At my suggestion the organisers of the debate have changed the format of the debate slightly. Instead of the moderator asking questions, we'll ask each other four questions, two on notice, two without. So you can suggest your questions for Monckton here. Monckton's slides can be seen here.
- Log in to post comments
All I can say is good luck, Tim! He can toss out twenty half-baked ideas in twenty minutes and have the audience in his hand. Rebutting even one of those points could easily take half an hour and risks losing the audience.
The most obvious question, I think, is how can global surface temperature be rising when solar output is not. Another question is why do deniers trust *all* data (even rather weak proxies) when they show cooling but do not trust *any* data that show warming.
Whoa, that slide show is positively dripping with teh crazy. Bright, multicoloured text! Silly pictures (e.g. the judge)! The naff line-art rendering of his coat of arms! Mocking Al Gore's accent!
Not to mention of course, happily jumping back and forth between "there is no warming", "the warming is not caused by humans", "it's China's fault", "cutting emissions would cost too much" with the occasional foray into batshit conspiracy theory (cutting emissions == communist dictatorship world government!!1!!!one!).
I'm inclined to go with the viewpoint that there's no point in debating someone like him. No one who takes this loony seriously could be convinced by any rational argument. Still, good luck, and while I don't have a question to suggest, I'd say try to point out his contradictions, or those arguments he makes that are false in a perfectly clear-cut way, rather than quibbling about decimal points or something.
I agree with dko. Monckton's got a lot of slides, that are well designed to make a quick impression, but take time to break down.
It appears he is using satellite lower troposphere data, but his slides don't seem to mention the source. I think the biggest reason why skeptics like satellite data is that even with the same signal as surface trends, the signal to noise ratio is much lower, and it is more difficult for the naked eye to spot trends. Of course, he also cherry picks the starting point, and the 1998 Nino really sticks out like a sore thumb in satellite records, and the 2008 Nina sticks out as well.
From his slides, I have trouble pinning down what he believes. They are all designed to sow doubt, and he relies heavily on cherry-picking and anecdotal case studies.
I'm curious what he believes regarding 30+ year temperature trends, and what he attributes the positive trendlines to. If it's the sun, then why have temperature trends increased over a 10 year period while the sun has gone from one of its highest peaks in a 100 years, to one of its lowest troughs. That seems to be in line with what dko is asking. If possible, don't let him cherry pick a time period with a negative Nino trendline. If the Sun is responsible for a half degree C warming, why hasn't it cooled by a comparable amount in the last 7 years?
Anyway, it is obviously difficult to ask a meaningful question that won't be spun with cherry picking time periods that includes enormous amounts of natural noise. The question is unlikely to win more debating points than the answer, unless you are permitted to respond to his answer.
Anyway, here's my suggestion:
"Over the last 100 years, how much of the warming trend would you attribute to the Sun? How much would you say the Sun has cooled since its peak in 2003?" (If you can show a solar graph super-imposed over GISS data, that might help clarify the question).
It's clear from my correspondence with Monckton that he doesn't know how chaos theory relates to predicting climate. He tried to claim that Lorenz presents good evidence explaining why climate is unpredicatable. I tried explaining the difference between boundary condition problems vs. initial condition driven problems and he didn't understand. You know, the differences we observe in the seasons. In one ear and out the other. Looking at his slides he quotes Lorenz again, so he is still ignorant on this. Another point that highlights this ignorance is the fact that he can't grasp what the CMIP3 model archives show (remember G Schmidt's fisking of Monckton on RC?): that a single ensemble member represents a single realisation of weather variability, yet the whole ensemble represents predicted climate, and what we observe is not going be consistent with that ensemble mean because we observe weather (on the short term) not climate. This is why he tries to compare short term variability, extrapolates it to extreme levels and compares it to model ensemble means. He is thoroughly unapologetic about this.
If you could find a way to highlight this huge lack of understanding to the audience in some concise and pithy way then you'll win the day hands down I reckon. You could make an argument equating predicting climate to predicting the differences between the seasons perhaps.
If he posts up those slides about Darwin you could try nailing him down on that.
And again, if he those silly plots showing short term variability trends then you could gain ground there.
Oh, he's kept that fraudulent 'refutation' of the IPCC projections. I suggest asking a question about that - like, why are the projections shown linear?
One more suggestion Tim, don't make your presentation a refutation of what you know Monckton is going to say. You have to present the state of the science as it is, to answer the original question of the debate. If all you do with your time is point out where Monckton is wrong, you'll come out all defensive. Pointing out where he is wrong, unfortunately, has to be limited to the questions.
Maybe this is only useful as a quick jibe, but Al Gore's property seems to be located at 16m above sea level. I get that using using Monckton's slide and Google Earth. If Al Gore was concerned about 6m sea level rise then his property is going to be beach front not in the drink.
Stu's got a good point. It is probably a good idea to spend at least as much time establishing the credibility of climate science as you do discrediting the tactics used by those on the fringe.
His solar irradiance vs. temperature graph doesn't look right. Where does the data come from? I've looked at data from Lean (2000) and while it does rise prior to about 1950, it's fairly steady after that. Even adjusting the scales, I don't think you can make the series look like Monckton's. (Besides, it's not too hard to estimate the impact of changes in solar irradiance, and it doesn't explain much of the rise in temperatures.)
He'll have an answer for anything you ask him, I'm sure. But the answers might produce new peculiar Monckton quotes.
You could ask him something like: What caused the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum in your view? (Temperatures were at least 6C higher than today.)
Or: Why is Venus hundreds of degrees hotter than a black body getting the same irradiance would be? (Venus is unlike all other planets and moons in the solar system in this regard.)
Tim,
My question to Monckton. Why do you feel it necessary to distort, misrepresent, cherry pick and fudge data to make your arguments?
Re his slides:
P1020989: Hmm, ironically deniers do claim that sunspots control global SATs. They are the ones assigning causality based on a correlation, one which breaks down in the last 30 yrs.
P1030035: Pretty sure that this is wrong. Only goes to 2003!
P1030037: Someone should check these numbers. Also the "trend" line appears to have been fudged.
P1030036: Mt Kili is one example. Noone has yet demonstrated convincingly what is going on there. more important is the global siuation.
P1030048: This graph has been fudge. Can't recall where I saw them show this. RC? Regardless, he is cherry picking.
P1030046: Same as above. Tamino has some nice graphs showing how the models really do compare with the observations. This is important, b/c many people question the validity of the models.
P1030059: This is a lie, also cherry picking. Show a linear 30-yr plot.
P1030077: Check the numbers. Not sure what the point is.....well, I do, but it ain't science.
P1030084: True, for now (why the hell are these slides all suggesting that the impacts of more than doubling CO2 should be being felt NOW!?). Anyhow, what about ice loss from the WAIS, EAIS, Greenland. PIG also in trouble.
P1030087: Umm, no. Scale on this is horrible! Get the real numbers (ones at bottom) and use appropriate scale. Apply a trend-- the trend is down.
P1030090: Misleading. The forecasts for fewer TC's overall, but more stronger TCs. (ThingsBreak has a good summary of this). Again, do not expect everything now!
P1030113: Can he not integrate an area under the pink line and that under the blue line between 1906 and 2010!?
And on and on and on it goes...
I found the Copenhagen Diagnosis a great summary of where we are at in term of impacts and the science-- and that was not an IPCC document, although it was drafted by people affiliated with the IPCC.
Tim, might also be good to show regional impacts in Aus., appeal to what is happening in your back yard, people tend to care more about that. The paper by Dai et al. in J. Hydromet (2004) shows how the Palmer drought index has been increasing over eastern half of Aus.
There is also a website which shows the impacts of an increase in sea level of 1 m on coastal cities around the globe. Can't remember it now, sorry, but Google is your friend.
All your questions should start with a statement of his, followed by a short refutation, the words, You lied, and then the question: Why did you lie about that?
Nobody's got a real question?
How about something like: "you have pointed out that a judge found 9 mis-statements, which you call lies, in Al Gore's long presentation. Meanwhile, by my count every single one of the slides you have presented has at least as many mis-statements, and these are things that have been shown time and time again on sites like skepticalscience and my blog "deltoid". Here is my question for you: how is it that you can get away with repeating the same stale falsehoods over and over again, while receiving such laudatory coverage from the media? Do you have an explanation for this phenomenon?
Here is the site, sorry only for USA, of course.
http://www.mibazaar.com/nationundersiege/
The fudged graph used to 'refute' the models. This is what he did. He simply joined the beginning and end points of the projections using a straight line and added them (probably just by eyeballing it). Small problem, the temperature projections are more-or-less exponential, so the early model projections especially are hugely exaggerated and made to look much warmer than they are.
Another question, for a journalist (that is if there are any good ones left out there). Chris, just how much money did you make in Oz the past month? And a quick follow up, just how much money did you make in 2009 "enlightening" people?
I like this reverse-logic question: "If we were interested in warming the planet, what would be the most effective way to do it?"
