it’s destabilising the grid. Denmark stopped subsidising wind power…

    Only as fossil fuel prices rise naturally without alternative subsidies, only then it makes sense. And wind farms damage wildlife. So subsidising alternative energy puts up electricity prices for everyone for no benefit.

    Q: Tectonic plates shifting; does this impact sea level [and something I couldn't hear]

    TL: Yes, but only over (say) hundreds of millions of years.

    M: Island of Lobna Chaura [sp?] suddenly disappeared a few years ago, so can get local effects. Bangladesh. Shifting makes it difficult to measure sea level; satellite altimetry, more accurate than tide gauges. Eastern Pacific basin gets clusters of undersea earthquakes which always seem to precede El Nino…

    TL: [cut off by AJ]

    Q: Seems that measurements are disputed; Lindzen; sea level rise; what confidence in them?

    M: How good are our measurements? Lindzen & Choi vs “ClimateGate” researchers. Enormous disputes going on; staggering uncertainty in measurements. Tools woefully inadequate. Climate mathematically chaotic therefore long run prediction is impossible by definition. Can still take some view on relationship between CO2 and warming, but no consensus on sensitivity.

    TL: Lindzen and Choi wasn’t about uncertainty in measurement. It was interpretation of data – their choice of cooling and warming periods seemed an artifact of an arbitrary choice [which wasn't robust].

    It’s a mistake to say chaotic system means you can’t predict it. Weather is unpredictable long term; climate is reasonably predictable. Initial value problems vs boundary condition problems. That is doable.

    AJ: one consequence of debate is apologies for being skeptical; but better to be skeptical than gullible.

    Q: Wouldn’t many places benefit from global warming?

    TL: Sure, a little bit of warming – some places better, some worse. A lot of warming – the bad stuff outweighs the good stuff a lot. Sea levels & buildings; agriculture.

    M: Warming is a good thing; the more (within reason) the better. Climate sensitivity. Until we know, making damaging and murderous decisions that we’ve already rushed into is an extremely bad idea.

    Q to TL: If so much is driven by CO2, why did it go up so fast in 1910-1940 (down in 1970′s)…when there wasn’t that much CO2? And 1970′s warnings about ice age warnings?

    TL: CO2 not the only thing to affect climate; remember my climate sensitivity calculations. Graph [can't see it - IPCC model graphs showing natural factors only?] Talking about predictions/calculations using only natural factors and all factors…must look at all factors[etc]

    Ice Age, don’t trust newspapers writing about science. Two schools of scientific thoughts back then – increasing CO2 vs increasing pollution; which one is stronger.

    AJ: nothing’s changed in reporting.

    M: These three warmings over the last 150 years can’t be CO2; must be chiefly natural. These ups and downs are natural events that overwhelm the overall trend. But CO2 isn’t doing much.

    Ice Age – natural apocalypticism particularly in journalists – next might be the impossible issue of ocean acidification.

  51. #51 viverravid
    February 11, 2010

    Monckton makes me angry. Jones too. They get away with a lot having a supportive audience – especially that extremely disingenuous attempt by Jones to claim that anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of global CO2.

    Tim definitely won on science, but unfortunately that wasn’t the arena on which the bulk of the debate was fought. (although Tim should have smacked him down on the pre-cambrian snowball earth CO2 concentration)

  52. #52 Fran Barlow
    February 11, 2010

    Bud Said:

    Tim wiped the floor with Monckton in their initial presentations on carbon sensitivity. But every single question from the floor has been hostile to Tim. Monckton has been confident, even when lying through his teeth,

    I recall a Seinfeld episode in which George Costanza says it’s not a lie if you believe it. In a sense, the more delusional you are, or in Monckton’s case, the more in character and in the moment you can stay, the better you can lie.

    Good actors on stage do this all the time. They learn their lines. They ignore distractors. They become one with their persona. What they say is less important than that the audience should forget that it is a performance.

    For the record, I do agree that Tim was winning on the science, but as many of us have noted, this debate was never going to be about the science. It was about the credibility of Monckton before the audiences that count. That’s why one of Tim’s best moments was his sound byte from Pinker, which put Monckton off his game and caused him to fumble in front of the crowd. If the press report anything untoward this will be what they seize upon.

    Tim was also strong when he used phrases like “where Mr Monckton gets the maths wrong …” I was almost looking for the Reagan-Carter line “there you go again …”

    That’s the right tone for this audience — gently condescending — and it would have annoyed Monckton intensely.

