Lambert Monckton debate on Youtube

I have uploaded my debate with Monckton to youtube. I had to cut it up into 15 parts which I’ve put in a playlist.

My presentation is part 3 and 4, embedded below.


  1. #1 Ezzthetic
    March 28, 2010

    Better not be a RickRoll.

  2. #2 Davidpj
    March 28, 2010

    Good work, Tim. The only thing I’d have suggested content-wise is that you didn’t reinforce why leaving out long-wave radiation, as Monckton did, ruins the calculation (in part 4/15). I’m sure many people would be able to connect the dots, but emphasising that ignoring the effect of clouds on long-wave radiation leads to an underestimation of warming would put a nice full stop on that section.

    I don’t think I’d have been able to stand there and let Monckton blatantly not answer a question (correcting the record). You’re much more patient than I am.

  3. #3 Lotharloo
    March 28, 2010

    That was a great debate. It clearly reveals that Monckton is a dirty bastard, throwing out random bullshit and cherry-picked information with a fake confidence.

  4. #4 anticlimate
    March 28, 2010

    The following is based only on the videos Tim put up on Youtube:

    Monckton tried to bring up many different topics (poverty in third world, evil governments etc.), but I think Tim succeeded in not letting the reframing happen: he sticked to the basic question of how large climate sensitivity is.

    Yes, Monckton is a better debater. He seemingly moved more naturally on that terrain, but it was an excellent first public appearance from Tim.

    There was however another issue which was not addressed by Mr. Lambert: the notion that science is too uncertain about AGW to base any action on it. In that question he had two guys on the stage to argue with (Monckton + the moderator) and probably there was not enough time left, but it would have been wortwhile to try.

    And another superficial observation: the audience was overwhelmingly old people – Monckton’s appearence and speech must have been more convincing to them than a fast talking guy with a laptop.

    Other than that, excellent performance – I would have done much worse :).

  5. #5 Jeremy C
    March 28, 2010


    Thanks for both undertaking the debate and pasting it up on Youtube.

    All I can say is its going to be a long hard battle against the winding talking points of people like Christopher Walker. Looks like he had the sympathetic audience.

  6. #6 wilful
    March 28, 2010

    Is it my headphones, or is the audio in the right ear only?

  7. #7 cindy
    March 28, 2010

    Great performance Tim… calm, deliberate.

    I haven’t watched them all – it’s more Monckton than I can bear.

    problem is that the audience is left thinking there’s still a “debate” over whether global warming is happening – something I’m sure you pondered before bravely agreeing to enter the fray. If you hadn’t fronted for it, would there have been a debate?

    Doubt is their product. That’s all they need to do – sow doubt. It doesn’t take much to do that. As we all know. This isn’t a scientific issue, it’s a political one.

  8. #8 wilful
    March 28, 2010

    good presentation (all I’ve had time to watch). I wish there was a hard-arse moderator to say “answer the question” when he starts wandering into rubbish.

  9. #9 Tim Lambert
    March 29, 2010

    Yes, audio is right channel only. That’s what I got from A-Pac and because I was only using one ear piece of my headphones when cutting it up, I didn’t notice until I’d uploaded it.

  10. #10 John
    March 29, 2010

    Hang on…when was Christopher Monckton in Australia?

  11. #11 Tim's talent agent
    March 29, 2010


    I read somewhere-I can’t recall where- that the voice-over in the part where you introduced Pinker wasn’t in fact not her at all (smart move that one, really deviously strategic). Could you tell us who it was as we’re all curious.

  12. #12 Dave R
    March 29, 2010

    >I read somewhere-I can’t recall where

    Probably [here](

    >Then I played a recording of a female colleague with an American accent reading out Pinker’s message to me on how Monckton had misunderstood her work.

  13. #13 arch stanton
    March 29, 2010

    Thank you Dr Lambert for appearing and making this video available for us despite the hostile environment and the obviously biased moderator.

    I watched all the episodes. Now that I have taken a shower to rid myself of the slimy feel I have from Lord Monckton misrepresenting the words of scientists, frequently avoiding direct questions and giving irrelevant but intelligent sounding answers to others, my science question is:

    In episode 14, when he knows you cannot correct him…Monckton makes the claim that if you subtract short wave radiation from total radiation you get long wave radiation. He bases much of his defense of his interpretation of Pinker et al on this

    I’m not a physicist, but doesn’t the visible spectrum; containing the largest percentage of the sun’s output fall in the middle there? Isn’t this energy unaccounted for in his “back of the envelope” calculation, and isn’t this mostly converted to long wave radiation by the earth?