Some thoughts on your presentation:
-Don't directly attack his slides, but present information on the same topics that clearly shows his slides are lacking and cherry-picked. E.g. "Some have claimed that Arctic sea ice is rebounding by showing only the last 3 years of data. If they really wanted to tell you anything meaningful about sea ice, they would mention that these last 3 years are the 3 lowest on record and that their average is a full 1/3 lower than the extent of sea ice values on 30 years ago. Recovery does not mean increasing from the lowest year on record to the third lowest year on record."
-I think the "lack" of recent warming is nicely countered by showing the linear increase in ocean heat content over this time period (Schuckmann et al 2009) and noting that the vast majority of warming from GHG goes into the ocean. Why in the world would anybody show a short 10-year period of air temperatures when we know that they don't tell us anything and fluctuate like crazy due to internal reshuffling of heat? Something that is continuous rising the heat content of the oceans and can be picked up in such a short time period is a major climatic signal.
-Ice age/thickness is ignored in ice extent measurements. In very recent decades (1981-2000)the average amount of thick/old ice was 52%. In 2009 it was 19%! Not only is the extent much less, but it's made up of much thinner ice.
-One thing overall to think about / convey with your presentation is that it's much easier to distort and confuse than it is to educate. Let Monckton show a million slides covering every claim he can squeeze in there and make it clear that the only way you can do this is by not actually teaching anything. It's a complex topic and it deserves attention, not showmanship.
Go kick some arse!
My two favourite questions to put to deniers go like this:
1: The IPCC estimates the radiative forcing of the rise in CO2 to be between 1.49 to 1.83 watts per square metre. What would you consider to be a better estimate and why?
2: Climate science scepticism has existed as long as climate science itself. In that case, why has the general acceptance of AGW amongst climate scientists increased over the years (according to various surveys)?
8 Joseph,
I didn't notice that graph before.
The left axis says: "Sunshine Duration (hours) over Japan". The right axis says: "Annual-mean Surface Temperature Anomaly of China (C)"
I've tried finding the graph, but couldn't. I did find this link by Soon, which makes reference to some research on Sunshine Duration in Japan.
http://www.ileperu.org/pdf/soon_climatechange.pdf
Why is he using Sunshine Duration in Japan as a proxy for solar irradiance? Why is using China's temperatures as a proxy for global temperatures?
It seems to me there is a lot of effort being put into finding proxy data that fits. Why not use global reconstructions of solar irradiance?
I think the most persuasive lay argument for AGW is the vast consensus--specifically the scientific organizations that have issued statements in support of the theory. This immediately puts denialists on the defensive, and they usually dodge with the "consensus isn't science" defense.
So I might ask a question about why Monckton thinks that so many scientific organizations and scientists support the AGW theory: are they corrupt? Or are they, perhaps, stupid? And why does it take a classics major to teach the world about climate science?
Also, ABG's post is damn good.
I think you need to take his "Arctic ice has been stable for a decade" and present the last 10 years of data for each month one by one. The key here is to show that he is completely unreliable: you don't have time to rebut every single stupid argument he makes, so you should take the ones which are most clearly JUST WRONG and show just how WRONG WRONG WRONG this man is.
-Marcus
Nah. He could say something like "paint snow black."
Ah, I didn't notice that. Clearly, that's cherry-picking. It must have taken him a while to find the right locations to match irradiance with temperatures.
It would be good to have graphs of sunshine duration and temperature from other locations to show that it's a cherry-picked, bogus correlation.
Also, I love how Monckton's third slide says "correlation need not imply causation" and then he shows this figure. Beautiful.
I agree with Eli at #10 - debating a denialist isn't a good format for explaining science, but it is a good format for "adjusting" the denialist's credibility to an accurate level. Go on the attack.
Also, if Tim wants to do it, propose a warming bet. Wave a check when the time comes. And be prepared for Monckton to propose some stupid bet, like the Scott Armstrong nonsense.
A big weakness of deniers is their fragmentation. It's similar to how a big weakness of creationists is the fragmentation between old and young earth believers.
You could raise questions that force Monckton to justify these shisms. Eg questions like:
Ask him why prominent skeptic Ernest Beck has published a paper claiming the co2 graphs Monckton presents are fraudulent.
Ask him if he now regrets heavily citing and relying on the Lindzen and Choi paper so soon after it's publication now that grave doubts have now been raised over it's correctness, including detailed and public doubts by prominent world famous climate change skeptic Roy Spencer.
Ask him why prominent and world famous skeptics Gerlich and Tscheuschner (spelling..) published a paper claiming the greenhouse effect was fraudulent, which disagrees with Monckton's own claims.
Ask him why prominent world famous climate skeptic and scientist Ian Plimer recently claimed in a best selling book that volcanoes emit more co2 than man when either a simple google search or a careful reading of observation studies, shows the exact opposite is true.
Ask him why he (if he has) and other skeptics have advanced the idea of a 800 year lag in the co2 ice core record as an argument when prominent and world famous climate skeptic Dr. Jaworski has published a paper claiming ice cores are unreliable measurements of co2.
Then ask him why other not-so-world famous skeptics claim that skeptics are being "gatekeepered" out of the peer review system in some unfeasibly ridiculous conspiracy theory, if so many of them have managed to publish the aforementioned rot.
And the general gist of this is to both show the audience that skeptics are making up all sorts of wild claims, that even they don't believe each others claims, and that contrary to what Monckton likes to convey, skeptics are not some unified force but a fragmented and confused group of individuals.
Bear in mind he may try to use your blog against you somehow by cherrypicking something. Maybe he will even try to quote from one of these threads.
Arthur Smith wrote:
"How about something like: "you have pointed out that a judge found 9 mis-statements, which you call lies, in Al Gore's long presentation. Meanwhile, by my count every single one of the slides you have presented has at least as many mis-statements, and these are things that have been shown time and time again on sites like skepticalscience and my blog "deltoid".
I second this with the following addition -- find a couple easy to visualize errors in his presentation and point them out to the audience. Call out those errors as lies. Call out occasions when that has been publicly pointed out to him they are wrong.
Tim,
I suggest you paint a lyrical and positive picture of a low carbon world:
- a world we're proud to pass on to the next generation
- where democracy doesn't depend on oil from dictatorships
- where we can be inspired by the diversity and beauty of life on this planet
- where we use human ingenuity to build for the future and not pillage the present
- where hope triumphs over fear
(OK maybe a little OTT, but you get my point)
Then contrast briefly to a high carbon future (opposite of above) and ask him what frightens him so much about the former.
Good luck, I fear you will need it against such an adroit snakeoil salesman.
OMG. Look very closely at slide #1030035. If you look very carefully, there is a black dashed line on the original graph, that trend line seems to be fitted to the original data and has a downward trend! He has superimposed a bold red line with an upward trend! The twit.
According to the NSIDC, the sea ice over the Beaufort sea is not increasing, long term trend is down.
He also shows what looks like Eisenbach's slides, but attributes it to D'Aleo?
Oh, and I meant to add, make sure you use your audience's emotional catalysts - what really matters to them. The Great Barrier Reef; picture in a low carbon vs high carbon world. The real icons of their world and why it matters to them.
Here is the Brisbane debate, which may be of some use.
http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.htm…
Study the Monbiot vs. Plimer debate:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm
Monbiot does well here. His own account:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/17/showdown-with-plimer/
Hook on to one single, egregious misrepresentation of fact. My proposal would be P1030046: "Warming? What warming?" containing something for everybody: cherry picking a too short time span, misrepresenting IPCC temperature projections as if they were linear over the 21st century -- the works.
Keep asking him, specifically "do you stand by your claims that (1) only ten years of temperature data is sufficient to prove that global warming isn't happening, and (2) that the straight lines drawn by you are a fair representation of the IPCC projections?"
Of course you should have material showing how wrong this is, like a 30-year temperature plot with all the previous times marked when temperatures plateaued for a decade ("happens all the time, never lasts"), and a real plot with curves of IPCC temperature projections.
If he doesn't answer, continue to return to this question. Don't let him gish gallop. Be as blunt as you have to (esp. with an unfriendly moderator). It worked for Monbiot.
pretty difficult. but if i had a choice, i would definitely refer to the hitler youth episode in copenhagen.
the video is easily available to everyone who wants to take a look on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8WawButqIc
Monckton calling a jewish guy a hitler youth is simply too much, to miss.
and he is making a massive number of factual errors in his claims, the biggest one possibly being the 15 years of no warming one.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:180/plot/hadcrut3vgl/…
(about 1:30 into the video).
but it is not easy to come up with a question, that is easy to replicate, wins sympathy for our cause and can t be wiped away easily.
i also really liked, how Monbiot nailed Plimer on some of his wrong claims. but even that took some help from the moderator...
MapleLeaf: Oops, yes. That's a good one. In the business we call this 'fraud'.
I found this paper on sunshine duration in China. http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0221/2002GL016057/index.html
(subscription required)
Sunshine duration is on a longterm downward trend in China due to increases in aerosol emissions. Aerosols easily overwhelm any changes in solar irradiance, so it might actually be an interesting comparison. Apples to Apples, too!