  53. #53 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    MikeH.. ohhh you got me.. Moron wow did you go to college to be able to come up with that one?

    Well here you go…

    http://blog.survivalstation.org/a-little-known-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen-%e2%80%93-that-failed-badly-19391.html

    “While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, ?If what you?re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?? He looked for a while and was quiet and didn?t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, ?Well, there will be more traffic.? I, of course, didn?t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, ?The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won?t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.? Then he said, ?There will be more police cars.? Why? ?Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.?”

  54. #54 David Gould
    February 11, 2010

    Tim Lambert is indeed very brave. But it was obvious how stacked against him this was going to be. Alan Jones plus Monckton’s fan club …

    On the science, he was always going to win – obviously. But that is not the issue. The issue is: who wins the politics. In these kinds of debates, the bad guys win the politics pretty much every time.

  55. #55 Jody
    February 11, 2010

    wilful @146… Great. Tim is arguing in a forum with Glenn Beck as the moderator and his flunkies as the audience. I had to use an American douche as an analogue for the moderator.

    As I write this, Mockton is giving his concluding remarks. He’s now slamming Pinker’s research, which he quoted positively at the start of the lecture until Tim called him on his shit, saying that his evaluation of her work is better than her own.

    With all of the talk of freedom, humor and namedropping, if I didn’t know anything about what the climate literature actually said, I’d be moved to conclude Mockton was right.

  56. #56 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    TL summing up:

    Climate sensitivity is the important point. Unless you think Plimer’s book is wrong about the Ice Age, then the conclusion is pretty much that sensitivity is about 0.75 (2.8C/double).

    Pinker’s graph heavily relied on by Monckton, but Pinker says his interpretation is wrong.

    Ad for blog.

    M summing up:

    Pinker’s graph. Top left 90S -> 90N means she took satellite data from geostationary equatorial orbit plus polar orbital satellites. [Lost feed twice here] I think he’s saying the measurements allow you to determine shortwave and longwave, and graphs showing separate parts of the world. Overall effect – no point saying otherwise – is that you’ll get more sunlight on surface and temperature will increase. …which raises questions about climate sensitivity.

    Other tests. Santer rewrote IPCC to say now discernible influence on human climate; his 2008 paper says atmospheric hotspot will come from ONLY anthropogenic forcing [I thought it was ANY warming?] Only one dataset shows this but the dataset is defective. Lindzen & Choi disputed by Trenberth; changing start dates/end dates criticism; Lindzen & Choi updating. Paper after paper demonstrating by measurement, not modeling, that climate sensitivity is low. UN models did not forecast 15 years without global warming. Huge departure from IPCC’s projections; they’ve revised projections downwards. Climate is responding as low climate sensitivity implies.

    No sound conclusion that we’re causing serious problems. Spend money on deforestation, overfishing, rare wildlife habitat, better healthcare in 3rd world…wait and see.

    No Copenhagen gives < 0.25C over next 10 years.

  57. #57 john
    February 11, 2010

    Tim did well I thought but Lord Monckton is a very slick presenter, very much a triumph of style over substance. He so often quotes one man or “some scientists” lots of egging on the audience with simple short answers that give them a chance to clap- he is a showman. As a debate it was hardly even handed; audience obviosuly hostile, largely RSL oldies who had come with pre-conceived ideas and were “not for turning”. The worst thing for me was Alan Jone’s smug bias with “well said” “here here” and other snide asisdes and also a number of times moved on without allowing Tim a ripost. He just loves short answers, don’t think too much folks, go with the short emotional response and trust in Uncle Alan!

  58. #58 zoot
    February 11, 2010

    Nice analogy Jody @154. Jones isn’t quite as rabid as Beck, but he’s just as addled.

  59. #59 foram
    February 11, 2010

    Gotta hand it to Monckton, he sure can bullshit.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    AJ:

    Thanks Tim for debate.

    Apparently it’s an indictment of freedom of speech that we [somehow?] want to deny expression of them.

    ETS architects have refused to come on AJ’s program. Variation of viewpoints (which is healthy [teach the controversy!]), therefore implies shouldn’t be legislating yet.

    Thanks Monckton for sponsoring the debate (in the sense of his presence has triggered it to happen), and for going anywhere for an audience.

    Monckton found himself at an Australia Day political function [sounds like AJ brought him] and was “treated as pariah”.

    Claims atmosphere of suppression [what planet is he on? Read any newspapers lately?]

  61. #61 Arthur Smith
    February 11, 2010

    Tim, that was extremely well done, thanks for stepping up. It would be great if you could post your slides – anybody have Monckton’s latest also?

