The National Press Club Climate change debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Richard Denniss.
The ABC appear to have lost the debate for their 10pm Channel 24 slot. Somehow I don’t think they would have lost the footage if Christopher Monckton had made a mistake…
Had he made a gaffe, it would have been on the 7pm news, and every hourly update after that.
Watch it here instead. Who needs the ABC?
Thank God for the internet.
Hat tip to Keith.
UPDATE: Keith writes that the youtube is popular today!
#2 – Most Viewed (Today) – News & Politics – Australia
My thought: We should all thank Monckton greatly for his brilliant performance (and climatesceptics for helping to make this happen). I am sure there are quite a few journalists in that room who came away from the debate with “less certainty” about the skill and knowledge of their environmental reporters. It won’t be reported widely in the press, but the shift in attitude matters.
I managed to catch the debate on APAC (on Foxtel). Lord Monckton was positively magisterial in his bearing, delivery and deft dealing with his opponent and somewhat hostile journalists. Although Richard Dennis showed himself to be no fool (and
he made the odd arrow hit the target – safely distant from the bulls-eye), he spent most of his time arguing by analogy. This approach can be successful if the analogies are appropriate to the situation. Alas, the analogies were weak. For instance, he used house insurance as a proxy for the precautionary principle (of saving the planet). The precautionary principle argument always fails to impress.
By contrast, Lord Monckton, with wit and gravitas in equal measure, used facts and figures. He discussed the science and completely baffled the journalists at one point as he launched into a long mathematical explanation on climate sensitivity.
I suspect it may have been his intention to speak over the heads of the journalists a bit, in order to make a quantum leap from the caricature-sideshow-performer image many in the journalist pack no doubt would have hitherto had of him, to an image of a heavyweight at home with the science and the maths – and a force to be reckoned with. In this, Lord Monckton succeeded admirably.
Lord Monckton struck many a blow and was not bested by his adversary or the attentive journalists even once. All in all, it was a commanding performance which should be widely disseminated to counter the cartoon image of Lord Monckton put out by his detractors. Bravo!
40
Many, I expect, need a pdf file transcript, instead of a huge video file.
20
What Stephen Harper (well) said!
Richard Denniss (spelt with two s’s, Jo) seems to base his argument wholly on (rather poor) analogies, and Christopher Monckton, on the other hand, dealt mainly with the science.
His departure from science was to slap down two of the so-called ‘journalists’ whose body language exuded lip-curling contempt and dislike for Monckton when they delivered what they must have considered to be fatal attacks on his integrity.
An interesting hour’s viewing.
20
There was the debate … and the “National Press Club” feed on Twitter.com where you could see the personal insults resorted to by the uneducated zombies (including those with university degrees) who have risen to the top of the Absolutely Fabulous dinner party fashion circuit courtesy of the Climate Club. Monckton made fools of them.
20
This was a hands down victory for Monckton. What is really worrying is the apparent lack of basic scientific knowledge/research of the opponent and the press in general in Australia. Me thinks you need to re-haul your science education at primary/secondary level. Its starting to be embarrasing
20
I love it when on one side it’s called consensus and on the other its called conspiracy, Monckton ate Denniss alive
20
Richard Dennis did not perform well at the National Press Club debate but the level of science teaching in schools over the last 35 years has been so poor that few would have noticed.
Even so, the ABC has made an assessment of Lord Monckton’s performance and judged it too dangerous for their cause to screen at the appointed hour. Is this media censorship?
This tour is working – people are taking notice – even the ABC is now on the alert.
10
turning on the TV for the debate at 10pm, i got the Murdochs’ Interrogation. i’d seen the Debate already, but a friend hadn’t, so was disappointed. searched the menu to see if any of the other tax-payer-funded ABCs had it, but no, there was one doing repeats of ABC’s
Sunday afternoon programmes, another was showing repeats of some other awful ABC programs i never watch, and another channel was “station close”.
then i went to cable and found it had started at 9.30pm on that CAGW-most-of-the-time tax-payer-funded A-PAC channel. by this time, there was barely a quarter of an hour left of the Debate. nice one ABC.
as for the “Lords” farce, i have a long post showing BBC’s lying headline (which they changed) and links showing how the BBC lie got picked up by many websites before BBC changed it, near the bottom of the comments on an earlier thread –
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/spending-billions-why-not-do-a-due-diligence-study/
unlike BBC, and our ABC and Fairfax (which all took on a schoolmarm tone in their headllines), uk daily mail had a suitably humourous take on the non-story, and followed the journalistic tradition of asking the instigators of the letter WHY it was sent:
19 July: UK Daily Mail: Richard Kay: Lords are a-leaping on Viscount Monckton after he passes himself off as one of them
‘We had a Google alert which let us know about this interview in Australia and the Clerk to the Parliaments, David Beamish, wrote to him afterwards asking that he cease to claim to be a Member of the House of Lords,’ says a Lords spokeswoman…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016262/RICHARD-KAY-Lords-leaping-Viscount-Monckton-passes-them.html?ITO=1490
with all that’s going on in the Parliament over there, does a Google alert really spark off such a quick response – as if Monckton is some kind of criminal wanted by Interpol? i don’t think so.
at the end of A-PAC’s replay of the Debate, they went instantly to the PM ad in Gitmo orange with hardhat, and i turned off the TV.
as for the Debate, were those journos asking questions Australia’s “science writers”? tell me it ain’t so. and where were ABC and SBS journos?
no wonder the CAGW crowd is scared of Monckton.
20
Hey there ABC,
Thanks for your pathetic attempt to hide this debate. Now watch this go viral you dirty filthy rotten fascist bastards.
Abbott and co – when you get into power please can we see a purge of stalinist proportions at the ABC? My taxes are working against democracy and I HATE that.
10
Watched the Press club yesterday, watched him in Brisbane, watched a lot of footage since hopenchangen and without doubt, Lord Christopher Monckton has no equal in the alarmist camp! Bolta gives it Lord Monckton – 10, Former Greens adviser Richard Denniss – 1, Journalists – 0 and I heartily agree. The own goal was priceless and the look on poor young Alex Hart’s face said it all. Perhaps we can now look forward to fewer ad hominem questions of the “futile and drivelling kind” and more realistic appraisal of climate science from the Australian media.
At the Brisbane event it was clear that some would not have a seat so Christopher spent a lot of time in the foyer talking to them while the show started inside. I’m particularly proud to have contributed in a small way to the Monckton Tour.
Well done Jo.
10
Well make it public… hit every ABC blog and ask the question why this debate was removed. Suggest the obvious answer. Don’t link to the video or they may have cause to remove your message.
10
I’m ready to be put down for this post but here goes.
I assume that at the advertised time, ABC were showing live coverage of the Murdoch inquisition and failed to show the advertised replay of the debate,
Obviously many of you are disapointed, however if I was the program manager at the time I would have made the same decision.
10
Interesting debate. And a bonus point to Dr Dennis for having the guts at least even if he seem to have missed that most of papers and studies and what not he so lovingly points to just concludes one thing: That the researchers need more money to do further research and more of an afterthought because it MIGHT be anthropogenic (or otherwise really really bad, or maybe it could possibly be, did we mention it all depends on the money we concluded we needed, again.)
10
Dr. Dennis did a credible job demonstrating how the “consensus” works and enables its own propagation. Short on factual information and long on hand-waving analogies and appeals to authority. Whenever real science or the consensus dependence on models and [CO2] sensitivity exaggeration was brought up, those topics were swiftly avoided if not deftly deflected. Nonetheless, Dr. Dennis did not stoop to any ungainly nor reprehensible behavior so despite being thrashed, debate-wise, he is to be commended.
Viscount Monckton OTOH, was rapier-sharp but perhaps a bit too chiding for the scribes in attendance. He took them to task, rightfully, on numerous occasions but he could have shown some leniency and incited them more often to “show both sides of the story in a fair manner”. He did so on one occasion but the tenor and nature of the subsequent questions left him non-plussed and therefore in a position to up the ante of his rhetoric. All in all, a clear win for the side of reason and science. Catastrophism, not so much.
10
To clarify my position first “not all Journos are Idiots and not all Idiots are Journos” However their “Questions” certainly indicate a strong leaning that direction.Well done My Lord and Mr Denniss don’t give up your daytime career your analogies were as mindless as your position on NATURAL Climate Change.My thanks to the Person who chose the Idiots who asked the questions,BRAVO very well done.Cheers CO2 is life
10
The evening before, Monckton presented in Ballarat. After the show I went up to him and asked him about a couple of slides on co2 sensitivity and the mathematics express and implied behind them as I had some concerns with them in terms of feedback lag in once instance and in a second instance I did not even get a chance to ask my question (very suspect maths associated with taking ratios of model/empirical moisture contents and reapplying that to model sensitivity figures). Monckton went on to talk about open loop gain of the system; I asked how do you calculate it from the forcings? We went on and did an impressive rapid fire ‘calculation’ of linear algebra in front of me presumably boiling the temperature sensitive forcings into a loop gain figure.
Afterwards, I replayed the conversation and the replies in my mind and I felt that I had been a rube in a magicians slight of hand trick. I would like to think that either Monckton was tired, or assumed I was an idiot so decided to have a bit of fun with me. Either way I was probably one of the very few that night who walked away thinking less of what he has to offer the debate, not more. Hopefully will have the chance to talk to him one day again.
I always liked the open loop gain argument. But there is a problem with it that only occurred to me after I later reflected upon Monckton’s algebraic magic trick. He is assuming linear response gain to changes in temperature. But even in his own slide deck, at the very start using the famous mandelbrot set , he says that (rightly I believe) that climate is inherently a chaotic system. As such it does not follow that feedback response is linear. It is indeed, in theory possible to have strong initial feedback gain and for the series to not diverge to infinity if the feedback is non-linear.
10
The Murdoch “inqusition” already had a time slot allocated later.
Why the sudden need to change the timing?
10
On a scale of 1 to 10 which rates higher as a world media event.
10
What a comedy. Only one side told his listeners to actually verify anything for themselves, told them exactly where to look and exactly what they would find.
I probably don’t need to say who that was.
Hands down win for Monkton!