I'm supposing the Japan figures were from a remote location without the impacts of global dimming.
There isn't a lot of information out there on sunshine duration (defined as hours above a certain radiative forcing threshold). Or at least, it isn't easy to find.
"OMG. Look very closely at slide #1030035. If you look very carefully, there is a black dashed line on the original graph, that trend line seems to be fitted to the original data and has a downward trend! He has superimposed a bold red line with an upward trend! The twit."
Yep, looks like it. Blimey! Besides, it's another case of cherry-picking, the Beaufort sea is a very small part of the Arctic Ocean. Would it be more instructive to consider the big picture? The sad thing is that people really do lap this stuff up.
Also, what has happened since 2003, when that chart ends? Has anything changed since then?
There is a slide where M misquotes Trenberth:
"There has been no global warming for a decade. We cannot explain why. Its a travesty that we can't."
The actual quote is "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
Why does Monckton's assure us that [Antarctic sea ice is fine](http://www.flickr.com/photos/8057274@N05/4327268070/in/set-721576233396…), when the Canary falling off the perch is [Arctic sea ice](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure3.png)?
What is his source for his [claims about costs](http://www.flickr.com/photos/8057274@N05/4327271034/in/set-721576233396…) of mitigation vs adaptation?
Does Monckton contend that the [homogenization adjustment](http://www.flickr.com/photos/8057274@N05/4326557033/in/set-721576233396…) at Darwin is either either 1) inappropriate, 2) representative of homogenization adjustments over the world?
Question for Monckton: I hear you had to sell your house some years back, because you lost a million pound bet that nobody could solve your geometry puzzle 'Eternity'. Perhaps we can help you with another wager.
There's a very pleasant seaside suburb in Sydney called Narrabeen. Many of the properties are valued at over a million dollars, and it is something of a "playground" suburb. Most of the land in Narrabeen is just a few centimetres above present mean sea level.
If you were offered a free mansion and spacious estate situated by the lakeshore in Narrabeen, the lake stocked with fish, the grounds stocked with productive gardens and domesticated animals, to live free of rates and taxes in perpetuity, to pass on to your heirs and descendents; on the proviso that you and they must all live on that land, and are not allowed to sell the land or move to any other land, would you accept? Why or why not?
I just put together a figure of sunshine hours and temperature from 1895 to 1987 for Portland, ME. Guess what?! There's absolutely no correlation between sunshine hours and temperature. Also, the raw temp values are biased to show MORE warming and the homogeneity adjustment serves to reduce the warming trend. Silly climate scientists, I thought that the homogeneity adjustment was just another "trick" to show more warming, no?
However, the deep flaw in my analysis is that I shouldn't have tried to correlate temperature and sunshine at the same location. Following Monckton's example (Soon's really), I should have correlated the sunshine of an island nation with the average temperature of an enormous country that's at least 800 km away and at most more than 5000 km away. Silly me...
If Monckton actually shows this slide, please destroy him.
**Sunshine data from SNCDC's Historical Sunshine and Cloud Data in the United States using data from "ndp021r1.f10" (measured hours of sunshine).
**Temperature data from GISS GHCN Station Data
How about asking the good Viscount (or whatever) where he stands on Prof Oliver Manuel's Iron Sun Theory, as cited in Plimer's /Heaven and Earth/?
Might be worth seeing whether Monckton will commit to the Iron Sun Theory, or the Green Cheese Moon Theory for that matter, and if he doesn't endorse it it might be worth wondering out loud why he's touring with Plimer then.
Just a thought. After all, it's their constant claim that AGW advocates rely on bad science...
It looks like you need a lot of help Tim. What you can't debate Monckton on your own? or are you short on material and need advise from the public?
I'm not worried about the Antarctic sea iced, I'm worried about the impact of accelerating loss (a short time mind you!) of ice (on sea level) from Greenland and WAIS, and now even from the EAIS as shown by the GRACE data.
Did you notice that Chris M. did not show the change of sea level shown here:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
or the longer dataset shown here (bottom of page):
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
Caption: "Ice is "Rotten" in Beaufort Sea"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121164011.htm
Beaufort Ice Loss in 2009 larger than 2008, 2007, and 1979-2000 average:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090908_Figure4.png
Beaufort Sea has about 0.5M km^2 of ice in winter, compared to 14M for the entire Arctic region (about 3.5%).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.11…
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
As itâs an audience of lay-persons, steer clear of the science altogether. Use a simple analogy instead. For example:
Youâre driving along. Youâre whole family is in the car, including your grandchildren. You see that the road in front of you appears to lead straight off a cliff where a bridge once was. There are many signs on the side of the road saying âStop! Cliffâ. The news reader on the radio is saying âIf youâre on the highway, stop before you get to the cliffâ. You know that if you slow down and there isnât a cliff, youâve wasted a tiny amount of fuel. Your grandchildren really donât want to continue.
A sensible person would stop.
Yet youâve decided that your own eyes lie â the roadâs still there, that thereâs a grand conspiracy between sign-makers and newsreaders, that the brakes donât work anyway, that your car can levitate & when your car doesnât levitate, it wonât hurt anyone when it crashes into the ground.
Youâd keep going regardless. And youâd have the whole planet do the same. Why?
Ask him what is causing the warming - his usual defense is that he doesn't know - he just knows that the CO2 explanation is wrong. You can then point out that he demands perfection from the other side yet offers nothing - not a whiff of an explanation from his side.
After pointing out that the claim that Gore documentary containing 9 alleged errors (taken to pieces by real climate)is just plain wrong, you could ask him if he can mention a single denialist documentary that contains fewer.
Ask him if there is a consistent view from the denialist side, with so much consistent evidence from the 'IPCC' side why he is more convinced by LESS evidence from FEWER CLIMATOLOGISTS.
Ask him if Exxon runs a disinformation campaign and what are their 2 main taking points (there is no consensus and it will cost too much - you could by the way blow them both put of the water by mentioning the fact that 97% of climatologists agree ( google '97 climatologists') and ALL that's EVERY SINGLE - i.e. not one can be named by Mockton that disagrees, of the worlds top scientific institutions : 'consensus global warming wiki' and of course mention 'Beyond the ivory tower by Naomi Oreskes')
In the climate wars part 1:
it is shown that the evidence has been more than convincing enough to take action since the early 70's (there is also 'American Denial of global warming' - on you tube) and even though endless challenges have been attempted ALL have failed and with time just about up (if we are honest it is now just the difference between VERY VERY bad and catastrophic), and 300,000 people a year presently dying, how likely are further challenges to be right and how much longer he thinks we should we wait?
Ask him for a list of his statements he has been shown to be wrong on (get a few as back up in case he is dishonest enough to claim none). You can compare this to his nonsense claims about the IPCC, CRU, Al Gore etc and ask him why he holds the double standard.
You could ask him, over the last 30-50 years if he had to put money on the claims from both sides which would have been the better bet (showing examples of challenges that have fallen by the way side)
Or maybe try splitting part of his looney tunes base by asking if he thinks the UN is attempting to set up a global fascist government and carry out mass genocide/eugenics - and what he thinks of people who believe such rot. (he has been a regular guest on the Alex Jones show) - forcing him to distance himself from such insane nonsense. Better yet ask him what he thinks of the 911 truthers (again this will be a tough one to wriggle out of). If he distances himself then ask him why he is a regular guest on the Alex Jones show.
Ask why he either couldn't get his 'paper' published in peer review or why he claimed it did? (again I think he has claimed in the past that that claim was not down to him - then follow up with asking him if he tried to put the record straight - and if not why not)
You could challenge him on his eco fascist stance by first getting him to define the term. Then asking him, after more than 50 years of science, 30 years of campaigning, with so much at stake, with so much special interest money used to squash it, with the majority of the worlds people calling for action and not a single death or serious injury - if he thinks his insane characterization justifiable?
Ask him if he is a psychopath (I am only partly joking ;) )
Ask him has CO2 ever caused massive warming in the past. Why in the past when the suns output was lower temperatures have on occasion been much higher. What caused the extinction events around the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum, the End Permian, Cenomanian-Turonian (mentioned by Peter Ward in 'Under a Green Sky' . How we got out of snowball earth?
And finally ask him about ocean acidification - his defense is that CO2 was higher in the past and life survived - and which papers can he point to that shows this wont be a problem...
Since you have his slides, why not copy them onto yours as thumbnails--and show them together with the real data. Then the audience can make a simultaneous visual comparison between his lies and the truth. Make sure the real data are bigger than his lies.
And then focus on the truth and hammer that home over and over again--the psychological literature shows quite clearly that debiasing is achieved most successfully by *repeating the truth,* not by focusing on the myths (eg Schwarz et al. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2007, 39, 127-161).
If he doesn't answer, continue to return to this question. Don't let him gish gallop. Be as blunt as you have to (esp. with an unfriendly moderator). It worked for Monbiot
28 has it exactly right. Pin him down on single important lies he's made in his presentation and don't stop punching until he's unable to get back up.