  62. #62 Jody
    February 11, 2010

    Nice analogy Jody @154. Jones isn’t quite as rabid as Beck, but he’s just as addled.

    Thanks. What I really hate is that as good as scientists are — and Tim has to be applauded for going into that lions den — most don’t have the natural presence to counter showmen with both stylistic flourishes and science. Tim had one when he used Pinker’s words against Mockton, but unfortunately he needed that kind of stuff for every point Mockton made if he was to “win.”

  63. #63 WotWot
    February 11, 2010

    Ahh, yes should have said that foaming-at-the-mouth denialist loonies need not respond.

    Outcome sounds like what I was expecting, Tim wins the science side, but Monckton, with a friendly audience and VERY friendly moderator, wins the superficial politics, which is what these town hall style debates are really about.

    Alan Jones was never, ever going to allow a fair debate. He is constitutionally incapable of it.

    Thanks Bud, et al.

  64. #64 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    Simply put.. prove Beck wrong.. Break his arguments.. Just saying it does not make it so..

    Get past your ideology. You guys are so wrapped up in Politics and ideology that you cannot conceive that you just might be wrong..

    The Science is not settled. Is there Global Warming.. YES..
    Has it ever happened before… YES.
    Has Global Cooling ever happened.. YES

    So answer this one thing.. If there has been.. and I know there has.. Global Warming in the past and has been shown to be cyclic.. and mankind could not possibly have caused it.. then why are you so sure Mankind is causing it NOW?

  65. #65 Ian Musgrave
    February 11, 2010

    Tim successfully gets Monckton on the Pinker paper, clever use of Moncktons’ own words and Pinkers’ own words (although Monckton recovers well in the final comments).

    But Monckton does his Gish gallop well, and gets away with a whole lot of distortion. He puts a lot of emphasis on the 750 million year old carbonates as evidence for a low carbon dioxide climate sensitivity (and it’s nice and folksy with the Australian Mallee talking point). However, the key paper is “Triple oxygen isotope evidence for elevated CO2
    levels after a Neoproterozoic glaciation
    Huiming Bao1, J. R. Lyons2 & Chuanming Zhou3″
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/nature06959.html

    Not the *after* in the title. The carbonates are the result of the *end* of the glaciation, and the accumulation of the CO2 was fundamental to the end of the glaciation.

    Note that Monckton was trying to spin this as glaciation that occurred in the presence of high C02, whereas CO2 was low during the lead up the snowball earth and only grew at the end. Tim was to some degree blind-sided by this.

    Overall, if you had not been aware of a fair degree of climate science, Monkton would have easily swayed you.

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Smeed’s wife is introduced & presents a token gift to AJ for introducing Monckton & “preaching the word[?!]“. She’s horrified to see what’s going on in this country, because she comes from a Communist country.

    FWIW, apart from his closing comments, for the most part I think AJ moderated reasonably well. And he did help weed out the rambling commenters and irrelevant questions from the audience.

    On the video feed seems like Monckton is off to one side out of shot with camera flashes going off – sorry Tim, you don’t have the same celebrity cache ;-)

  67. #67 John
    February 11, 2010

    What is all this stuff about defending democracy and communist plots? And the present for Alan for all his work!
    I’m really reminded of David Irving. The agenda seems to be a weid amalgum of genuine sceptics, peopel who fera soem world government, people who fear some communist conspiracy.
    It’s like soemthing out of the twilight zone…

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    So answer this one thing.. If there has been.. and I know there has.. Global Warming in the past and has been shown to be cyclic.. and mankind could not possibly have caused it.. then why are you so sure Mankind is causing it NOW?

    You haven’t read the IPCC report, have you?

    Short answer – as Tim pointed out – because when you sum up all the OTHER forcings that we know affect climate, they’re not enough to explain what we see now.

    Simple analogy. You’re observing a car with a speed measuring laser gun. You see it slow down. Does the driver have his foot on the brake or not?

  69. #69 tom
    February 11, 2010

    Hey guys, your government likes to restrict what information and content you can view on the internet. Don’t you see your country inching towards a totalitarian state? (it certainly isn’t moving towards more freedom) Thanks to Lambert for showing up

  70. #70 Sean Peake
    February 11, 2010

    I watched from Canada and I’m pleased Tim took time to debate the issue. This is what’s needed. Good on him for engaging in a polite dialogue. Hopefully his example will be the start of a new trend.