    Although it may be justifiable on some archaic commonwealth basis, for the “moderator” to close with “Thank you my Lord” should give the (anti-)“Church of Gore” propagandists a pause…But I doubt it.

  14. #14 Bernard J.
    March 30, 2010

    The scientists and informed lay folk here already understand this, but there is a salient point that I think bears repeating..

    Anyone who considers the words of Christopher Monckton to be reliable needs to remember that this is the same person who admits to what is, in my view, [a commercial fraud](

    The puzzle’s inventor falsely claimed in 2000 that the earlier-than-expected discovery had forced him to sell his 67-room house to pay the prize. In 2006 he revealed by his own will that the claim had been a PR stunt to boost sales over Christmas, that the house’s sale was unrelated, and that he was going to sell it anyway.[

    Of course, my view might not be legally informed, but if someone uses untruth to make a financial gain, isn’t that [fraud](

  15. #15 Wadard
    April 1, 2010

    A very good effort, Tim, given that lay audiences in a debate format are more susceptible to tricks of rhetoric than comprehending straight science.

    But you did a great job and I think it is because you had an excellent plan to skewer him between his low climate sensitivity estimate, and the high sensitivity estimate of another denier that they are familiar with.

    You framed the terms of the debate well. Good set up. You had good passion in your presentation. Great use of multimedia props with Pinker’s ‘voice’, executed with devilish cunning. He did well with the questions, and I felt that some may have been Dorothy Dixers to make him look more generally scientific, authoritative, connected with scientists, and trot out his well-honed crowd pleasing lines. And you got into trouble with some whacko who doesn’t know the difference between H20 vapour and CO2.

    But you stuck to your plan, and closed well, forcing the audience to choose between him and Plimer. You put Pinker back up on the screen. Monckton tried to tarry his way out of the trap, Jones puffed him up, but I gave it to you.

    Well done, along with Monboit you’ve shown how to use a debate format to beat the deniers and discredit them. You can’t turn up without a plan to debate professional pr showmen.

  16. #16 John Puma
    April 2, 2010

    Sorry, I wouldn’t watch even if I had the time.

    I did watch a (small) part of a video of the Discount Viscount once.

    No more than 30 seconds after the end of the introductory small talk, the good Sir was unable to divide 100 by 7. I stopped watching and was relieved to know I did not have to deal with him anymore.

    You’re a better person than me!!

  17. #17 Mike Roddy
    April 2, 2010

    Excellent job, Tim, but something appeared to be missing:

    Somewhere around episode 12 His Lordship brought up the MWP line, claiming that hundreds of papers have verified that it was warmer globally during that period. I’ve never heard of any credible papers making that claim. Did you not have an opportunity to refute it? Is there a reference to that issue on your blog?

    I’m coming to Australia in July to deliver a paper to an industry gathering. Maybe we’ll have a chance to meet.

  18. #18 Kate
    April 4, 2010

    If Monckton tried to do high school physics, he’d fail. Give him a problem with three people pushing a box in different directions. He wouldn’t use the net force to find acceleration – no, he’d only take one person into account, and a different one every time: whichever one fit his purpose.

  19. #19 Svatli
    April 17, 2010

    I’ve almost finished seeing all of the episodes of the debate. I would like to say that you did a good job, especially taken into account the audience there. Some thing isn’t possible to adress, but I thing that you adressed the questions well and your start of the debate was very good, where you exposed his misininterpretation of the science. He of course didn’t take that into any serious consideration later on… But that is also one of the problem, that he (and others) don’t really care about what the science is telling us, as he (and others) is working with another agenda, which don’t include the scientific arguments.

    But again, good job Tim 🙂


  20. #20 Svatli
    April 18, 2010

    I’ve just finished seeing all the episodes. It must be surreal for you to listen to the closing comment of both Monckton as well as the moderators closing comment. After you had debunked Moncktons argument totally (in my opinion), he just continued as nothing had happened and the audience didn’t seem to notice either. It’s actually amazing to see this, and very informative.


  21. #22 ianam
    March 16, 2012


    I’ve repaired it to again say “falsely” rather than “jokingly” — that change was not only baseless but clearly wrong. I also removed the claim that Monckton was unprompted to admit that it was false, because the cited sources don’t specify whether he was prompted or not.

  22. #23 Bernard J.
    March 16, 2012


    I’ll be most interested to see how the pigeons fly after that!

    We might even be graced with Mr Monckton’s presence here in order to once again threaten suit. If so, I hope that he focusses on the many corrections of his pronouncements on climate science – it would be interesting to see them tested in court…

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.