I think that it's important that CO2 is a focus - sea ice and observed warming are evidence, and important, but establishing the underlying theory is absolutely robust is more so. Ask him why he rejects the very strongly established values for CO2 forcing.
In addition to my #39 post.
I found Monckton's source for the Beaufort Sea:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/pdfs/Change_in_Beaufort_SeaIce_1990s.pdf
Monckton goes out of his way to bold the red line, which is the trendline for Ice Concentration (i.e. % of Sea covered with ice). The dashed black line that Stu #31 mentioned is for ice draft, which I understand to mean average thickness. So, Monckton's cherry picked graph is showing a decrease in ice thickness, but he doesn't want you to see that.
But, it doesn't really matter. The Beaufort Sea contains 3.5% of Arctic Ice. Better to look at aggregate data than cherry-picked data. (This can be pointed out as a take away theme in the debate. Mainstream scientists look at aggregate data to make their case. Skeptics use local and anecdotal data to sow doubt.)
Also, it should be obvious - debates are all about framing. State something as widely-accepted fact and then ask the question. For example:
Virtually all of your talking points have been comprehensively and conclusively rebutted by climate science experts. You've been shown to be untruthful numerous times.
Would you trust the IPCC if it had a track record similar to yours rather than an excellent history of just the one or two identified errors out of tens of thousands of points?
Mr Monckton , why does not a single scientific institution or meterological institution back your assertions? None.
If you try to answer with your usual rantings about conspiracy theories I will scissor kick you to the back of the head & come at you like a spider monkey. This why even the hard core skeptic & deluded Barnaby Joyce here in Australia said you are on the fringe. You think that thousands of scientists from all over the globe, from multiple competing disciplines are all involved in a giant conspiracy to get more grant money & no scientists has broke ranks over the last 20 years to say this is in fact what they are doing?
These questions are carrying an error in approach. Though the questions may be addressed to Monckton, they are for the audience, and therefore should be nearer a statement. As is, they are straight balls to be hit out of the park.
Take this from #1 just for random example: how can global surface temperature be rising when solar output is not.
I suggest you try something more like this: We know from _____ that output from the sun has not risen during ________ period. Yet for that same period we know from _______ that surface land temperature and even the ocean temperature have risen by _____ degrees F. Yet, we know from _____that manmade greenhouse gases have increased by ___ per cent during that period. When you deny that there is a connection, what scientific evidence do you have?
The proposed comment did not print out as readable, second try:
We know from (blank) that output from the sun has not risen during (chosen) period. Yet for that same period we know from (source) that surface land temperature and even the ocean temperature have risen by (number of) degrees F. Yet, we know from (source) that manmade greenhouse gases have increased by (number of) per cent during that period. When you deny that there is a connection, what scientific evidence do you have?
In a very roundabout way, my question for Monckton is about intellectual honesty. I think you need to lead the audience to a place where they understand the question and are expecting Monckton to give you an honest answer, since he is answering to them as well. Here's one approach which involves leading the audience by active engaging with them:
TL: Let's say you go to your local fruit and veg for some apples, and you pick a few from the box. Your fruiterer gets high quality produce but even his boxes of apples have the odd bad one. So you check the ones you pick and if it's bad you just put it back and grab another. Right? That's what we all do at the supermarket, right? [Smile, and wait for audience to agree.] Right?
Audience: Right.
TL: Now, I want you to think of that box of apples as a collection of data gathered in the field by scientists - like this chap is doing here [show slide of Lonnie Thompson's crew in hellish conditions in the deadzone on a mountain somewhere], and given reality being what it is, there is every chance that the box of apples he brings back home might have a couple of rotters in there. When the scientists are back in the comfort of their offices, they look at all of the apples, they don't have the luxury we had of ignoring the rotten apple and only choosing the good ones. That would be against the basic principles of scientific analysis. Therefore, a scientist ends up with graphs like this [show slide with temperature data 1880 to 2009] and will you get a load of 1998! Can you all see it? [Wait for audience to say yes.] If I wanted to make the argument that temperatures are increasing, wouldn't it be easier if I just - you know - ignored that "rotten apple"? [Use hand gesture for scare quotes. show slide without 1998 and see how much more convincing it looks] But if you are a scientist would *you* ignore it? Or you, or you? [Point to several audience members at random]. Would any of you? I'm guessing you wouldn't. [encourage answer from audience].
TL: Of course you wouldn't, because you are all good scientists, right? Now, let's play the devil's advocate for a moment. Imagine that you are not a scientist anymore, but instead you are a politician making the argument that it is cooling and that we shouldn't worry about any heating trend. [show graph with original 1880 to 2009 + 1998, and a zoom box with 1998 to 2003 only]. Since you aren't a scientist now, you aren't compelled to use all apples. In fact, it makes good sense to pick the most rotten ones out of the box and to use them. Like starting your graph at the 1998 hot year and stopping it at a seemingly cooler year.
TL: Does that seem a bit sneaky to you though? It does, doesn't it? [encourage audience to answer yes].
...
TL: Well, get a load of this graph [Display one of Monckton's graphs from a previous show, say the Brisbane one.] Is this playing fair, do you think? Will this get you any closer to the truth, do you think? [Point and ask a few individual audience members - they will feel uncomfortable unless they say "no".]
TL: Okay now. My question to Christopher here is do you think it is playing fair to do this - now the audience answered yes or no when I asked them, so could you answer yes or no please?
That last bit is my question for Monckton.
Needs spit and polish, I know.
PS: I would be careful to avoid words like "cherrypick" as they have well and truly lost their impact upon the layperson.
1. *Every* [emphasis on this word] national science academy of *every* [emphasis] major industrialised country on the planet, representing *thousands* [emphasis] of climate scientists, confirms that human activity is heating the planet. This is absolute, indisputable fact, verifiable by anyone with internet access - so please do not attempt to deny it.
Do you want the audience to believe that *you* [emphasis] are correct while the planet's experts are all wrong or lying?
2. We know that CO2 has risen by ~40% in the last ~150 years due to burning of fossil fuels. That is indisputable fact given the unique isotope signature of CO2 from fossil fuels. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that heats the planet. Again, indisputable, basic physics. The planet has heated by 0.8C in that period as a result. Again, this is indisputable fact gained from multiple independent scientific sources. There is no other mechanism known - sun, volcanoes, orbital pattern, etc. - that could account for this warming.
That seemingly insignificant 0.8C has already resulted in dire consequences for rain patterns, killer heat waves and fires in this country and abroad. Credible scientific estimates now put end of century warming at +5C. This would create an unimaginable world.
How confident are you that your assessment is the correct one and that the planet's climate scientists have got it wrong? How confident are you to gamble a liveable climate for vast areas of this planet and hundreds of millions of its inhabitants?
Oh, and to drum in the analogy further, after presenting the 1998 to 2003 sneaky graph, I'd ask the audience if it is it intellectually honest to use a single "rotten apple" as a representative from a box of 134 other apples.
"When do you plan to stop wetting beds?"
+1 for what Stephan said.
And what Nexus 6 and Phil M said - although the denialists come into the room thinking that there really is a giant conspiracy to obtain funds from governments or something. In response you can ask why scientists can't get even better funding from massive enterprises that are pushing the "no AGW" line...(and why those companies don't make a relatively small investment to prove it's all a fraud?) The comeback will be that they couldn't publish their results - but it's easy enough to assemble a list of published papers from denialists and ask why Monckton claims black is white...
And it's a more tricky to pull off, but be prepared to point out the tactics when the moderator attempts to bias the debate...
Pfft. Formatting.
The first (1) and next paragraph are the first question.
The second (1) and next two paragraphs are second question.
Something that rarely gets media attention, but is such blatant evidence for GHG-induced warming, is the cooling of the stratosphere. How else could you explain that?
Donald Oats @50, you should go on a speaking tour! :)
Kate @55, good point, he'd probably say something about CGRs and a certain academic's work at UofT. He would be wrong to cite said work of course....
PS: Steven Mosher of M&M fame is getting a roasting over at Eli's place. Twisting and distorting in the wind he is.
Ask him to explain the bore hole reconstuctions. Would also tell the duck story,
My first time commenting here, but reading the comments so far, it comes across that no-one can offer any clear, concise, slam-dunk points that will take Monckton out of the game all together.
Which kind of sums up the whole agw hypothesis as it stands for many of us. (note I didn't label agw a theory - my understanding is that it hasn't yet made it to this status).
Anyway, good on you Tim for helping to open up the whole thing to more public scrutiny - that can't be a bad thing.