But it won’t make much of a dent in an audience already so beholden to global warming that they can’t even see the top of the hole theyr’e in anymore.
10
The video link no longer works.
10
I am disappointed in the Fairfax press in stooping below professionalism to lie. Jacqueline Maley says this in the SMH this morning (my emphasis):
This is a baldfaced lie, since Chris Monckton cited, indeed verbally brandished, several peer reviewed climate papers which show (a) anthropomorphic climate change is occurring and (b) it is mild and undangerous. Furthermore he cited his own peer reviewed paper which says the same. And as cherry on top he said clearly he accepts that climate change is happening (as does pretty much everyone on the planet). She mentions none of this.
Disgraceful. She should retract and apologise immediately.
10
I particularly liked Deniss attempting to liken a tax with insurance or the Australian Collins class submarine flotilla. No one would take out a policy with HIH because it has gone bust and would not pay out and the Collins never worked to the point they could go into harms way which is why there is another inquiry into them. Monckton correctly pointed out the cost of such a tax both for Australia and worldwide and how neglible would be the result.
10
Finally watched the entire thing. It was interesting to examine the styles of both debaters who shared a common background as political advisors.
On the one hand we have someone who has left that background behind and moved on to discuss science with a sharp, incisive wit, and on the other hand we have someone still using the weasel language of a political advocate.
I think we can figure out which was which, no?
Oh, and in his free kick reply I notice Monckton addressed the question which I have raised many times, which no warmist has ever responded to, which MattB still struggles with… why has the climate system never gone out of whack? Yes, he says it somewhat more eloquently and scientifically than I. Clearly climate sensitivity to CO2 is negative. Any significant positive feedback would result in an unstable system which would have resulted in a desolte planet end state long ago.
Some things are so patently obvious to anyone willing to question with a rational mind, that it beggar’s belief that we are still having this debate.
10
Newky Bruce:
This exemplifies why I spend so little time at the SMH and AGE web sites in the morning. I scan the press as part of my job, but the journalism in those rags is so lightweight it makes marshmallows look like neutron stars. The West is decent for mining articles, and The Australian is the best chance of a balanced view on economics & industry. There’s the AFR, of course, but on climate they lean heavily to the warmist side. Then there’s various industry-relevant feeds I get… all this to keep an eye on the markets and projects on the go.
10
Which reminds me of this excellent quip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeQC45KunwA
At least Sun readers know what matters…
10
Bulldust
You’re bsolutely right, it beggars belief. Unfortunately the debate still has a heartbeat for those unwilling to engage with a rational mind. Perhaps that’s why Gillard invented the education revolution. Bet she hopes it will kick in before she becomes Ms 20%.
10
This seems to be a better quality vid than the above same debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6cnPLcrtA
10
I found the debate, assuming one can call it that, to be a fascinating representation of the polarized online debate. Those who support the IPCC consensus routinely repeat the same generalizations without fact and supporting reference.
It was curious to find Dr. Dennis taking the same reach and frequency approach in the debate but then he clearly hasn’t followed the research and issues.
Hopefully the Press Club will take the advise and do some research for a change.
10
Thanks for posting that video; it was a great debate. I am in the US so I would not have seen it even if ABC had not “lost it”. I would like to see some of the warmist/alarmists have the guts to debate in public and show what their “consensus” is made of.
10
Dr Denniss and his side had every opportunity to do a better job. Jo had Lord Monckton’s Perth speech on this site 10 days ago. They had at least 8 days to look at what he was potentially going use in his arguments and if their case is so strong they should have been able to, at least compete with LM.
So on that basis I’d put it down as an epic failure on their part or an indirect admission they cannot argue the science.
10
Bulldust at #23
True, true. I do look at SMH because Sydney is the proverbial 800lb gorilla – its useful to know what’s going on in Macquarie St.
Also in the Fairfax stable is our local Newcastle Herald. Fun today because Ms Gillard and Mr Combet were in town yesterday (could Mr Combet be worried about his seat?). For a window into us there was a glowing puff piece on how Ms Gillard hearts coal miners, which wasn’t allowing comments, but another brief article was. Which were 100% negative…except for one lonely warmist who said:
Thick as two planks of solid graphite. Anyone with an internet connection can find out in 30 seconds that CO2 levels have been ‘way higher in the past.
I don’t think us miners are believing Ms Gillard’s promises somehow.
10
The ABC have adopted a pretty dogmatic position as AGW supporters. Can we take it that they are simply admitting they have lost THE debate!
10
Lord Monckton did an excellent job of pointing out the futility of the Australian approach. Other countries no longer support the Carbon tax and emissions reduction schemes….
Sadly, Australia’s proposed climate change plans are an absurd waste of money and time.
It was actually very funny to hear Dr. Denniss describe how many new bureaucrats will be needed. Adding useless bureaucrats and more red tape is a “good” idea taxpayers will support and gleefully fund. /sarc
I do have to give Dr. Denniss credit, at least he has the brass to debate his point of view unlike Al Gore who hides from open debate.
Note: Greens are Marxists, when did that happen?
10
Bob Malloy,
What you say might be correct were it be SBS or SKY but never forget the “A” in ABC stands for Australian.
10
As I said when I posted cracker, I expected to take a hit or two. Just an opinion.
10
Its easy to see how the wheels of the indoctrination machine turn, we have a debate on radio where the Government POV gets smashed so in an effort to reduce the damage and shield the public from the facts the Government go into overdrive.
1, They programme the debate at 9:30 CAST but in light of the result they,
2, Broadcast the English version of the spanish inquisition of the NOTW until 10:00 CAST
3, They then cut to the news, thinking most people are still watching “just in case the debate starts” the news begins with Dullard at a mining site dressed in a daglo orange jacket which perfectly matched her hair telling miners they have a bright future (no pun intended). This good news was followed by even more as we saw footage of Abott saying hello to a very rude person who responded by saying “dickhead”.
The purpose of this of course was to rest assure people the debate was not televised as it was not worth watching, Dullard is doing a fine job and Abott as the man says is a dickhead.
4, Of course this may convince most of the people but maybe not all and no government indoctrination is complete without the usual follow up propaganda. Now some posters have mentioned news paper reports already but here is the Moronville Messenger sometimes referred to as the Adelaide Advertiser, page 14 has a quarter page story with the headline “Global warming opponent criticises ‘pointless’ carbon tax policy”, with the sub heading “Ditch direct action plan, Abbott”.
4a, The story begins by saying Monckton claims ABBOTT (and only ABBOTT) should ditch his carbon plan as it is useless
4b, The story then claims Monckton was humiliated by being outed by the British parliament as he is not a lord
4c, Monckton claimed a doubling of CO2 would increase crop yields (mandatory science bit)
4d, Moncktons comments will make it hard for ABBOTT to sell his tax plan (once again no mention of the Brown Dullard tax plan)
4e, The rest of the article rehashed the Lord claim going so far as to quote AWU boss Paul Howes who stated ” If i changed my name to the Rt Hon Lord Howes of Unionland and get a new passport does that make me a member of the House of Lords?”
There is a reason why a majority of people have turned their collective backs on the MSM and now get their information from the blogs. This is a blatant manipulation of the media by those who do not want you to know the truth, the mere fact that they have gone to such lengths to shield the truth shows just how much they are lying to you.
Its time we took a stand against this tyranny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10
You are entitled to your opinion Bob i grant you that, you should also cherish it as you will not be entitled to it for much longer.
10
Crakar
You deserve a Knighthood!
10
Look here and see how Monckton is very liberal with the truth…..He just makes things up as he goes…Sorry guys , he is a very dangerous person.
10
Tried to watch it. All I saw were British MPs grilling that cop over the hacking scandal. They could’ve showed it when it was over.
10
Yeah, I waited up especially to catch the debate on ABC24 Press Club program. Was very disappointed when it wasn’t shown. Made me wonder.
10
Bulldust the greenhouse effect has never “gone out of whack”… hmmm… CO2 at various stages of history has contributed to a warmer atmosphere, which in turn has released CO2 and so on and so on. There are, however, a wide range of other strong drivers of the climate, and ultimately they are stronger than CO2, so reversed the tempoerature trend. I thought you knew about these cycles?
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the geological record demonstrates that there are many occasions where the planet would have been completely incompatible with our civilisation. There is nothing in the geological record to suggest that the earth has a self-adjusting climate that keeps things at an optimum, or even habitable, situation for human life.
But seriously I think your statement that no scientist is able to explain this is fundamentally incorrect. I’m not sure it is a lie as you genuinely seem to believe it, but it is false.
10
So just on that… by some fluke the planet at the moment is pretty awesome for humans. We remain in that state until something takes us out of it. Why we want to provide that something ourselves is beyond me.
10
[…] ABC…ER …OOPS…. WE LOST IT. Yesterday’s National Press Club debate between Lord Christopher Monckton and Richard Dennis was televised live but most people were working and missed out on seeing Richard Dennis argument comprehensively demolished by Christopher Monckton with the press unable to land a telling blow. Many of you will also have been hard at work and missed the opportunity to watch this important debate. It seems that the ABC despite announcing the debate would be re-screened at 10pm last night has failed to do so. I’m now offering you all the chance to watch it yourselves at your own convenience on youtube. I trust that by watching it you might be enlightened as to why Julia Gillard’s lone global initiative to tax a harmless invisible and natural trace gas in the atmosphere is being met with such resistance. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/the-real-monckton-debate/ […]
10
Is ABC 24 same as ABC2? Anyway I got to watch a very funny episode of Arrrested Development/Le Tour.
10
Andrew@16: “It is indeed, in theory possible to have strong initial feedback gain and for the series to not diverge to infinity if the feedback is non-linear.”
That is true and within that parameter the combinations are endless in fact as befits a drunkard’s walk. I don’t think LM would undermine a serious enquirer on this point which has been looked at in depth in the famous VS thread at Bart’s:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/global-average-temperature-increase-giss-hadcru-and-ncdc-compared/
In respect of LM I direct you to my comments about him at April 2, 2010, 00:18.
10
Richboat @ 39.
That’s “old hat”. You should Google for Lord Monckton’s long, comprehensive demolition of Abraham’s amateurish attempt.