  71. #71 PJ
    February 11, 2010

    When the audience questions started I could only watch some of it. There was that idiot who seemed to think that CO2 in the oceans caused global warming. Or didn’t. Or something. Then there was that chick who asked that stupid question about global warming on Mars… It reminded of that ‘debate’ after Durkin’s film when the audience was stacked with LaRouche loonies.

    I thought Tim did well and won overall. He murdered Monckton on the science. I thought Monckton came across as a smarmy prick who just pulled ‘facts’ out of his arse. But then I’m not a fan of pompous brits who think they can tell us colonials what to think.

  72. #72 tom
    February 11, 2010

    The moderator was very biased, but i’m sure you would have loved to have Maurice Strong moderating right? haha.
    This debate is pathetic, there has been personal attacks mostly from the alarmists over the years, and they can’t really handle it when it comes right back.

  73. #73 Jody
    February 11, 2010

    What is all this stuff about defending democracy and communist plots?

    Didn’t you get the memo? For the last 100 years, tens of thousands of scientists across the world have been cooking data and forging results so that Al Gore and the rest of the Global Communist Green Conspiracy can take power and return us all to the stoneage. Thankfully, Lord Mockton and Sarah Palin have caught on to this dastardly plot and will take us to a brighter, shinier future. All you have to do is say the following magic phrase aloud:

    “Drill, baby. Drill!”

  74. #74 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    Moncktons’s essential summation:

    Authors like Lindzen and Choi show there is doubt in the literature, therefore that means global warming is rubbish. And any level of doubt such as produced by distinctly flawed paper by L&C means we should do nothing.

    Doubt need not be put into context, just call the whole theory of AGW rubbish if you can construct any small article of uncertainty.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    Ah, so that was AJ saying “hear hear” and other affirmations? I was listening and typing, not watching – couldn’t tell who was saying it.

  76. #76 MapleLeaf
    February 11, 2010

    Lotharsson, thanks very much for transcribing. That was very thoughtful and generous of you. Much appreciated.

  77. #77 Mark S
    February 11, 2010

    So answer this one thing.. If there has been.. and I know there has.. Global Warming in the past and has been shown to be cyclic.. and mankind could not possibly have caused it.. then why are you so sure Mankind is causing it NOW?

    s. lindsey, I would second lotharson’s recommendation to read the IPCC report, at least the summary. It’s easy to understand and gives a good summation of the current science, even though the science has advanced significantly since the report was issued.

    However, to answer your question in a nutshell I would say that we know several things to be facts: Humans are causing the level of Co2 in the air to increase. Co2 is a gas that traps heat radiated from the earth. Everything else being equal more co2 in the atmosphere means a warmer planet. Finally, there are no credible studies that conclude the earth has some sort of countering mechanism that will cool the planet when Co2 rises.

    Again, read the IPCC report so you understand the issues and then check back into the discussion when you are better informed…no one here is going away, there is simply too much as stake.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    As did others, I thought Tim did reasonably well on the science, although clearly he’s currently a modest debating talent at best – and the soundbite from Pinker was an absolutely priceless riposte. It would have been superb to have more “we can measure this” moments, because Monckton tried to imply the AGW science is based on models whilst the anti-AGW science is based on measurements.

    Whilst Tim did quite well, Monckton is a crowd pleasing showman, and that counts for an awful lot – especially with much of this crowd.

    jakerman – Monckton’s “product is doubt”, which will be a familiar phrase to anyone who knows how the tobacco industry went about their campaigns…

  79. #79 robr
    February 11, 2010

    Tim,
    I am a skeptic, but I must give you my appreciation for you standing up and defending your belief. It is surprising, that in just a short time, the AGW paradigm has gone from the offensive to the defensive. I await the evolution of this “science”. By the way, Lord Moncton made you look small, not by the issue at hand, but through the intervening discourse.

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    MapleLeaf – you’re welcome, but like I said take it all with a grain of salt (I’m sure there are errors, probably even significant ones) and assume most of it is paraphrased.

  81. #81 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    I missed the the inital presentation, and joined during question time.

    Monckton was as polished and self assured as the slickest of salesmen. But as slick has he was he less assured in is summation on Pinker and Lindzen & Choi. He was trying to defend his use of both paper.

    Nice homework Tim, look forward to reading your correspondence with Pinker. Your preparation on Monckton’s supposed big two “supporting” papers threw him off his big close.

  82. #82 llewelly
    February 11, 2010

    How typical of Monckton to start out with a bit of troll bait about Haiti and biofuels.