The problem is that deniers get the upper hand by putting the science into a defensive position. By constantly critiquing the defendant is put into a costly position where the best outcome is to maintain the status quo. Monckton claims that because scientific institutes are paid, that they would therefore be inclined to support AGW. Attack this idea. Make him answer as to why climate scientists paid by the Bush administration would promote a theory which could negatively impact on the fossil fuel industry. Why would any government want to cede power to a global elite? Why would a government bother to do this, and not reap any benefit at all? Anu imagined benefit is currently speculative. Does the fact that the government benefitted from 9/11 mean they necessarily did it? Do evolutionary biologists support evolution because of a bias in those who pay? Also, where is the evidence that this is a hoax. There is not a shred. A fraud on this scale MUST have some conspiratorial aspect. Demand the proof that led him to this conclusion. You need to press on these points and demand sufficient evidence to support this stance. Monckton has nothing, but deniers get away with outlandish claims precisely because the science argues on fact and doesnt labour the point. In a debate, repetition is important, so is stubborness. lastly, I have debated with deniers and the line of argument is identical to debating with someone who thinks evolution is a crock. There are many parallels, and in the end, good science cannot win. You have to force the opponent to reveal the inconsistencies and fundamental flaws in their view.
Unfortunately any debate won't aid science much at all.
But then someone has to take Monckton out or keep the nutter occupied whilst scientists get on with their work.
Dick in the Hills:
"reading the comments so far, it comes across that no-one can offer any clear, concise, slam-dunk points that will take Monckton out of the game all together."
Yoo moran
Did you miss the "the cooling of the stratosphere"
and "the bore-hole reconstructions" in the posts right above yours?
These prove AGW all by themselves.
Monckton is a human shit-spreader, so the truth isn't likely to throw him off his game at all, but it certainly would shut up any honest person.
And that, kiddies, is what you call your pre-debunked troll.
Mick In The Hills (and one or two others) really should watch and listen to Richard Alley's Bjerknes Lecture at last December's AGU meeting.
I've just read through the comments. I concur with George D. Hammering your opponent on 2 points means more than mild wins on 10. Monbiot did well against Plimer, demanding a response that was satisfactoey. @Mick in the hills. The weak spot is the claims of conspiracy. They are unsubstantiated. If you press on this he will have to twist @ turn more and more. also you cant be afraid to appear boorish and simple minded. Again, play Moncktons game. He and most deniers dont care about science. while he gets you to defend science his paranoid claims (unsubstantiated) go unvhallenges. They hold indefensible views about fraudulent behaiviour, global hoaxes etc. This is the true crux of denialism. Ideology.
4 Paul H,
Has he agreed that this is public domain? If so, can we see this stuff?
Mick in the hills writes:
>*Which kind of sums up the whole agw hypothesis as it stands for many of us. (note I didn't label agw a theory - my understanding is that it hasn't yet made it to this status).*
Hypothesis: A tentative statement of a relationship between two or more variables. A tentative explanation for a phenomenon used as a basis for further investigation. A supposition or assumption advanced as a basis for reasoning or argument, or as a guide to experimental investigation.
Theory: A hypothesis that has withstood extensive testing by a variety of methods, and in which a higher degree of certainty may be placed.
*withstood extensive testing by a variety of methods*
Here is some of the extensive testing by a variety of methods that has been withstood by this well accepted theory:
pretty difficult. but if i had a choice, i would definitely refer to the hitler youth episode in copenhagen.
I wouldn't, (unless Monckton brings it up first). It is irrelevant to the debate, and a Monckton friendly audience will see it as a smear tactic against his noble lordship.
Barry Brook has uplaoded a post-debate interview he did with Brisbane Radio.
Brook sounds like he has adopted the strategy of weighting his material towards an audience of skeptics.
Get him to repeat two or three of his most outrageous lies. Then summarize to the audience that those are lies and cite the sources that irrefutably prove them. The more boldface the lie- eg about the temp or sea level record- the worse he looks. Don't worry to refute all or even the minority of what he says- his Gish Gallop- that's a trap. Focus on a few claims and go French on his nasty- attack attack attack! That's beating them at their own reprehensible game...
Tim:
Why are you asking people to formulate your questions? Don't you even know what to ask him?
Tell us what questions you think you should ask him?
Go on
[TDK](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/ask_monckton_a_question.php#c22…),
What am I?
* I am a trait associted with higher intellegence and functioning;
* People who lack this trait are said to need instant gratification and may suffer from poor impulse control.
[Click here](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=People+who+lack+this+trait+are+said+to+lack+impuls…) for the answer.
The planet continues to warm, the seas continue to rise, and faster than previously hoped, the ice continues to phase change, satellite measurement of outgoing longwave radiation shows a continuing decline in the tranches of the spectra affected by increases in atmospheric inventories of CO2 and CH4 and the increases in insolation and the resultant lower tropospheric anomaly is exactly what one would expect from the resultant energy balance. The CO2 increases are isotopically shown to be of anthropogenic origin. How can one then deny that the anomaly is the result of the impact of human activity on the atmospheric concentration of CO2?
Can there be any doubt that declining Arctic albedo as a result of shrinking ice extent prior to substantial decomposition of the adjacent permafrost will lead to greater heat in that part of the lower tropsphere and speed the loss both of ice extent in a positive feedback cycle and acclerate the loss of permafrost?
Can there be any doubt that if the planet does continue to warm that the Arctic permafrost will, sooner or later decompose and release its stores of CO2 and CH4 and that this pulse will then add a new and very substantial warming feedback?
ATFQ!
The title of the debate is "DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND". Monckton could concede immediately everything about AGW science and still win the argument by saying that "mankind" can adapt to it (I mean, a bit warmer, who cares? Northwest passage, wine from Greenland, opening up the Siberian ore reserves etc etc.....there is even a poster on JohnQuiggin who cares not about a bit of sea level rise....). So you should at least address what the consequences of +4°C are, perhaps a list of things that might happen at +2°C, +4°C etc.
But be careful of the "this is just speculation that the sky might fall down" response. Maybe focus on what has already happened over the last few decades.
Here's a question:
Did your father's role as director of public relations in the British army (in the 1960s)infuence how you conduct your life?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Monckton,_2nd_Viscount_Monckton_of…
Andrew D said:
That would not be a win. Endangering people is elevating their risk. If I plant a bomb in a stadium, the fact that someone discovers it and evacuates the stadium with nobody injured doesn't mean I didn't endanger them.
Monckton doesn't believe in models so he can't say what adaptations would be needed or how much they would cost or whether they would work and if there would be any losses to human life chances whatever we did. We know that the climate from 13000 BP to the present was something we could adapt to and work pretty well with. We don't know how long that will remain true and to what extent it is true.
So endangerment persists.
AssemblyLineHuman @ 64:
> The weak spot is the claims of conspiracy. They are >unsubstantiated. If you press on this he will have to >twist @ turn more and more.
I agree. When pressed about the fact that no scientific institutions back him, he lets his conspiracy genie out of the bottle at full throttle.
Take [this](http://www.scribd.com/doc/25813090/Responses-to-Monckton-of-Brenchley-1…). debate for example. Check out page 17. The entire way through the debate Monckton remains fairly composed & argues science. On page 17 when Dr Glickson brings out the big guns in the climate science arena, Monckton truly loses it & breaks out the tin foil hat.
Hit him up with the "climate gate emails" early & the reason they are misunderstood, as he will definately be bringing it up to attempt to undermine the institutions & scientists. Appeal to the fact that scientists have served us well for centuries & that now is no different & that models have also served us well in industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical & medical fields & we have never thought until now to question them. Then when you have taken the energy out of his inevitable smear attack, mention that no instituion backs him & just sit back & watch as he makes himself look like the lunatic he is.
re the Houghton slide:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quot…
Q. Mr Monckton, given your lengthy stint acting on Sesame Street, and did you become tired of eating all those cookies?.
Questions for Monckton:
Does observing a bird in the sky disprove gravity? Why (not)?
Does an apparent slowing of the rate of warming over the
course of 10 years disprove AGW? Why (not)?
These questions are somehow related, in that the logic (or lack thereof) in the 'falsification' is similar: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/a-quick-n-dirty-guid…
Tim has two things going for him. The first is he's not a climate scientist. The second is that Tim and his audience are (mostly I presume) Aussies.
On the first point, Tim can say to his audience "If you don't trust climate scientists (who have the science education and publication record) to tell you the truth as it is known, then why should you believe people whose background and education are not climate science? Would you still choose a barber surgeon to do your surgery?"
On the second point, Tim can say to his audience "Are you true Aussies or wusses? Would you rather take the word of a straight talkin' Aussie or this whacka of a Pommy bastard?"
Perhaps a question like, "For the past 400 million years CO2 has been gradually drawn down from the atmosphere and the climate has cooled from the level where England was a tropical paradise to below where we are now. In the past 300 years we humans have taken a large portion of that carbon stored underground and thrown it up into the atmosphere again.
Why would this not have an effect, taking your line of reasoning that there is no warming?
If it is not having an effect, what is preventing it?
Is such a mechanism existed, what would happen if that mechanism that is preventing it were to stop?"
Rixaeton, whilst I understand your thrust, England was tropical 300 Ma because it was then located in the tropics.
#82: P Lewis, good point. Siberia then? :)
The point being we have increased the level of GHG, and not just CO2 (methane is another biggie, increased since we worked out how to industrialise meat production = far too many cows and sheep) all adds up to a lot of warming that should happen because science actually works, so what is the excuse for it "not happening?"