10
Bob Molloy –
ABC has at least 2 extra channels on free-to-air that it or the murdoch feed could have been broadcast on. and they were showing repeats – one channel from Sunday programmes when most people were home and able to watch the shows. they are all taxpayer-funded.
given the current uproar in australia over the “carbon” tax, and given the lack of CAGW sceptics on our airwaves or in print, there is no excuse, except for censorship, as to why the Debate was not repeated at 10pm. if ABC wished to show the murdoch feed earlier than 10pm on the same channel, they only needed a news ticker advising people to switch over to whatever channel the Debate had been moved to.
no excuses please. i have no doubt ABC’s explanation, if they were to give one, would be precisely the one u have proffered. it won’t wash.
10
Peter Dun in 38,
I blush…..seriously the people that inspire me are the ones who deserve a knighthood.
10
Peter Costellos view on Browns call for a media inquiry
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/media-inquiry-just-a-tool-to-stifle-critical-comment-20110719-1hn1e.html
excerpt
“Don’t get me wrong. I am no fan of the Australian media. I have put up with distortions and misrepresentations too many to count. But allowing media to be free – including the freedom to be wrong – is one of those necessary things if we want to live in a democracy. And the proposals being bandied around now are not part of a considered plan to encourage flourishing critical media. In fact just the reverse.”
10
[…] The Real Monckton Debate […]
10
I just wanted to put the MattB Lord bullshit to rest, sorry for the long post but as MattB says it needs to be dumbed down a bit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount
A viscount ( /ˈvaɪkaʊnt/ “vie-count”, for male) or viscountess (for female) [1] is a member of the European nobility whose comital title ranks usually, as in the British peerage, above a baron, below an earl (in Britain) or a count (the earl’s continental equivalent).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, of Brenchley in the County of Kent, is an hereditary title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It was created in 1957 for the lawyer, Conservative politician and former Minister of Defence, Sir Walter Monckton. His son, the second Viscount, was a Major-General in the British Army. Currently the title is held by the latter’s eldest son, the third Viscount, who succeeded in 2006. He is a journalist known for his climate change denial and as the creator of the Eternity puzzle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount#Correct_form_of_address
Correct form of address
There are rules on how one should address a viscount.[2] Debrett’s, the UK’s leading authority on etiquette, suggest that in conversation a viscount should be referred to as Lord X rather than the Viscount X. Ecclesiastical, ambassadorial and military ranks precede a viscount’s rank in correspondence. For example, Major-General the Viscount X. The wife of a viscount is a viscountess and is known as Lady X. Use of the title viscountess in speech is socially incorrect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord#Peerage
Peerage
See also: Peerage of the United Kingdom
Five ranks of peer exist in the United Kingdom, in descending order, these are: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron. The title ‘Lord’ is used most often by barons who are rarely addressed with any other. The style of this address is ‘Lord (X)’, for example, Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson, is commonly known as ‘Lord Tennyson’. The ranks of marquess, earl and viscounts commonly use lord as well, with viscounts using the same style as used for baron. However, marquesses and earls have a slightly different form of address where they can be called either the ‘Marquess/Earl of (X)’ or ‘Lord (X)’. Dukes also use the style, ‘Duke of (X)’, but it is not acceptable to refer to them as ‘Lord (X)’. Dukes are formally addressed as ‘Your Grace’, rather than ‘My Lord’. In the Peerage of Scotland, the members of the lowest level of the peerage have the title ‘Lord of Parliament’ rather than baron.
For senior members of the peerage, the title lord also applies by courtesy to some or all of their children; for example the younger sons of dukes and marquesses can use the style ‘Lord (first name) (surname)’. The titles are courtesy titles in that the holder does not hold a peerage, and is, according to British law, a commoner.
House of Lords
See also: House of Lords
In the UK, the House of Lords (known commonly as ‘the Lords’) forms the upper house of Parliament. Here all peers are treated as lords but there are three different classifications:
• Most lords who hold peerages created before the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (and a handful who hold peerages created after then) are hereditary peers, who until 1999 constituted the most numerous category of lords sitting in the House. There are in excess of 700 lords whose titles may be inherited, however since the House of Lords Act 1999, they are no longer guaranteed a seat in the Lords and instead must take part in an election for a total of ninety-two seats. All male peers of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom were before 1999 entitled to sit in the House of Lords by virtue of their title. Peeresses were granted the right to sit in 1963. Peers of Scotland and Ireland, however, historically had limitations on their right to sit at Westminster. Between 1707 and 1963, Scottish peers participated in elections to determine which of them would take the sixteen seats allocated to them. Elections were abolished in 1963, and from that time until 1999 all Scottish peers and peeresses were entitled to sit. Irish peers participated in similar elections between 1801 and 1922, when the Irish Free State was established. Elections of Irish peers ceased in 1922, however already-elected Irish representative peers remained entitled to sit until their death. The last Irish representative peer to die was Francis Needham, 4th Earl of Kilmorey, who died in 1961. Many Irish peers also hold peerages of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, which entitled them to sit in the House (without the necessity of being elected a representative peer) until 1999.
• The importance of hereditary lords has declined steadily following the increase in the appointment of life peers. These peers are entitled to sit in the House of Lords for the duration of their life, but cannot transfer their titles to their heirs. They are rarely above the rank of baron. The first life peers were appointed to assist the House of Lords in exercising its judicial functions under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876. Widespread appointment of life peers was enabled by the passage of the Life Peerages Act 1958. Since that Act was passed, some 1,086 life peers have been created. The only hereditary privilege associated with life peerages is that children of life peers are entitled to style themselves ‘The Honourable (firstname) (surname)’.
• These first two groups are collectively termed Lords Temporal as opposed to the third type of lord sitting in the House known as Lords Spiritual (or spiritual peers). This group consists of twenty-six Church of England bishops who are appointed in order of superiority. Unlike Lords Temporal, who can be appointed from any of the four nations of the UK, only bishops with English Sees are eligible to sit in the Chamber. Bishops of the Church of Scotland traditionally sat in the Parliament of Scotland but were excluded in 1638 following the Scottish Reformation. There are no longer bishops in the Church of Scotland in the traditional sense of the word, and that Church has never sent members to sit in the Westminster House of Lords. The Church of Ireland ceased to send bishops to sit after disestablishment in 1871. The Church in Wales ceased to be a part of the Church of England in 1920 and was simultaneously disestablished in Wales. Accordingly, bishops of the Church in Wales were no longer eligible to be appointed to the House as bishops of the Church of England.
Monckton is a hereditary peer whilst Lord Stern is a life peer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_peers
Lord Stern is known as a Baron whilst Monckton is known as a Viscount and it goes without saying a Viscount is a higher title than a Baron but yet nobody complains about Stern calling himself a Lord. This is typical of the people that have influenced the likes of MattB.
10
Dammit wrong thread…oh well i am sure MattB will ignore it anyway.
10
When have I said I ming him being called a Lord? I jsut don;t like he claiming he is a member of the House of Lords. Who knows he may be one day.
10
oh dear Mark D will have a field day with that last post.
10
Denniss was forced to say the same stuff over and over again – it was playground level but at least he showed up, and got shown up, and he knew it. They all knew it, and so they will hate Monckton even more now. The questions were pathetic and were a good window into how public ended up so ill-informed on climate. If that was their best what is their worst. My oldest brother is a former member of the Canberra pack and he openly calls them morons.
10
wow… this is insane:
20 July: Australian: Ben Packham: Julia Gillard says News Ltd has questions to answer in wake of UK scandal
JULIA Gillard has declared that News Ltd, the Australian arm of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, has “hard questions” to answer in light of the UK phone hacking scandal…
I do believe that Australians watching all of that happening overseas with News Corp are looking at News Ltd here and are wanting to see News Ltd answer some hard questions,” Ms Gillard said.
The Prime Minister did not elaborate on what questions the company should answer…
Ms Gillard has indicated she is open to Senator Brown’s call for a media inquiry, saying the News of the World revelations would spark a “long debate about media ethics in this country”.
“I’m also not surprised to see that in parliament, or amongst parliamentarians, a conversation is starting about the need for a review, and I will be happy to sit down with parliamentarians and discuss that review that people are obviously contemplating,” she said last week.
Senator Brown, who has been a long-time critic of News Ltd and The Australian newspaper, said he would write to MPs seeking their support for an inquiry canvassing new licensing requirements for major newspapers.
He also wants consideration of a new “fit and proper” character tests for newspaper proprietors, new curbs on foreign entrants and a comprehensive review of media ownership “in light of the domination of News Ltd in print media”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/in-depth/julia-gillard-says-news-ltd-has-questions-to-answer-in-wake-of-uk-scandal/story-e6frgago-1226098227102
i am no fan of murdoch media, so i don’t buy it, but give thanx the guardian has run one sane story on the saga:
19 July: Guardian: Simon Jenkins: The Murdoch story is not a Berlin Wall moment – just daft hysteriaPhone hacking was a serious error. But the media industry would be poorer without Murdoch’s innovative presence
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/murdoch-story-berlin-wall-hysteria
10
HD video of this uploaded here
10
MattB @45- No Matt- leave ABC 2 and 24 alone- stick to ABC 3- they all push the ABC line but you will find ABC 3 easier to understand.
10
1Dandy Troll@13
But 1 (Is it OK to call you by your first name?) isn’t the science settled? Isn’t there a “consensus?” If that’s the case, stop the research funding!
10
[…] had intended to catch a replay of the debate between Lord Monckton and Professor Denniss on ABC24 last night. However, they decided to instead show the British parliamentary inquiry into […]
10
MattB in 53,
Up until 1999 his father was indeed a member of the house of lords, Lord Mockton succeeded his father in 2006 so no he cannot “sit” in the house of lords.
So with that little distraction out of the way can we now finally move on to the actual debate?
I will go first.
Lord Monckton belted the bejesus out of Denniss and you know why MattyB? He did it because Denniss regurgitated the same old crap, you may as well of sent Dullard or Combet or Wong or even Al Gore in fact you could have sent all 4 and Lord Monckton would have won just as easily. Because there is no statistical difference between any of them.