  83. #83 cw
    February 11, 2010

    I’m a lurker, but I have been reading this blog for a while now, and I managed to watch all of the debate. I was pleased that it was a civil debate – I heard no booing, and only marginal interference from the moderator (at least until the last “meaning drenched” moments of “Mi-Lord” reverence).

    I thought Tim did an excellent job, and debated very well. (Despite suggestions on another thread, it really wasn’t the opportunity to tear Mi-Lord apart.) LCM eventually looked like a bit of a bullshit artist with a formula for handling an audience. (No surprises there.)

    Well done Dr Lambert.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    It is surprising, that in just a short time, the AGW paradigm has gone from the offensive to the defensive.

    Doesn’t surprise me. For one thing scientists are lousy at PR, large companies with vested interests are necessarily very good at it, and journalists on the whole aren’t very good at covering science and are mostly working for other large corporations that have a point of view regardless of the science.

  85. #85 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    Mark S:

    >*So answer this one thing.. If there has been.. and I know there has.. Global Warming in the past and has been shown to be cyclic.. and mankind could not possibly have caused it.. then why are you so sure Mankind is causing it NOW?*

    Start here MarkS < http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm>

    Or you could start with the some of the other enhanced greenhouse finger-prints such as cooling stratosphere while warming surface and warming troposhere; or why the warming is most rappily in the higher latitudes which get least sun.

  86. #86 davidk
    February 11, 2010

    Lord HawHaw has obviously picked up some geologic history from Plimer, but to continually rabbet on about stuff that happened 750 million years ago (and relate it to what is happening now) lost it for him – particularly when we have climatologists examining stuff in real time.

    Did anyone else pick up that Monckton thinks satellite measurements are the ants-pants for monitoring temperature yet says we haven’t had warming for 15 years? Last time I checked, GISS satellites says 2005 was the warmest year.

    Tim, well done – you stuck to the science and you won the debate about the science.

    As soon as it drifted into politics or economics – Monckton held sway because that hits home with people, how it will impact on them. But it was always going to be like that. The thing that most people don’t understand is what to do about climate change, who’s going to be doing the doing, when to do it and how much is it going to cost? Science can’t help them with that, imo.

  87. #87 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    Loth/Mark

    Yes I have read the report.. It fails to quantify the premise.

    There have been cyclic events for ages..

    There used to be glaciers over New York a mile high.. They started and ended.. Thus Global Cooling and Global Warming.. That is real hard evidence..

    Greenland used to be well Green..

    Iceland used to be covered in Ice..

    Deserts used to be the bottom of the seas..

    Mountaintops have been discovered as being islands at one time..

    All this is hard evidence.. Not antidotal. Not Computer modeled.. Not FUNDED by POLITICS.. REAL HARD EVIDENCE of past Warming.. with no influence by MAN..

    I find it the height of arrogance of MAN to think that we can influence the ENGINE that is called Earth.. We are a mere spec in the moment of time of this planet.. but yet somehow we have the power to change the Earth.. Simply by using a resource created by the Earth itself.. Generating a product (CO2) which is created in mass by the Earth itself and USED by every living plant on this Earth.

    One question I can never get answered.. Who said this is EARTH’S perfect Temp?

    Maybe a warmer Earth just might be a good thing.. Think of the WORLD WIDE HUNGER that might be cured if planting seasons where a little longer. But oh wait the Eugenics crowd, a few probably on here, doesn’t want that.. Less hunger = More people to use resources not in abundance.

    Saying that today’s temp is perfect or a little high is like stating categorically that Saturn’s Methane levels harms it’s environment.

  88. #88 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    Apologies MarkS, I didn’t realize you were quoting s.lindsey.

  89. #89 janama
    February 11, 2010

    Well done Tim – thank you for stepping up to the plate and for making a good case for your side and providing an excellent program. You have risen considerably in my estimation.

  90. #90 Andrew Barnham
    February 11, 2010

    I am a non-scientist and a professed sceptic. Monckton clearly won the debate and yes he was probably aided by a friendly room and a friendly moderator.

    People here lament that the debate was of a political nature. But the issue is inherently a political one – this is not some boring dry side ally research issue but something that has far reaching political and economic impact. If you tell me how I should run my life and the resources at my disposal without either providing me a utterly compelling, completely watertight, reason for doing so, then expect me to ask questions, form my own opinion on the matter and be generally suspicious.

    Now the bulk of the professional scientists posting here making crude remarks about sceptics and at times arrogant insinuations about the intellectual capacity and integrity of the sceptical public, but to a non scientist audience, Monckton injects a very substantial amount of reasonable doubt into the whole issue.