BTW: I don't know if any trolls will have noticed, but that was me accepting that I had made an error, and am attempting to correct it, which is the proper thing to do.
Tim, you've got an audience of Aussies who've had a drought for the last seven years, and a Barrier Reef which is bleaching right now. Since the climate models predicted this sort of thing, you can ask him if he believes in climate modelling - because it seems to have got it right in the case of Australia. And of course nothing hits home like a drought you've experienced personally.
Bring up his fantasies and lies early. Ask him about his claims, such as the Nobel Prize. If you can get him banging on about claims of conspiracy, you've got him, because he will sound like a crank. Especially if you ask about communists (and then bring up Thatchers support for climate research). Have a list of all the august bodies around the world who do support AGW. Ask him what he knows that they do not.
If your really evil, mention that he really shouldn't have the House of Lord portcullis on his slides, and his dads strange idea to have british cats muzzled (which is probably why he didn't stay in the Lords!), etc.
Oh, the upper class pommy twit of the year thing should go down well with the audience too. Play dirty - he will.
It seems a waste of a question but: "Do you still maintain you won the Falklands War for Britain by convincing Thatcher to employ germ warfare?' comes to mind.
A few years ago I believe he had the actual House of Lords portcullis on various correspondence and presentations but was called on it (not only fraudulent, but IIRC illegal as well). The newer version was said to be a bit different from, although quite reminiscent of the House of Lords version if you aren't aware of the differences - or are easily bamboozled. I thought the story went that the new version was from his own coat of arms or something, but my memory on that point is not clear.
That said, I haven't looked at portcullises(!) myself lately, the allegation needs to be checked out before anyone tries calling him on it...
How about: Do you regret describing your critics as "Hitler Youth" and claiming that global warming is a hoax perpetrated to help introduce a global communist dictatorship?
It might be interesting to describe just how broad a conspiracy would be necessary to accomplish what he claims. Not just the number of people involved, but the extraordinary number of individual and collective actions, and the command and control mechanisms, the fascists or was that communists(?) working together with the US Republican government of yore along with various oil companies that sponsored various non-denialist climate research, the massive media corporations suppressing any denialist messages, practically every single academic journal editorial board completely captured by the conspiracy - whilst on the other side you have a few brave scientists funded by ... large corporations who stand to lose if we take carbon mitigation measures ... who are nevertheless able to publish their papers ;-) And to cap it all off, all of those super-smart scientists who say AGW is most likely real simply aren't smart enough to realise they could make heaps more if they broke ranks in the conspiracy and came over to the "truthful" side - let alone the pair of Nobel prizes they would win (oh, wait, the Nobel Committees have been captured too, along with most of the world's governing bodies).
Generally the more detail that is provided, the easier it is to see how ludicrous it all is ;-)
I think one of the best questions might be:
"What is your strongest argument for your position on XXXX?"
...where XXXX is a/the key area of contention. (I haven't spent a lot of time on transcripts or recordings of his recent talks, but I thought I saw in essence a concession that human activities can warm the planet - he just thinks (a) it won't be much and (b) it won't have serious consequences. If this is accurate - and noting that it's congruent with the title of the debate - then position XXXX might be "We should do nothing to mitigate the risk from climate change [until we know more/are more certain]".)
If you get into his self-declared strongest argument for his key contention and show that it's bankrupt or bogus...the rest is peripheral.
In particular, if his key contention is "do nothing because our knowledge (of impacts/likely outcomes) is not certain enough" or even (for the rubes) "do nothing because we don't have any such knowledge", you can profitably discuss partial knowledge and working with some uncertainty (as we do in any real world domain - why do you think people buy insurance even for fairly unlikely events) and risk mitigation strategies based on an assessment of a likely range of possible outcomes. I think this is what Barry Brooks was trying to convey...
I get the feeling that the Monckton audience are pretty much the same people you see on the news after their property trust that was supposed to pull in 18%pa collapsed with all their retirement savings.
You know - not experts in the field, invested with a certain amount of wishful thinking, and just the right amount of vanity to imagine that despite generally accepted wisdom saying otherwise they know better.
What would you say? You couldn't explain that a diversified portfolio would be much better because everything they believe in is based around it not being better.
So I can't see you winning out on the science so you're just going to ask him how his worldview works - what's it based on, why doesn't it follow accepted models and any bullshit on his own terms you can dig out.
I remember when the right wing loons went nuts about Michael Moores movie and I think it was Letterman who pointed out (sarcastically) that of course Fahrenheit911 was nonsense because it was 'ONLY' 97% correct. They are being allowed to get away far too easily with that 'there are tiny flaws therefore all of climate science is wrong meme'. The guardian also has an article today about it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/08/climate-scientists-me…
In the climate wars part2 (its on google video)he also calls the IPCC (I think) 'deliberately bent' ask him if he thinks the American military:
http://www.hsdl.org/hslog/?q=node/5348
, Thatcher (*spit* - can't say that name without doing so) and Arnold Schwarzenegger are also bent?
And finally ask him about why there is almost no peer reviewed science to back up his position. Now I have seen him before be ready with a list of papers that he claims support his position. Now to hammer home his minority position get him to name one. Then have a list ready and shoot back with five. Then ask for another - again 5 more. Then ask for another - he may well be floundering here - shoot 5 more. Then ark for another and I am guessing he will be struggling - then as he umms and aws read 5 five more. Prompt again - then five more as he probably can't answer and the audience will see the relative quantity compared to his tiny selection.
I agree with my heroes Eli and Arthur and commenter David!
Also, be ready to laugh and makes jokes about what he says!
This is for the audience, and it is exactly what he does.
Use his own tactics against him. Obviously they work for the audience.
Take him down!!!!
I like #80 and #84 - go for the Australian angle with stuff that will connect with the audience!
Tim,
All I can suggest is to ask why so many "sceptics" have incompatible beliefs/claims (if A is true, then B cannot be), and why do they never seem to notice this, let alone attack their fellow "sceptics" in the way they do mainstream scientists.
But I think you cannot win. Munchkin can tell any whoppers he likes and the audience won't even notice (even if they are incompatible lies!). You cannot (not that you would, of course) lie.
Fact is no one can 'deny' the Climategate affair and the impact to 'the political cause' to implement Carbon Currency, redistribution of wealth and the leeching of the environmental cause to establish a global government and global governance. It is all their as fact for you to educate yourself on if you want to face truth.
No one can also 'deny' that the value and trust of the scientist in the public eye has been impacted from Al Gore Whoring himself with the scientists and vv, IPCC and the Goats lies and sexual writings spinning the image of all scientists to the spew bucket, Phil Jones and Michael Mann's psychopathic intent on their colleagues, industry and the name of truth in science.
Even the Dutch say their is a link between Sunspots and Temps.
Good Luck, can't wait for the You Tube after math. This one will go around the world in minutes.
My suggestions is to repeat ad nauseum, after every statement you make, an often used phrase like, "We know this because we can measure it..."
Ask why he Gish Gallops, changes the subject, and will you please stick to the topic? Oh, and why are none of the 'facts' you spew in the peer-reviewed empirical literature?
Best,
D
Monckton question: Why do you invest so much of your time in claims that there is a giant conspiracy to institute World Government, the IPCC is corrupt, etc. etc.? Surely these issues don't have any bearing on whether the glaciers are metling, the Arctic Ice cap is shrinking, sea levels are rising: those affect us all, regardless of whether we're climate scientists or just jumped-up popinjays with an axe to grind...
Felicity clearly believes, same as Monckton, that it's all a scam to implement a communist world government of some kind. To which we should ask: if everyone's in on it, why can't they agree a deal? Pretty fragmented 'world government', if you ask me!
Felicity, if you can't tell the difference between one world government and global governance of a resource/policy...then it might not be smart to expose the fact that you're just parroting talking points that you didn't understand when you read them elsewhere.
I wish the conspiracy theorists would figure out which way the scam is supposed to go. Is it the communist world government (complete with fascist Hitler Youth) that was rammed through in Copenhagen, or is it big businesses scamming everyone through carbon trading, or is it national governments imposing a "great big new tax" whose proceeds they just...what, sit on forever?
Most of them are politically right wing which *used* to mean blind support for business at just about any cost, but apparently if it's carbon trading or if Al Gore does it then the support disappears.
(Never mind the big businesses behind the propaganda curtain...they only have our best interests at heart, and the tens of billions of tax payer money some of them receive from the US government each year is completely different, honest, it's redistribution of wealth that we support, not like those other proposals! ;-)
Followup to Mercurius' question: You insist we do nothing about climate change until we're sure of the impact. [I believe this is his position - check the nuances first.] Why does the same principle not apply to your claims that this is a giant conspiracy to institute a communist world government (and other politically "alarmist" claims)? (e.g. how can anything be sure in politics - especially international politics? We saw how difficult it was to get even a fig leaf agreement at Copenhagen due to competing national interests and priorities - what makes you imagine an actual effective totalitarian-ish world government could ever get off the ground?)