There idea of debating AGW is to talk about chemo therapies whilst Lord Monckton talked about climate senistivity, Denniss talked about precautionary principles whilst Lord Monckton talked about closed loop climates, Denniss talked about argument from authority whilst Lord Monckton talked about a doubling of CO2. Getting the picture yet Matt?
Now lets move on a little, Dullard talks to us with that nasaly condecending tone as if we are children, gives us a little pat on the head and if we dare try to speak up we get told to shut up when the adults are in the room and people are sick of it thats why her poll numbers are so low. Now imagine if this debate was televised during prime time, people would see Denniss doing the exact same thing whilst defending the governments position.
This debate would crucify the Brown Dullard so it had to be stopped and stopped it was, which is why Labor set getup onto Lord Monckton the moment he set foot in this country. Why do you think Brown wants to control the media? They tell you lies, stiffle debate and lean on the media to supress information………..Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
10
Crackar you think MoB belted Denniss because you believe everything he said, and fall for his smoke and mirrors shenanigans with the science. It is, unfortunately, difficult to debate someone who twists and turns the science like MoB, so Denniss simply presented the reality of the actual science. It takes a long time to unpick quasi-science, which is why the debate format suits an entertainer and salesman like MoB. Unfortunately Denniss is not a scientist so was even less able than others to counter quasi-science. But a quick google will find you decent explanations. Unfortunately a quick google with find you lists of manipulated quotes as per the other thread so in the end it is easy to get swept up in quakary… There are so many websites saying the science is crap it MUST BE TRUE.
Look how he twists and turns the House of Lords issue… regardless of posts on here he is quoted on the Spencer interview LYING about this. That is why it IS important as if he lies about something so basic then it is a good indication to lay folk that he is untrustworthy.
10
CA and Bishop Hill comments now have Joe Romm’s upside-down take on the Neil Wallis/Outside Organisation/UEA story that the MSM still will not touch. i’ve just posted the following on WUWT tips.
here’s Joe. u won’t believe it til u read it:
19 July: Grist: Joe Romm: Could Murdoch’s News Corp be behind Climategate too?
Here’s one more astrological coincidence of the highest order: In October 2009, Wallis became a senior consultant to Outside Organisation — a PR firm and crisis management agency, which … wait for it … “was used by the [University of East Anglia] following the Climategate scandal.”
What’s funny is that if you go over to the denier sites, like Climate Audit, the hiring of Wallis’s firm by the University of East Anglia (UEA)’s Climatic Research Unit is somehow further evidence of their corruption, that they were trying to carry out “covert” operations to clear their name. One article reports:…
Whether there is anything more than just extreme coincidence in Wallis leading on UEA’s Climategate defense, I do know that when the deniers say it is cooling, you can be certain it is warming, and when they say there is no smoke, you can be sure it is a hellish, record-breaking wildfire…
http://www.grist.org/climate-energy/2011-07-19-could-murdochs-news-corp-be-behind-climategate-too
how does Joe explain why the alarmists haven’t linked to the Neil Wallis/UEA story since it first broke on the 14th, while the sceptics have been busilly and sometimes successfully, attempting to get the MSM to cover it?
10
MattB in 61,
I have a JPG here that is a half opened can with worms crawling out of it, after several unsuccessful attempts to post it i gave up. Which is unfortunate because i think your post just opened one.
Firstly we are a member of the British empire so i think you should address Monckton as Lord Monckton from now one.
Secondly please list all the “quackery” you believe Lord Monckton spoke of
Thirdly i reject your assertion that the debate format did not allow Dr Denniss an adequate format to counter said quackery.
Fourthly you have rejected reality and substituted it with your own version when you said “Crackar you think MoB belted Denniss because you believe everything he said, and fall for his smoke and mirrors shenanigans with the science.” I SAID NO SUCH THING YOU LYING LITTLE……….
3, 2, 1……..breath….i said Lord Monckton won the debate because he discussed the science whilst all Dr? Dennis said was “If you had cancer…..”, “Insurance is a wonderful thing……..” “Some scientists believe we are heading for catastrophe, some scientists say we are not, i believe the former and until we change government SO WILL YOU” and my favourite “Comrade be quite the science is settled”
10
John from cA says:
I hope so too, but if you read the Maley piece in the SMH today, she wasn’t even listening because, although LM answered a question on being a climate change sceptic by saying “
she still described him as a “Climate Change Denier.”
10
#63: Oh Crackar answering some of those would require me to watch the debate! Spare me. But I assume he said it’s not warming, and that climate sensitivity is low, and that it would be cheaper to do nothing and adapt.
I’m sure I got MoB from one of his pieces and it is good enough for me. If I meet him I’ll happily call him Chris. With no particular respect I don’t give a toss if his granddad earned a peerage.
I didn’t say you said that, so how am I a lying Shyte. It is just my opinion.
On the debate… I did say that as an economist Denniss was unable to counter on-the-run science from MoB. An actualy scientist would have had time to say “that’s bullshit”. Lambert tore him a new one last year… but of course youthink MoB won that one too no doubt!
10
MattB at 61
As I said before, Chris Monckton specifically cited two peer reviewed papers. They were Spencer & Braswell 2010 and Lindzen & Choi 2011. He did so in reference to his claim that 2XCO2 was 1 C or less, which he said on camera to the world and everyone. I link to Spencer’s website because on that post he does what his neolithic reviewers failed to allow, which is to divide 3.7 by 6.
So Matt, can you demonstrate why these two papers are wrong? Can you give evidence of directly measured 2XCO2 above the Arrhenius value? Or why a warming of 0.7 C would boil the seas and rain frogs onto Parliament House?
Richard Denniss was articulate and on message but he carefully did not address any point that Chris Monckton made. He cited no science. At all! In doing so he lost the debate because underpinning the proposed carbon tax is the stated assumption that it will help stop catastrophic global warming. Chris Monckton by these two papers (plus his own) demonstrates a carbon tax is useless for preventing non-existent CAGW, just as Barry Marshall falsified the consensus hypothesis by swigging heliobacter pylorii and antibiotics that ulcers were not caused by stress. Now tell me again why a sh**load of shonky consensus climate science papers outweigh two which say 2XCO2 is measured at 0.6-0.7 C? Or do you have a backward radiant energy satellite in orbit which you’re not telling us about?
10
While Monckton did an OK job explaining the science he did a lousy job of countering the Dr’s main consensus argument.
The Consensus is so easy to argue against
1/Science academies arrived at consensus without consultation or voting by their members
2/IPCC consensus came from a sub 100 bunch of computer modellers who are not scientist.
3/Chinese, Russian, Indian, Japanese, Brazilian agencies think its natural.
4/1000 international scientist, 30000 oragon petition, 65% canadian scientist disagree
Now for the ideal medial analogy!
A young woman is worried about the size of her cleavage, so she goes to see a plastic surgeon who claims he can fix the problem for $20000. She seeks a second opinion and the surgeon tells her it will cost $21000, she seeks a third opinion and the surgeon tells her $19000. She then goes home and asks her boyfriend and he tells her she doesn’t have a problem at all and should not listen to nasty people with vested interest.
So should the girl trust the experts or the person who has actually taken the time to look at her?
10
Our media seems to be also making a big thing of every heat wave and ignoring the cold.
Chilly Chile.
http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/07/20/blanketed-in-snow-in-chile?videoId=217263587
Andre? Who is Andre?
Lance Pidgeon
10
Some of you people need to give MattB more credit for the research he does.
Everyone accepts the basic CO2 heating mechanism; namely that earth bound UV from the sun reaches Earth and warms it.
Then when enough energy has been stored in the rock, it is almost certain that IR energy is radiated from the surface back into the atmosphere where the now warm air induces evaporation of water into the air.
There is a consensus that the new water vapour, being a better IR heat absorber than CO2, can now begin to absorb MORE re-radiated Infra Red energy than CO2 and store it in a layer of the atmosphere. This process is known as a gain loop and it now feeds on itself becoming faster and faster.
There are boundary layers above and below the layer which is accumulating all this energy and back at the UN IPCC in New York (that’s in the USA) Mr Pachauri’s Secretary is waiting at a monitor for total energy accumulation to reach 23,463 MegaJoules. At this point it may be necessary to explain the exact figure of 23,463. It is obtained by dividing Pachauri’s annual UN salary in US$ by half of the Earth’s radius in Egyptian cubits.
When the exact charge level is reached, the Secretary will press a button and there will be an enormous discharge that will wipe out everything below the discharge point over a ground area of 5 square kilometres.
Wow. No wonder people are worried about Global Warming and CO2.
10
Bruce of Newcastle:
WIth reference to Jacqueline Maley’s outburst:
anthropomorphic??
What a lazy hack.
Maley needs to do her homework. Which includes looking up words in a dictionary if doesn’t know what they mean, before she abuses them.
10
MaryFJohnston @ 69
MattB does research?
I thought he was the comic relief.
10
Bernd at #70
I have to say that is slightly unfair, as the English dictionary definition hasn’t quite caught up with climate science terminology yet (I have this sort of problem playing Scrabble, trying to use 7 letter chemistry terms). Yes, I looked up a Shorter Oxford, so I know what their definition says…interesting connotations.
She, though, accused Chris Monckton of not giving evidence of ACC, whereas he did. Vehemently. It could be that she made the error inadvertently, since I wouldn’t expect her to know enough science to read and understand those papers, but an inadvertent lie is still a lie, and it is in one of Australia’s leading newspapers.
10
crackar24 @ 36
Not sure I like my home town being referred to as “Moronville”.
Meanwhile, in Moronvi … I mean Adelaide, we just had our coldest week ever at the Kent Town site which started in 1977. In fact eight consecutive days, July 7-14, under 14C. The old record was six days. I wonder if the Messenger reported that? Still waiting for it to get above 16C.
Looking forward to seeing the good Lord, Chris Monckton on Friday.
10
Sorry, crakar24 I mean!
10
Freezing here in Newcastle. Must be AGW.
10
What the average person in the street fails utterly to comprehend about CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants (40% of all CO2 emissions) in Australia is that even if they wanted to, those plants cannot shut down, and I’ll bet you won’t hear this from the Government spruiking how their Tax will drive down emissions.
Those large scale power plants have legally binding contracts to supply their huge levels of power to the grids.