    I personally love science, and since I was an adolescent I sought inspiration from larger than life figures like Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and many popular books by such popularisers a read and re-read over and over again.

    Yet, especially in the past few months since Climategate and now almost daily revelations about the conduct of the IPCC, climate science, in the eyes of the public may now be beginning to fall into disrepute. You want to win the public’s hearts and minds on this issue? Provide compelling evidence (or as Monckton put it – the silver bullet) – and stop calling the rest of us, that have the sheer audacity to call you out and express doubt, idiots.

    Show some respect, especially since it is public money that provides most of you what you need so that you can pursue your professional interests.

  91. #91 jakerman
    February 11, 2010

    Shorter s.lindsey:

    The Earth used to be different therefore the enhanced greenhouse effect cannot affect the Earth.

  92. #92 cw
    February 11, 2010

    robr @178 – Unlike the science (maybe), judging the debate is obviously a matter of perception and prejudice. You thought LCM made Tim look small; I thought he just stood up a lot. You thought LCM handled the “intervening discourse” well; I thought he eventually looked like a man with a fabulously retentive memory, probably a good line in bullshitting, and an almost scandalous amorality in implying concern over possible climate change is mutually exclusive of trying to address poverty and a raft of other human and environmental crises. How about our responsibility to look at all of these?

  93. #93 Anthony David
    February 11, 2010

    Does anyone have a journal reference for the submarine volcanic oscillations driving ENSO that Monckton raised in the debate? I have never heard of that before. I couldn’t find anything definitive in a google search. A quick Web of Science search showed nothing. My search terms might have been wrong. I would have thought it would have been a “hot topic” if there was anything in it.

  94. #94 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    Andrew..

    Well said.. That has been a thorn in my side since this “debate” began.. The “deniers” as they call us are generally just dismissed.. Debate is not appreciated nor wanted.

    I can say every site that is run by the AGW crowd is the same..

    Morons, Idiots, Denier, Flat Earther.. etc…

    They do not want a debate afterall the “Science” is settled..

  95. #95 Katielou
    February 11, 2010

    Tim, I thought you did an excellent job, and clearly pwned Monckton on the science. Well done. I think if there was someone there who was genuinely open to the facts, they would see that Monckton’s argument was discredited.

  96. #96 robr
    February 11, 2010

    Doesn’t surprise me. For one thing scientists are lousy at PR, large companies with vested interests are necessarily very good at it, and journalists on the whole aren’t very good at covering science and are mostly working for other large corporations that have a point of view regardless of the science.

    Legerdemain, please explain why you believe any of what you have said – it all seems conjecture.

  97. #97 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    shorter s.lindsey #2 – I can’t imagine that we could influence the climate, therefore we have not.

  98. #98 s. lindsey
    February 11, 2010

    Lotharsson..
    I agree

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2010

    shorter s.lindsey #3 – how I learned to stop worrying and love a rapidly warming climate.

    “Who said this is EARTH’S perfect Temp?”

    Straw man – no-one said that of the EARTH.

    But for the current inhabitants – us and the rest of the ecosphere, it’s pretty damn good. Move the temperature too rapidly and you cause massive stress to the ecosystem (let alone to human affairs) because it can’t adapt fast enough.

  100. #100 Mark S
    February 11, 2010

    jakerman, no worries. I’m new to blogging so my post didn’t look as good as it should. I understand the confusion…

    s.lindsey: Aren’t you getting a bit hysterical now? I read the report and it describes the different forcings quite well. It also describes the current state of forcings pretty well. The ones that created the ice ages (orbital forcings) are currently creating a very slight cooling effect. Did you not read that? Or did you not understand? Perhaps you should reread and look at the section describing what created ice ages…

    I find it the height of stupidity for someone to be offered evidence of how man is actually influencing climate and then vomit up some nonsense response about how we can’t-we can’t says I!-so they are arrogant. Your personal beliefs should be put aside and the evidence weighed. This nonsense about arrogance simply shows you have a bias and aren’t being rational. One could say that denierism is a belief, a faith, to you if you can think of no reason to believe what you do other than belief itself.

    I’ll attempt to answer your question about earth’s perfect temp: No one ever said the current temp is earths perfect temp. That is a straw man argument and fallacious. The important thing to know is that human civilization developed around a relatively narrow range of temperatures and the climactic stability that such temperatures imbued. To change the earths temperature is to change a fundamental premise (that of climate) upon which mankind has based it’s prosperity.