I read Felicity's comments several times and have come up with what I think is a reasonable translation:
1) Dollar bills will soon be printed on carbon-fibre notes.
2) Greenpeace will soon rule the world under a dictatorship.
3) If Al Gore says or believes something, it is false.
4) Something happened which they call "Climategate", which sounds really sneaky.
5) Al Gore, the IPCC, and scientists are involved in something of a sexual nature with goats.
6) Dr Michael Mann is an axe-murderer.
7) The Dutch said something, which means it must be true, because we all know the Dutch are always right.
8) I'm off to Youtube, where I get most of my education.
I think I got most of Felicity's salient points.
I am wondering about the future of humanity though.
How about this question:
"Acceptig for the moment your claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record, can you identify the next ten hottest years since 1850? Can you see a pattern or trend in these numbers?"
95 Felicity,
Superb. My best efforts at [Denial Depot](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/) are not even close ;)
Mike,
1) I had thought Felicity was on about the effects of global warming on our currency - when it gets so hot that your (paper) dollar bills burn up, you're mostly left with just worthless carbon. At least under cap and trade you can get a rebate if you turn it in though. You'd think Felicity would be all for that!
But dollar bills on carbon fibre - much more excellent suggestion! Getting rich is good for the environment as long as you hoard your wealth in $CF notes - and it prevents all that "wealth destruction" that people are always afraid of. Way to go aligning the interests of big business and the greenies. But I can see why you really need that one world government and its overwhelming military presence - to legislate that all non-carbon-fibre instruments are no longer valid.
2) Well, Monckton is on record noting that
...so the only reasonable conclusion is that they have nefarious plans for world domination!
3) My working assumption is to bet that if Monckton says something in public it is false; so far my batting average is pretty impressive.
You're a better person than me to wade through the rest in the name of translation though.
It's a shame you missed the leeches though. Seems like the greenies are going to plant leeches on everyone to suck the very lifeblood out of them, or something. Me, I think it's related to the Carbon Currency. I'm just not quite sure how - maybe the leeches will excrete carbon fibre - but I'm sure Monckton will enlighten us soon!
Just my 2c worth, but I would throw in questions he may not expect. he expects you to debate science, and he has graphs etc to wave to the audience. My preference would be to ask questions that tap in to the psyche of the man - you ARE going to lose the debate according to the moderator, the audience, and many media outlets, so how about we at least find out something new:)
Q1: Lord Monckton, I note your references to the IPCC/UN as some sort of scientific charade to usher in a global communist/facist global government. May I ask at what stage the established, published and peer-reviewed science could become so irrefutable that you would accept such a global government. In other words, even if the dire predictions of the IPCC were to come true are you of the opinion that enduring the consequences of global warming would be favourable to enduring the consequences of facist/communist global governance.
Q2: I am certain that you are aware that almost every graph you have used tonight has been debunked by highly qualified scientists, whether for misuse of data, cherry picking, statistical flaws and mind-bogglingly naieve interpretations, and that essentially none of the graphs you have used have been published in genuine peer-reviewed scientific literature and therefore exposed to the rigour of such process. {As an aside ask the audience to humour your indulgence in making such blanket statments, and ask them to visit the Deltoid blog where by the end of next week you will have published a summary with links that step by step debunks Lord Monckton's graphs and presentation, as to do so here would be a lengthy process and you are not interested in having a slanging match about the science during question time). So Lord Monckton, are you genuinely of the opinion that the entire fields of mathematics and physics, these being the hard traiditional sciences full of bad-tempered and stubborn time-weathered purists, have been corrupted to such an extent that none of them speak out in their journals and publications of international repute against what you see as the bastardisation of their sciences by a small kabal of climate-pseudo scientists such as Hansen, Mann, Jones etc, in order to massage the ideology and agenda of those who whish to establish a global communist/facist government.
Q3) Given your stated support for Nuclear Power, and I assume you are aware of the advances in such technology including 4th generation technology such as the Integral Fast Reactor as championed by your previous debate opponent Prof. Barry Brook, why not direct your energies towards the genuinely misleading use of pseudo-science by many of "green" persuasion against nuclear power. The mass roll out of nuclear power will provide the cheapest power to the planet at far lower environmental cost than either coal (even assuming you are correct about global warming) or renewable energy. It will enable us to move to a low-carbon economy without sending us back to the stone age which is often the fear of many who opppose action against AGW. And lastly the abundant use of this low-carbon power source will completely floor the carbon costs associated with trading schemes, destroying the UN's push to instate a facist/communist global government based on carbon trading. If you want a conspiracy to chase don't ask why the UN wants you to trade carbon, you shoudl be asking why the UN (and Al Gore) wants us to trade carbon while excluding the greatest source of carbon-free power known to mankind?
Ok that is a long question, but this is Mark Anthony stuff - come to bury caesar not praise him. play to the audience's natural anti-left tendancies. May not work if you don;t support nuclear power... in which case you need to check the science on that;)
Q4) Just so I can get a photo can you you just to that boggly eye thing so I can get a photo?
I came across this PDF of the Monckton slides:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
His slide 62 on sea temps for the Great Barrier Reef should have been this one, Figure 3.8, that shows the opposite of what he claims:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/40749/GBRMPA_ORCH3.pdf
Tim,
Just do why the science is right. Trying to answer the cherry picks letting the other side lead you. Talk to the audience, give them a reasoned argument on why the science is right, assume they have a reasonable rational approach to making up their minds and ignore Monckton's tactics.
I would also suggest, given the black-and-white thinking embedded in the question framing the whole debate, that you take a leaf out of Monckton's debating jujitsu playbook and concede right up front that AGW doesn't endanger mankind.
That is, it doesn't endanger mankind as a whole - just a significant fraction of it over time - which opens up a discussion of how we know that, uncertainty, risk management...
Tim in 107 - just remember that the audience believes that
1) science is corrupted
2) peer review is corrupted
3) The IPCC does not compile the science (that is already currupted) with any great rigour and accepts the WWF as a source as much as a grea leading journal (noting that they think that journal is corrupt anyway, all journals in fact save for E&E).
So your risk of arguing the science is that they know the science is untrustworthy and corrupted in the pursuit of the UN's agenda of a global facist/communist government.
They would then go further and argue that the REAL science is censored by the so called leading scientists and you have to look elsewhere for the genuine science which tells us it is all the sun, cosmic rays etc, that the temperature record tells us nothing is unusual, and in fact we are headed for a brutal and pulverising ice-age (TM Graeme Bird).
So when you argue the science, well it is just because you are the lap dog of the IPCC:) It is all about the audience.
I wonder how many denalists are eagerly emailing Monckton links to this thread?
John, Monckton is known to seek out his own name on the Interwebs (some might say obsessively), and he presumably knows his debate opponent's website too, so I imagine he is already reading it.
Hopefully, a great many. Being deluged with email spam isn't a help and if he has to keep wondering which of these suggestions will be the one pitched to get him off his message, or even worse, starts having to think about producing a plausible response, that won't help his focus at all.
Let's be clear though. This man is a practicing dissembler. It is most unlikely that much of what we have written here would be novel to him. He would already have found ways of trivialising or rendering moot or word spamming his responses to cover. He will almost certainly focus on two or three simplistic "rebuttals" that can segue to his cultural claims. He only has to muddy the science enough for people to reach for what they can deal with -- culture.
Do you trust elites? Do you trust your government? Foreign governments? Chinese and Indians? Al Gore? Do you want to give such people your money? Isn't it a scandal that remote and wealthy foreigners are bossing you about with your own money and scaring you witless so they can get away with it?
Such claims are impossible to rebutt in 10 minutes or even 100 minutes and certainly not to people who already think that as a matter of principle and who are frightened of all things foreign with the exception of people with Oxbridge accents.
That's why I continue to regard it as unwise for Tim to imply by his participation that a debate at the Hilton could unpick the Gordian knot binding science, culture and economics that this issue covers. Moreover, Tim doesn't get to lie, but Monckton can so he has a ready-made tactical advantage. This will be a soundbite slugfest which can only dumb down the whole debate -- exactly where the delusionals and agnotologists want it to be.
At best, Tim can annoy Monckton enough to get him off message and responding to attacks on his character or to some other fools' errand. That will deprive him of valuable lying time he could spend slandering scientists and talking up conspiracy. One cute idea might be to send him a trick question -- one that would be impossible to answer or simply a red herring -- maybe one selected from the Plimer's farcical Monbiot "homework" might be cute since Monckton and Plimer could then be put on a collision course and Monckton would probably start babbling in ways that even he would find embarrassing.
It would be a great sledge if nothing else.
Your Lordship,can you reveal the start date of proceedings in Houghton vs Monckton,or will you settle out of court?
Tim is likely to have prepared the bulk of his presentaiton, so these comments are for the next one.
The audiences are (1) Those attending the night, (2) Those reporting the event, (2a) Those being informed by those reporting the event, (3) Those reviewing the transcript or recording of the presentation.