As I have mentioned, those large plants can be in operation for anything from 50 to 75 years. Most large plants in Oz have contracts to supply until the 2030’s and 40’s.
Even if bean counters did their sums and found it was cheaper to close down than to stay open, those Governments would hold them to their contract, keeping in mind that contracts work both ways.
As the plant has to burn what it burns to produce the power it has promised to the grids, they will have to keep paying this Tax until their contract expires. To minimise costs and the cost of the coal itself is huge considering they burn 6.5 to 8 million tons of the stuff each year, they burn only the minimum to actually produce that power.
So, when the ETS comes in and they set a Cap, and then lower that cap each year, you can now easily see that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment, and is just a rock solid money making artifice.
If the Plant lowers their coal consumption, they produce less power, ergo, breaking their contract. See the point.
As part of the ETS, they burn what they have to to produce the promised power, they exceed their Cap, they HAVE to purchase credits to make up the difference between the now lowered Cap and what they have burned, and on top of that, pay a fine probably equal to 1.5 times the cost of the credits as is the case with other ETS’s this will be modelled upon. Because it is a fine, they cannot pass those costs down to consumers and likewise the ‘make up’ credits.
Whichever way it goes, the Government knows full well the provider has a contract to supply, and even if they magically find a renewable that can even think they can approach the 24/7/365 power delivery of those coal fired plants, those coal plants will still be seeing out their contracts.
Tell us that oh mighty Labor Government leaders.
Lower CO2 emissions. Pshaaw!
Liars!
Tony.
10
STOP PRESS!!
ABC has released a spray from Dr Denniss vs Monckton with some crazy lines:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2802994.html
To quote Denniss:
I assume ABC will give right of reply to this lunatic? Where’s the balance? This poor man is waaaay out of his depth.
10
MattB:
Might get back to you later… it would be a waste of my time however as you clearly don’t understand what you are talking about.
10
MaryFJohnston: #69
July 20th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
I don’t.
What I accept is that an efficient absorber is also an equally efficient emitter, that is, CO2 COOLS just as well as it warms. There is no argument in that.
The key is, when does it warm more than it cools, and when does it cool more than it warms?
The basic answer is it cools during the day, and it warms (reduces the rate of cooling) at night.
But of course, we then have to take into account the time of the year (seasons), the lattitude ( as CO2 may be cooling in one place whilst it’s warming at another at the same time), the amount of cloud cover at that particular location at that particular time, and also the Milankovitch cycles in conjunction with the proportion of land to ocean.
In other words, the continual talk of the warming talent of CO2 whilst ignoring the equally potent cooling talent of this magical molecule is incomplete, misleading, and the prime fraud perpetuated by the so called ‘climate scientists’.
10
After L.C.M’s press demolition job, I wonder did Ch.7’s political editor Mark Riley, that pathetic excuse for a journalist who appears to have a degree in smart-arse trivialisation of reporting political matters, phone Julia and again ask her “what do you want us to write Prime Minister” as he had done after her Press Club appearance. She effectually prevented them from reporting anything she says by asking him and all the media journalists “not to write crap” !!
Too much to hope he and others would actually take the Viscount’s advice, do some research and start doing some serious unbiased reporting !
10
The problem IS that “tiny impact on worlds temperature” then Monckton is in the camp of lukewarmists. Ammo for the alarmists whatever the statement. Pity he hasnt done his homework and decided to trash the false GHG theory that has been proved false by several now.
Of course the ABC warmist sockpuppets wouldnt let anybody reply…and where is the missing debate video supposed to be played at 10pm may I ask?..got lost on the hardrive did it? Just before 10pm…
10
Total CRAP! “gain loop” electrical analogies cant be used in gas laws of the LTE.
10
Baa HUmbug # 79
In total agreement!
10
Seems Mr. Monckton likes to be less than truthful. He said he had published a reviewed article with APS. From the APS website refering to the Monckton article: “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review…”
I suppose Monckton could have meant the article was reviewed, just not in a scientific way, but what then is the point? All of his talk about science but his one paper he references has no scientific review.
I’m also wondering why Mr. Monckton believes consensus created the science instead of the science creating the consensus. Seems he has put the cart in front of the horse.
Mr. Monckton further claims that the only basis for a higher climate sensitivity are models. After watching Dr. Richard Alley’s, who has had work scientifically reviewed, lecture, “The Biggest Control Knob”, a higher climate sensitivity is based on historical data as well as modeling. Mr. Monckton would seem to be playing with truth on this point as well.
REPLY: Yes and two editors were sacked for even printing his article. The world of science publishing is sick sick sick.
Can you find any flaws in his actual scientific arguments? Didn’t think so.–JN
10
69; your comment about H2O being a more efficient ‘absorber’ than CO2 thus creating a “gain loop” and going faster and faster is fortunately straight out of a road-runner movie.
Consider Table 1 here:
http://vipclubmn.org/Documents/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf
As CO2 is increased the relative proportion of H2O emissivity [and to be clear here that is a measure of its heating/+ve feedback capacity] decreases.
The reason for this may be found in Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook page 5-23 “Carbon Dioxide-Water Vapor Mixtures – When these gases are present together, the total radiation due to both is somewhat less than the sum of the separately calculated effects because each gas is somewhat opaque to radiation from the other in the wavelength rergions 2.7 and 15 micron” [H/T cementafriend]
For a fuller discussion of this effect, albeit as a peripheral aspect of the main focus of the paper see:
http://thesis.library.caltech.edu/2809/1/Lapp_m_1960.pdf
I repeat this disproves +ve feedback from H2O; Hansen’s sensitivity figure of 1.2C for 2XCO2 is the Worst scenario with the likelihood, as Lindzen and Choi and Spencer and Braswell, Knox and Douglass, amongst others have found, that feedbacks will REDUCE that basic CO2 sensitivity figure.
10
But we could be like Spain.
10
I think this sums it up, nothing more to be said here……………
MattB in post 63 said
MattB:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Crackar you think MoB belted Denniss because you believe everything he said, and fall for his smoke and mirrors shenanigans with the science. It is, unfortunately, difficult to debate someone who twists and turns the science like MoB, so Denniss simply presented the reality of the actual science. It takes a long time to unpick quasi-science, which is why the debate format suits an entertainer and salesman like MoB. Unfortunately Denniss is not a scientist so was even less able than others to counter quasi-science. But a quick google will find you decent explanations. Unfortunately a quick google with find you lists of manipulated quotes as per the other thread so in the end it is easy to get swept up in quakary… There are so many websites saying the science is crap it MUST BE TRUE.
Look how he twists and turns the House of Lords issue… regardless of posts on here he is quoted on the Spencer interview LYING about this. That is why it IS important as if he lies about something so basic then it is a good indication to lay folk that he is untrustworthy.
MattB in post 67
MattB:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
#63: Oh Crackar answering some of those would require me to watch the debate! Spare me. But I assume he said it’s not warming, and that climate sensitivity is low, and that it would be cheaper to do nothing and adapt.
I’m sure I got MoB from one of his pieces and it is good enough for me. If I meet him I’ll happily call him Chris. With no particular respect I don’t give a toss if his granddad earned a peerage.
I didn’t say you said that, so how am I a lying Shyte. It is just my opinion.
On the debate… I did say that as an economist Denniss was unable to counter on-the-run science from MoB. An actualy scientist would have had time to say “that’s bullshit”. Lambert tore him a new one last year… but of course youthink MoB won that one too no doubt!
This type of argument is not the product of logic or common sense but merely one of faith, i have no time for religious nutters.
10
Thank God for the internet? Don’t you mean “thank Al Gore for the internet”. Oop, sorry, same meaning! 😉
10
IF there is any effect from some nanoscopic CO2 absorbsion of IR it is totally overridden by the main driver, solar radiation, of the planetry temperature profile by ORDERS of MAGNITUDE so defies measurement and is therefore un-determinable.
10
Eric, if one uses the ‘way back machine’ to look at the paper at it was initially published – there was no such ‘none peer reviewed’ disclaimer on the top of it. Further if one then uses the ‘way back machine’ to crawl around earlier newsletter publications – there were no statements regarding peer review status at all of what was published. One can only conclude they did not have a position on peer reviewed status of what was published and were purely ‘in it’ for scientific discourse and communication – a frank exchange of ideas one could say.
Yet, it was only when they came under attack for publishing a none proAGW paper – do they stick none peer reviewed disclaimers all over the newsletter like a rash. REGARDLESS of whether what had gone before could have been peer reviewed or not independently of the publication. Essentially one anti AGW paper caused such a level of attack on the publication that they had to debase themselves from being a forum of considered and respectful debate – so much for protecting the science…
10
Deniss has tried to have a second bite at the cherry on the ABC Drum, same non arguments and he is getting a lot of flack
10
Crackar – tell you what I’ll watch the debate and you can read the current IPCC reports.
10
MattB @ 94
If you’re going to set Crackar to reading fantasy-fiction, at least give him something interesting – like “Once And Future King” or something.
10
My post at the ABC (third attempt mind you):
So far I have had two comments censored with my tax dollars despite being well within guidelines … funny that. Is there somewhere I can sign up not to have my taxes used for the ABC?
10
PETITION TO GET RID OF THE COMMUNIST GILLARD “GOVERNMENT”
http://hadenough.com.au/index.php/2011/07/petition-to-get-them-out/
10
Somewhat sad news in that Rudd needs heart surgery.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/kevin-rudd-to-have-heart-surgery/story-fn59niix-1226098354226
I can however see a lighter side in this, and not at Kevin’s expense… wish all the best to him.
Imagine this if you will (cartoon):
Panel one – Jooooolya in front of the press gallery
Media man: Prime Minister, what do you say to those that say you have no heart?
PM: I have a team working on that right now.
Panel 2: Nervous looking Ken07 going under the knife.
I am almost willing to bet we see a cartoon along these lines in the coming days… hey it is good for Kev, as it shows he has a heart 🙂
10
Eric at #86
If you listen to what Chris Monckton said you will have heard that his paper was peer reviewed by a professor of atmospheric physics, if I remember what I heard. I believe he also said to the reporter that the reviewer’s comments can be available, or he can be contacted for his view.