The following comments are relevant depending on what degree the presenter chose to weight their presentation towards speaking to the 'AGW skeptics'. In particular those in attendance.
We all have information filters, some of these filters will be hightly charged on the night. These include:
* Filter 1: To what extent have I taken a position on AGW?
* Filter 1a: I have taken at least a moderately firm positin on AGW and hence I will defend my initial position.
* Filter 2: Are you attacking me and my reasons for taking my position. If you attack me I will difend myself.
* Filter 2a: In defending myself I can use the circular agument (whether true or false) that any evidecne that threatens my position (especially if it appears convincing) is part of a fabrication: AKA climate science being dominated by greedy scientist persuing money at the expense of the truth; or Monckton's NEW world order claims.
* Filter 2b: If you are not attackting me or my decision, I can withhold some of my defenses.
* Filter 3: Are you genuine? credible? understandale? Can I relate to you?
Twenty minutes are up!
Another interesting question for Monckton: How do you decide which evidence to accept and which to ... well, deny? ...because to the uninitiated it seems like a one-sided filter where you choose only what confirms your point of view. Surely that's not the case, especially given your well-documented penchant for ... well, providing unjustified and uncorrected intimations and telling outright porkies?
You're happy to quote peer-reviewed papers as if they are the last word - but apparently only from a few select authors; otherwise peer-reviewed papers are part of a vast conspiracy, especially when they appear to show your quotes are not justified. (This can open up a nice little debate about scientific process, which he really isn't that keen on...)
You're happy to put up charts using data from research outfits - but it seems only when they're in accord with your point of view, not when (say) they show a broader dataset that doesn't accord with your premise.
You're happy to report the British judge's opinion of Gore's film - but only on the 9 points he objected to, and not on the fact that the judge agreed that the central thesis was sound and that it should be shown in schools with some caveats, unlike the film(s) you were promoting.
(And so on...many cherries to pick.)
You try to publish papers of your own on the science but when they are peer-reviewed they are comprehensively dismantled due to clear and fundamental errors. So it doesn't seem like you have a uniquely perceptive judgement of climate science. Where does the expertise to see through bullshit and massive conspiracies come from?
In response he may try to limit his own judgement to the WG II and WG III angles rather than the core science, but that doesn't fly - his paper on climate sensitivity is clearly tackling the core science.
Monckton vs Plimer would indeed be entertaining :-)
You could probably expand this into a whole line of questioning - which school of anti-AGW thinking are you from and why? Why not the others? Under your standards, their evidence also appears to be compelling, no? ;-)
More Monckton questions:
1) How much warming is too much? Give your best estimate and a level of uncertainty if it helps. (Follow up - how do you know, given that you think most of the scientists are bald-faced liars and your own scientific skills are not in evidence?)
2) Similarly, what rate of warming is too much? (Follow up - how does the current rate of warming compare to the past? Likely to end up in the conspiracy theory weeds though.)
One thing I've noticed from constantly reading Bolts blog, is that deniers dont talk about their positions. they never discuss their POV, or explore their ideas, only confirm the quote of the day. It would only lead to uncomfortable truths, if they DID discuss it. Same for most denialists. They always focus on the opposition.
There is a good video by wonderingmind42 here. The crux of the argument, is that by using standard and sane risk management techniques, ignoring global warming is an illogical choice REGARDLESS of your position.
http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42#p/u/65/mF_anaVcCXg
To argue against this you have to be CERTAIN that AGW is a hoax, and if someone cannot provide evidence that it is a hoax, one has to question their motives for their proclaimed certainty.
After a quick perusal of Monckton's slides, one more question. This might be tricky to accomplish in a debate, but it goes to one of his key misdirections:
It is good scientific principle that correlation does not prove causation. (Thank him for that slide :-) Now, if a system is affected by more than one factor, does non-correlation with one factor prove non-causation by that factor? You can use a simple real life example to help the audience intuit it.
His slide is a misdirection because he's playing to the simple intuition (that I've seen argued by people until they're blue in the face) that the only proof for AGW is an observed correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and temperature - never mind that it's a strawman. This is a useful misdirection because it allows him to point to 10 "very hot but not-getting-particularly-hotter" years and say that the correlation doesn't hold up, therefore the strawman is dead, therefore no AGW (or at least no impact from anthropogenic CO2). Once you yank the strawman away, the whole argument falls apart.
It's also good to point out that cherrypicking which scientific principles you will adhere to is just as bad as cherrypicking which data you will take notice of.
In reading Fran's
I thought to myself, unaccustomed to public speaking as I am and as unwilling as I am to partake in such an endeavour, "How, theoretically, might I open my presentation with a known dissembler?"
And I wrote:
"Science is the seeking of the objective truth, and in presenting the case for the science of AGW on behalf of those seekers of truth I am obligated not to lie or dissemble ... which doesn't mean I might not make the occasional mistake in putting their case. If I do make a mistake, then all you need to do is to consult the primary literature. And by "primary literature" I do not mean opinion pieces or science reporting in newspapers and I do not [necessarily] mean the IPCC reports (which are just a distillation of the state of the advance in the literature of climate science over the previous 5 years or so)."
What the hell is slide P1030037 about? "Kilimanjaro summit temperature",my hat. What's the elevation there,5800+m.,less than 500mb? Isn't this the tropical mid-troposphere? The bloody thing says UAH lower troposphere v5.2,and Moncky puts the trend at 0.01C/decade. Isn't it more like 0.1C/decade? How can he take a 20S-20N swathe from the wrong heights,finish mid-2006, and attach it to one mountain?
@25, Mapleleaf says:
Monckton's graph is apparently taken from Melling , Riedel, & Gedalof (2005).
The upward trend he's reinforced is the sea ice concentration. The downward black dashed line you spotted is mean draft (ice only). So as I read it (and I'm no expert), the trend is that the ice is getting slightly thinner, and less spread out.
His slide is titled "Sea Ice Extent in the Beaufort Sea is Growing," which seems to me to be an outright lie, unless somehow "extent" and "concentration" amount to the same thing. (Wouldn't more concentration imply that the extent is less?)
Might be worth quoting the conclusion of the paper the graph is drawn from:
So in addition to misrepresenting the graph & research, we've got a clear and nasty case of cherry picking.
Giving some thought to the "extent" vs. "concentration," of the last comment, it occurs to me that they might amount to the same thing if the volume is constant (e.g., over the shelf in question) and the amount of ice varies. So I now think Monckton's gloss might be OK (but I need some sleep, so maybe I'm still off base). He is very clearly cherry picking, however.
MattB@ 106, in the course of setting out a perfectly defencible claim about the contribution nuclear powerr can make to human development and an improvement in the quality and stability of ecosystem services said:
This concedes way too much. While "nobody" is too sweeping a specification of the members of this group very few if any of those opposing action on AGW really believe this. It's rhetorical bombast -- an Overton-style manoeuvre aimed at demonising moves towards a low-carbon economy. Self-evidently, the proposition that there is a conspiracy to globalise governance, run the quotidian portions of people's lives and enrich themselves milking them for revenue cannot be reconciled with a return to the usages of the stone age. In the stone age, there was neither geographically pervasive governance nor even trade, and no surplus at all for anyone to live off without working. So the fear is not one based on anything that could settle in an ordered mind. Unless we grant that all or most of the cultural enemies of mitigation espousing this view are suffering from some sort of serious psychotic mental disease or defect, the claim MattB makes is unsustainable, and even here, one would then be moved to doubt MattB's reasoning. One may believe that the voices urging one to do things are real identities, but if one does, offering the person sound reasons to abandon that view will be pointless, since the belief itself is not based on reason.
Similarly, a person who really believes that any government is considering a return to such usages is unlikely to be reassured by the prospect of nuclear power, since plainly, that would simply have to be incorporated into some wider conspiracy with equally imprecise terms.
+1 for what Fran just said.
K I S S
The questions must be simple, direct, not smart-arse, understandable by the audience and not hair-splitting. Only then can they possibly judge whether he's waffled through the reply.
Fran in #125 - I agree pretty much 100%. I would just look for angles to try and move him out of the standard attack on the science, and try and get him to say something absurd*.
However, if you seriously think that there are not skeptics out there who genuinely believe that cutting emissions will fundamentally cripple civilisation, and thaty they are the noisiest skeptics, well then you don't spend enough time hanging around at sceptical blogs:)
I don't think it is stone age stuff... but in debate terms "stone age" means "backwards" not literally "stone age". Naturally I am optimistic that the chance to a low carbon economy will be relatively painless.
Mr. Monckton, you say that global warming is a lie and all those scientists are just out to make money.
Since every year every liberal arts college in the world will graduate more scientists, that means an ever-larger pool must be bribed. Where is this global bribe fund? What are the inputs that allow it to continue exponential growth forever? What were the inputs in the 1990s, when today's "green-minded" products (hybrid cars, cfl's, Inc.Truth) did not exist? How is it better for the career, fame, and wallet of any one scientist to accept the same bribe everybody else is getting instead of going public and exposing the whole thing?