You might also note the two papers he cited, which are linked to by me upthread, both were peer reviewed. Both show CO2 is a mildly warming gas, with 2XCO2 being 0.6-0.7 C. Both papers had flagrantly and unjustly obstructionist reviewers. The appalling and unique behaviour of the NAS towards Prof Lindzen, one of their senior fellows, is documented here by Dr Curry. Prof Lindzen most likely did this on purpose to demonstrate exactly what Phil Jones described before publishing in an alternate journal. NAS is quite notorious, as you will know if you’ve visited Jo’s site often.
If you believe all is sweet in the peer review procedure you should open your eyes mate. Power and money, power and money. Same as for the rest of the planet.
10
Just listened to Monckton’s interview by Alan Jones on 2GB. Like he say where are the Govt
scientistsstooges that should be debating him in public? The silence is deafening. And he does say hes a layman. So no real debate = game set match to Monckton.10
Convoy of No Confidence in Gillard’s Labor government:
It is the best five days you will ever spend – to save Australia:
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/breaking-news-exclusive-to
Convoys leaving from Katherine (Darwin orginally planned, but response overwhelming),Cairns, Rockhampton, Brisbane, Bendigo and PERTH.
Please, tools down, this PM must go.
Extract of email sent to the Hon. Martin Ferguson:
Originally scheduled to leave from Darwin only, there are now convoys leaving from Katherine (Darwin too small for the overwhelming response), Cairns, Rockhampton, Brisbane and Bendigo. Oh. And Perth.
People have lost confidence in this government. They have lost confidence in a government that can’t put pink batts in homes without killing people, destroying homes and worrying people. They have lost confidence in a government that can’t build school halls, toilet blocks and libraries at anything near the commercial rate. They have lost confidence in a government that seeks to destroy the mining industry through punitive taxes like the MRRT. They have lost confidence in a government that believes the pseudo science or “Xbox” models of the IPCC. They have lost confidence in a government that now seeks to partake in the live trade of humans to Malaysia, but will cut off the live beef export industry at the knees without considering the lives and livelihoods of the people in the outer northern reaches of this great land. They have lost confidence in a government which allows an extremist hard left political party to call the shots. They have lost confidence in a government that bankrolls thugs like GetUp who threaten and blackmail ordinary Australians to shut down the contest of ideas that has made our nation strong. They have lost confidence in a government whose leader openly hectors ordinary Australians like me who rightfully and legally protest against the destruction of our economy and the perversion of science. They have lost confidence in a government that can only chant old, tired, focus grouped slogans. They have lost confidence in a government that demonises ‘big polluters’ – these are big employers, big tax payers and big Australians. Yes, the people have lost confidence in this government, and I am one of those people.
Your government could easily take a face saving way out of this morass by simply saying that due to changed global circumstances, it is no longer feasible to inflict a carbon [dioxide] tax on the Australian businesses and the Australian public.
The Greens would fume publicly, but most likely stick with the government. It is only by standing your ground to extremists that you can salvage what is likely to be left of the Labor Government, and let the Greens take the natural consequences of their stupid ideas.
Thank you for reading this email, and for providing a political platform so that the public can properly scrutinise the Greens policy platforms which threaten our sovereignty, or economy and our sense of community.
I simply cannot believe that a credible political party would abandon their core principles, and forsake union members in the process.
The Convoy is coming to Canberra, ready or not.
10
Sorry Baa Humbug:
It was supposed to be a joke @71
I don’t think even MattB would take this seriously:
“There are boundary layers above and below the layer which is accumulating all this energy and back at the UN IPCC in New York (that’s in the USA) Mr Pachauri’s Secretary is waiting at a monitor for total energy accumulation to reach 23,463 MegaJoules.
At this point it may be necessary to explain the exact figure of 23,463.
It is obtained by dividing Pachauri’s annual UN salary in US$ by half of the Earth’s radius in Egyptian cubits.”
I just got sick of seeing his comments.
10
Bulldust @25
Well, Bulldust, they’d need to be whoppers!
10
Those little white things on the floor after the debate was over were Denniss’s bones …
Pointman
10
Hello theRealUniverse: @84
Sorry MFJ at 71 was supposed to have been a spoof on MattB’s comprehension of MM AGW.
10
Lick and old mare’s arse, might ye?
I took a few disgusted-at-skeptics-fueled days break from my recent hyper energized anti-AGW-activism that involved context-laden “tagging” each and every day’s news story that I could find with simple data plots which falsify alarmist claims and to then follow up with serious Bruce Lee efficient fight backs when my message was willfully simplified by cultist spin doctors. It was *so* easy, after my references were organized in my mind and I *knew* that delving into Team references would come up dry, predictably. It took me three years to become actually confident in my skepticism due to the huge smokescreen involved that was pointed in my direction from such a hot hemorrhoids spigot.
I want stories.
Now I’m taking a big break, due to the way South American girls’ pelvises connect via thick and strong electric snake to a shoulder cage in one divinely sublime act of pure prayer.
You don’t remember it?
Oh, dear gentlemen…we won! Clean-up operations are not my forte. I spent ten hours a day doing this, often twenty…using what’s left of the free comment sections of what’s left of branded media organizations.
I want more stories.
But as I listened to Billy Bragg and The Pogues on Event Opal studio monitors and a “tight spec” SVS subwoofer, shaking the whole empty girls’ dorm building, doing “this”…something hit me: I am not one of you. I was not birthed to Earth to chat about, let alone argue about the weather! You two sides of what has become a mere cliched cultural war kill each other and too drag in your brothers as I tickle your wives. Good women see right through steaming piles of cheap “caviar” and this has become that. The real thing of human interaction still exists, despite our living in a very temporary era of ultra-low-bandwidth “online community” interaction.
You demand nothing more?
“Ugly and futile: lean neck and thick hair and a stain of ink, a snail’s bed. Yet someone had loved him, borne him in her arms and in her heart. But for her the race of the world would have trampled him underfoot, a squashed boneless snail. She had loved his weak watery blood drained from her own. Was that then real? The only true thing in life? His mother’s prostrate body the fiery Columbanus in holy zeal bestrode. She was no more: the trembling skeleton of a twig burnt in the fire, an odour of rosewood and wetted ashes. She had saved him from being trampled underfoot and had gone, scarcely having been. A pour soul gone to heaven: and on a heath beneath winking stars a fox, red reek of rapine in his fur, with merciless bright eyes scraped in the earth, listened, scraped up the earth, listened, scraped and scraped.” – James Joyce (Finnegans Wake 1939)
He spent 18 years writing that book about you, before birth opened your eyes.
This year, the suddenly looming light bulb ban hit me like a real declaration of war or a freight train heading for a passenger train in a valley in Peru below me where my cell phone hasn’t got a signal. Then two plus one four nine one six seven things happened.
(1) The right side of politics, in the room, word wide, of this divide, suddenly has allowed brass balls to replace manginas, based on perception of real threat to their minority religion, of their footnote-worthy flights of fancy. Darwin does not smile upon these boy love gorillas, these Greeks.
(2) Whatever.
(3.14…) Steven Goddard is narcissistically toying with variations on a theme, musically, so far successfully, yet not yet of merit. He has no good feedback, so he is flying blind and he knows it. Doltish cheerleading takes no one to town. Popularity, flying high, round and a bout, but nowhere to land, wings singed. Variations on a theme is the stuff of music. He contains something. But I don’t know what it is. He wont let God flow through him.
Skeptics utterly fail to understand their immediately perceived enemy, deep down.
Key phrase: “active depression.”
Translation: zombies.
Job one and two:
(1) Land on your feet.
(2) Inspire.
Unstated business:
(3) Ignore Player Haters.
10
“It is obtained by dividing Pachauri’s annual UN salary in US$ by half of the Earth’s radius in Egyptian cubits”
Hillarious MaryF! And Spoof noted! Thanks.
10
“Bulldust” (98),
No doubt when they open up rudd the surgeons will be be perplexed as they will be unable to locate his heart………..
10
MaryF,
i got the spoof too. gave me a chuckle. welcome
10
Sorry cohenite: @71 was supposed to have been a spoof on Warmers like MattB.
I don’t think even the most ardent “warmer” would take this for real:
“When the exact charge level is reached, the Secretary will press a button and there will be an enormous discharge that will wipe out everything below the discharge point over a ground area of 5 square kilometres.”
10
Hear real physicist here worth the listen. Podcast interview with Piers Corbyn
Also he explains the problems with science and debate.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8084&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimaterealistsNewsBlog+%28ClimateRealists+News+Blog%29
10
F#@% the ABC and the MSM. Look at how the ABC has gone on and on about the Murdoch thing. Who cares. How puerile and self-serving can one organisation get?
The reason why there will be no new world order is because people are waking up and smelling the rotten cheese they are being served. They become insta-netizens. God I love the internet!
10
NicFromNYC @ 106
Been reading Les Visible again, have we?
10
Hi NicFromNYC @ 106
Welcome to Australia Nic; but really, isn’t it time to leave the computer and go for a walk in Central Park; such an amazing place! Peace.
I love NY.
10
I think we call that a “no contest”. Monkton is awesome.
10
Nic is channeling Hunter S and gone Gonzo; in fact I can see a resemblence:
http://theselvedgeyard.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/it-never-got-fast-enough-for-me-gonzo-hunter-s-thompson/
10
How do Monckton supporters respond to the article at http://bit.ly/iufa30? This points out that Monckton cherry-picks evidence, or simply misrepresents research. The article’s author contacted the authors of 16 papers that Monckton cites, asking them if he represented their science fairly and correctly. All 16 — 100% — said that he did not. I would like a genuine, non-inflammatory response if possible, as I think this is a really important point, upon which rests any credibility that Monckton may claim to possess.
[Monckton replied to Abrahams and wiped the floor with him. 466 pages. I’ understand Abrahams pretended Monckton said things (misquotes were sent to those researchers) in order to eek out their “replies”. — JN]
10
Hi theRealUniverse:
To counter my 71, one of my earlier posts on saturation:
Very briefly the whole issue (CO2 energy uptake) hinges on one very simple fact concerning the interrelationship of CO2 and the solar energy which is re-radiated from Earths surface.
The mechanism by which CO2 is heated by radiant energy is well established science.
The problem for the AGW theory is that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 500 times more energy in its energy spectrum than is currently provided by the sun . This concept can be hard to grasp but it means that if we add more solar energy to the mix ie. the sun becomes more active, then the Earth will heat up because the CO2 has the capacity to trap the resultant re-radiation.
On the other side of the balance if we increase the amount of CO2 available and hold solar energy constant then there will be no temperature change.
The sun is the only real variable unless there was so little CO2 in the atmosphere that some of the energy in the CO2 absorption spectrum was going untouched.
Basically this means that even if we add more CO2 there will only be a very small temperature increase from this effect and all the Warmer alarmism is scientifically without basis.
We will not fry because of more CO2.
10
Ths ABC didnt repeat the debate because their funding is solely from the Labor government.
And why does Julia want this tax so badly and so expensively high? Have we all forgotten about the forty billion dollars the Labor government gave away? Crashing Australias economy into debt? A debt the Labor government is only worsening day in day out?
I remember when I was in school back in the 80’s it was all about global warming and CFC’s (Chlorofluorocarbon for you young ones) depleting the ozone layer.
Once the world managed to rid themselves of CFC’s (and realised there was no hole in the ozone layer caused by CFC’s) the governments had to turn to another scapegoat. . . CO2.
10
Jo,
Interesting how the “old fox” Monckton started with the Nazi reference to where he is today. Fascinating.
Brings up another thought…How much government subsidies does ABC get from the government? Also how much advertising does the government buy from ABC?
10
Cohenite @ #77
Your citations are for closed systems, but the earth system is an open system, so science is unable to offer an opinion on this.
10
Blame the Swedes!
Its not a climate crise its a democratic crise!
Im ashamed to be swedish as our resposability is big to spread this CO2 orwellian excuse to build a world gouvernment. You have not got access to the longterm planning influence and actions taken from our swedish socialdemocrats who has had an great inpact on the UN and UNEP that established the IPCC and allmost a monopoly to gouvern sweden since the sixties. Behind the curtain the socialistinternational has been active and planning this aggression on national independence and democracy since the days of Olof Palme.
The word kocensus is used in swedish politics since the red seventies and I was a active socialdemocrat myself. The word is a manipulative way to give an false impression of credability and to demoralize alternative views and been used as a frecvent tool in sweden and even considered to be disireble and neceeary. Its a word of the dictator and with the power of nomination to decide whom to be selected as “expert” is an important power tool to fabricate the consensus.To paint a false picture of how the opinion on a topic is essential and even neccessary to get proposal thrue. And when they now that we voters will not accept the proposal they start early to gather the “independant experts” they need to claim that its neceesary.
With the IPCC as an example our gouverning politicians have detected the possabilitys with moveing this “experts” offshore far away from our nationaldemokratic right to control and transparancy to the unelected byraucrats and EUssr and UNssr kommissars.
But the big idea with both the democracy as well with science is that its NEVER any consensus about anything. Ity has to be disqalifyed as an political argument. Its not them to decide whats to be an consensus or not. Its us voters that decides what the majority of opinions is to be. And we realize that there will never be any koncensus on any topic ever, and thats the hole point and beaty with democracy.
You will find that they claim a consensus to exist even before the topic is really open to debate and its only made to destruct the demokrastic orders and rules. You will allways find the MSM and Public service to accept the rules for the debate and they will allways take the consensus argument without checking the basis on what it built upon.
In sweden we are getting custom to that the power of nomination is used on ideological lojality grounds of keypersons of authorities and organisations. And the nominations of the people in UNEP and IPCC has been selected on theese terms as well. You dont even have to hesitate the slightest on that issue.Thats how they operate!!
So inline with BBC and the Swedish SVT as well as the AU ABC they all lined up to fight your democratic rights. And they are very sofisticated in how they operate in mixing unpartial information and debate upto 80% with takíng the remaining 20% to drive pure proaganda and the audience has very hard to sort out what is what. MSM and public service has become the mouthpeace of the political establishment
and why journalism has turned into an red odeological magnet raises from the strategic longtime work of hte red movement and in every country you check you will find more reds in editorialpositions than among the voters. They know we dont select journalists. In sweden the redparty is very close to go under 4% of the votes. But in swedish journalaism they are 25% real reds and together with socaldemocrats and the increasing “greeen ones” yuo have to defend your right to vote
in alla possible ways you can because your a big big underdog in this democratic crise.
They abused the trust och confidence we gave them to give us “the finger” when we deamnden our rights to hehre both sides of the arguments and called us “deniers” and played the fabricated “koncensus” card every time. Us “Flat earthers” inbetween(ironical is that the climate models is built on a flat earth prospective when it comes to the heat/radiationtransfer budget.)we have to realize that every country i s more flat than round and we have to exercise our right to control the area we can control and check. Because whats politicly i happening beyond the horison we have no control or power over.
So I now adays has come to the conclusion that friendly nationalism is in the long run the best way to secure democracy and defend sainity reson rationalty and truth. We are allready in a fight about democracy itself. The climate vrise is just a fasad to hide whats behind.
Love you all Aussies and alla ower the world we have to fight our political establishments that has shown to have no repect for its peoples and sees denmokracy as an obsticle for thier own power and control. Let us toghether become the hurdel tha smack right into. And dont forget who the individuaos were who brought this climate crap upon you. See to that they are observed and registred not to be trusted with anything.
Figh on Aussies its your freedom at stake and if we accept the international “democratic offshore” power structures they built against us we gonna loose the war. They have to be torn down!!
10
Hi Louis ;
I enjoyed your “shiny rail” piece on another topic here; funny.
As for Cohenite’s @87 it may be possible to begin analysing any situation while making sure we acknowledge that the process is ongoing.
The mass, heat and momentum transfer that occurs within the atmosphere is enormously complex and the only way to gain insight is to look at each small mechanism in isolation before trying to integrate the lot.
As a Metallurgist I feel well placed skill-wise to see the overall problem and begin defining all the issues. Getting anything like a solution may not be possible but that need not prevent us from attaching a weighting to each factor.
Unfortunately the “Climate Scientists” have no training in these matters and fail to seek advice from mainstraem scientists with relevant skills.
Cohenite and I would probably agree that anyone who didn’t know what a Reynolds Number was should not feel themselves qualified to comment on the CO2 – AGW – Atmosphere problem and should find another hobby; Geologists excepted , of course; we need them.
Any Warmer who wants to comment on the “Science” should first spend a few years digesting “Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer by BENNETT, C. O. and J. E. Myers …” Good luck.
10
I think the bloggers on this site need to get out more, this blog is an exercise in fact-free group think, surely science should be based on critical thinking and testing? I await the many down votes for daring to be controversial, somewhat ironic for a supposedly skeptics’ site.
I particularly like the view that Monckton’s debate was a bigger news event than live coverage of parliamentary questions concerning corruption at the highest levels of media and government…Oh that’s right most these bloggers believe that AGW is a conspiracy at the highest levels of media, government, science and education.
My view is that an onstage debate format is incompatible with scientific examination – too lose, and with a lack of informed questioning (journo’s are almost entirely trained in politics not science). Einstein and Bohr didn’t debate, they exchanged clearly written arguments that were specific and testable. I suggest Monckton should do the same if he wants to engage in science rather than the media circus of which he is so critical and contemptuous.
BTW can anybody suggest why Monckton’s supporters cry foul when people interrupt Monckton or joke about his physical disabilities whilst cheering-on Monckton’s ‘shut up child’ responses to Journalists and parodies of Gillard’s accent. Isn’t this hypocritical?
10
poll – 77% of 5,000+ saying it’s a lost cause at the moment:
21 July: SMH: Dan Nancarrow: Carbon price battle is lost, say experts
Political experts believe the battle to sell the carbon tax to the Australian public has been lost and the Prime Minister can do nothing to change voters’ minds on the issue…
Political communication lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology Wayne Murphy said the prime minister had been most effective selling the tax in the past week by providing everyday examples of the tax’s effect for audience members on Q&A…
Dr Ward (Reader in politics at the University of Queensland Ian Ward)
said the government’s only option was to ‘tough out’ the opposition to the tax.
“When it is passed as an issue I think some of the steam will come out of it and the government will move on to other things,” he said.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-battle-is-lost-say-experts-20110719-1hn0l.html
how surprising…not…that an ABC studio audience should be the PM’s only bright moment. and don’t u just love the conclusion of this piece?
10
MaryFJohnston @ 122
I’ve known a few Mets in my time and as a group it seems they have an uncommon gift for common sense.
Like Mark Twain they have a very robust philosphy:
If only there were a few people like that in the warmist camp! How much of the warmist literature is populated with very “precise” data based on a very rubbery base!
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Thanks speedy but I should now confess. I’m hiding under my great grandmothers name which may seem a bit twisted (being a bloke) but when dealing with warmers I feel no obligation for full disclosure on the issue of ID.
I like the quote: “It is better to be approximately correct than to be precisely wrong”.
It seems very appropriate for the AGW mess.
regards
GeorgeJ
10
Mary; Reynolds Numbers have their equivalents in climate science in stochastic properties, unit roots, long term persistence and resonance. My only interest in them is through the concept of a drunkard’s walk; an approach which I may soon apply to my life if I have to put up with much more of the idiocy of the advocates of AGW.
10
MaryFJohnston
Know the feeling. Some of my friends have to deal with the Dept of Environment and Conservation DEC (etc.) as well. They include some of my very close friends – if you get the drift…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Monckton’s misrepresentations of research (mentioned in my post #117), and the authors’ responses have been put into table form here, FYI: http://bit.ly/pLdhPB
REPLY See the link in my last reply to you.
10
My apologies: I’m not all that conversant with all the arguments, but the one concerning ‘the precautionary principle’ and the one concerning ‘consensus’ are based on the same misapprehension of what ‘science’ is supposed to present to policy makers:
.
STAGE 1: Given some Cause to examine, (upon request, with granted funding.)
0) All data, every reasoning, all programming, etc, must be made publicly available.
a) The Probability (with error range) of a Possibility #1 (i.e. a single effect, or one of several);
b) repeated for #2;
c) repeated for #3;
…
A list of other, possibly significant Possibilities that have not yet been properly evaluated.
A list of known problematic issues with each of the listed Possibilities (such are inevitable, given sufficient unknowns.)
.
STAGE 2: Given some Possibility to Examine
Upon request (with granted funding), an examination of the consequences (i.e. the effects given a specific cause) should a selected Possibility come to pass. Each examination must of course adhere to the same format as stage 1.
.
For a ‘scientist’ to dare go beyond this is unforgivable: do so is to abandon the role – which would leave what, exactly? Feynman wept.
.
I do not believe the above is too complex for the average person to understand; obviously the concept of ‘consensus’ is utterly irrelevant to the practice of scientific investigation.
Also the ‘precautionary principle’ is of course a thing of politics: ‘science’ does not make decisions_selections, it presents, on demand, some detail concerning specific possibilities: to select between cutting CO2, or otherwise to adapt to its (possible, and certainly unpredictable) effects, has nothing to do with science.
So why not explain it that way? Oh well, I’m no speaker, so I’ll assume Monckton knows what he is doing.
10
Cohenite and Speedy
We are very close to winning against the non_Science of MM AGW via CO2; don’t take up the bottle in desperation, drink to success!
A commentary on a news page tonight said that the likelihood of the Carbon Tax going ahead was almost zero given the widespread public reaction towards it.
The net has played an amazing part in this, if it happens and this may be a historic victory considering the poor and obstructionist media commentary and huge political effort that has been made by those pushing it.
10
I just thanked Dr Dennis on the ABC for his analogy about the value of insurance as I am sure he will use this to attack labor in Queensland for not insuring against their floods, thus causing all the workers of Australia to pay for Anna’s failings. I also thanked him for pointing out that we should be on the conservative side in our thinking, I suppose that means we MUST vote liberal, be interesting if their moderation lets that through!!
Hopefully they won’t exhibit Bias!!
10
JN “REPLY: Yes and two editors were sacked for even printing his article. The world of science publishing is sick sick sick.
Can you find any flaws in his actual scientific arguments? Didn’t think so.–”
He presented no scientific arguments in either the debate or in his non-scientifically reviewed opinion piece. But you are missing my point. Mr. Monckton, when asked why he won’t debate science in the place where science has long been debated (peer reviewed articles), was not truthful in his reply. He made reference to himself having done this which is verifiable false. What is also interesting is that Mr. Monckton seems to be appealling to the authority of APS by mentioning that this is where his article was published. If Mr. Monckton does feel this appeal is apt, then perhaps it is best to know what the APS has to say about climate change which includes, “If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
10
@Geoff Brown:
July 20th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“But 1 (Is it OK to call you by your first name?) isn’t the science settled? Isn’t there a “consensus?” If that’s the case, stop the research funding!”
Truly, if you want to make fun of someone though, try not to make the same point as the person you’re making fun of for making just that point, it kind of don’t have any point to it.
and btw, 1 is not my first name, it’s part of the binary that computes to my name. At least you could’ve tries to get that right.
10
I can see why the alarmists are so anxious to get rid of Monckton by any means necessary. He is hard to ruffle, and goes directly to point! And makes them easy to understand for he layman. Denniss really did look like a fish flopping out of water. And he is dead wrong as well. As others have commented – if you ask 2 economists opinions, you get 3 opinions. His economics are keynsian, and as we see, a failure.
10
keith, “Eric, if one uses the ‘way back machine’ to look at the paper at it was initially published – there was no such ‘none peer reviewed’ disclaimer on the top of it. ”
It doesn’t matter when the disclaimer went up, the article was never peer reviewed or even scientifically reviewed. Mr. Monckton’s falsehoods surrounding this issue are easy enough to see. The question which caused Mr. Monckton to issue this falsehood is a valid one and was not answered by Mr. Monckton. Why won’t Mr. Monckton debate climate issues within the framework of the scientific community? Others, such as Dr. Lindzen, have done this, so the argument that the peer review process is politically exclusionary is without merit.
10
A couple of my other favorite parts of the debate are when Mr. Monckton said central England temperatures can be used as a global proxy for temperature and when Mr. Monckton, while talking about civility, implied that those with whom he disagrees can be equated to another regime which gassed people. Do people here think central England temperatures are a good proxy for global temperatures?
10
Monckton at his brilliant best. An outstanding performance. He can be a little silly at times but on form he is devastating.
10
crakar24…Thanks for the details on the use of the title Lord.
I knew there was a valid reason that Lord Monckton refers to himself as such and you cleared it up wonderfully.
The folks who have so much to gain from Cap & Trade have HUGE amounts at stake and are pulling out all the stops to throw mud and anybody and everybody who is keeping them from creating these tax monstrosities.
10
You did not really listen to it, did you? Monckton did no such things. He commented on those in the Oz press that talked about gassing skeptics. He was not referring to those who disagree with himself, but with those wanting to kill those who disagree with themselves. And in that he is 100% correct.
10
Eric 138:
I’d say some people here would think so, the records http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature represent the longest series of monthly temperature observations in existence
Certainly better than tree rings.
By the way how does one take the global temperature?
10
PhilJourdan, sure did watch it, and what I heard was Mr. Monckton repeating the same discredited misinformation over and over again about climate sensitivity. Mr. Monckton repeatedly referred to himself as an expert on climate sensitivity even though he has never published any scientifically reviewed work on the subject. Mr. Monckton cites Spencer and Lindzen (would be nice if any other scientists would be cited on the subject) but Mr. Monckton’s work contradicts Dr. Spencers. Dr. Spencer claims climate sensitivity to be 1.3 degrees while Mr. Monckton claims, ” it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration TS will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K". Clearly climate sensitivity can not both be under and over 1.
10
Hmm….maybe you could site the misinformation and show the facts that dispute it (not opinions, facts). Me thinks you got your talking points from real Climate instead of watching it since Lord Monckton did not “repeating” any information. The debate was too short and the questions too varied (hat tip to the questioners who for the most part asked good questions).
Eric, when you lie, it is always best to at least lie convincingly.
10
That insurance thing really bugs me.
A better analogy would be if the insurance was actually quite expensive and there is a 90% chance that they will not payoff even in the case of an accident.
Go Lord M!!
Tony
10
Eric – it doesn’t really matter if it’s 1C or `1.3C – either way it’s a long way from the 5.2C that our Government has been advised by Karoly.
10
Hey Diddle Fiddle…… The Puppeteer has control of Australia…
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
10
POLL: Do you think the carbon price is a lost cause for the Gillard government?
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-battle-is-lost-say-experts-20110719-1hn0l.html
Vote against this communist gillard now!
10
PhilJourdan, I am doubting you watched the debate otherwise you would have heard the good-lord repeat his unsupported assertion about climate sensitivity over and over.
janama, you don’t believe it matters that Mr. Monckton uses a source to try to back his position when that source differs from Mr. Monckton by over 30%. Both Mr. Monckton and Dr. Spencer can not be right. Why would he use Dr. Spencer’s work as a source when his own calculations contradict what Dr. Spencer has found? It is humerous that Mr. Monckton got his shots in on modeling but then references a work by Dr. Spencer which is based on a model.
10
Eric:
Seriously, dude, what are you smoking? Is he supposed t say I have published papers but I won’t tell you where they are? Clutching at straws and strawmen much like the demolished Dr Denniss aren’t we?
10
Eric:
It is really difficult to have a scientific debate with someone who clearly does not understand how science works.
Protip: Science debate isn’t just saying “no it isn’t!”
I feel like we are watching the Monty Python debating sketch talking to you. Do you really expect papers about the climate system to come up with identical results? I would be a heck of a lot more suspicious if they did. They aren’t measuring/evaluating things which can be readily ascertained… if they had identical results I, as a former lecturer, would say someone has been caught copying :p The technical word for that is plagiarism.
10
Yes Eric
Clutching at straws indeed! The point is that the climate sensitivity has been overstated. Both Spencer and Monckton can be right on that, even if Spencer’s position is more conservative.
10
Off Topic:
From the Drum, by Barry Cassidy.
Barry nis trying to intice the Government and the people to take a time out, I don’t yhink so.
10
Look which two news and politics videos are the most commented on today:
http://www.youtube.com/news?s=md
There is now a third full vid with over 300 views and one broken up into smaller chunks:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Lord+Monckton+debates+Dr.+Richard+Denniss+&aq=f
10
In regard to the debate I just visited Denniss’s deluded rant over at the drum where I found this.
I left the following reply
I can only hope it makes it through moderation.
10
“By the way how does one take the global temperature?”
From a satellite in space.
10
You are right Mary F @132- I too will drink to celebrate success, and the tears on my cheeks are from laughter!
10
the point of Dr Spencer’s work is that it IS based on empirical evidence accumulated by his satellite data as opposed to the rest of the idiots whose work is based on computer modelling.
10
I watched the debate yesterday, Monckton was great and I loved his impassioned plea to the journos to examine both sides on behalf of those brave men (the miners) who work in the dark so that we might have light
Louis @ 155 you might have seen this already – Warwick Hughes has a guest post by Dr Pat Franks Do We Really Know Earth’s Temperature?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=780#more-780
followed up by this post at WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/02/earth-itself-is-telling-us-there%e2%80%99s-nothing-to-worry-about-in-doubled-or-even-quadrupled-atmospheric-co2/
His conclusion:
10
Wow. I’ll leave you lot to bask in the glow of your Chosen One. It’s been fun, but my time and energy is better spent in the real world. Au revoir.
10
Eric at #148
Eric – Ah, you are looking at the wrong data. Try this. This is the real Aqua satellite data that Dr Spencer used to determine climate sensitivity of 6Wm^-2 (see slope of the RHS graphs, particularly the lapse events in the bottom three). He then cross checked using a simple model which he developed including appropriate assumptions (showing that this can be done if modellers did their jobs properly), and evaluated 18 IPCC models none of which showed the correct lapse rate to applied forcing that was measured by the satellite.
You get a 2XCO2 by dividing 3.7 by the 6Wm^-2. If you want to see why I can link you a paper.
Your argument that Spencer & Braswell 2010 used models to determine 2XCO2 as 0.6 C is falsified. You may like to note that Lindzen & Choi 2011 also directly measured 2XCO2 at 0.7 C.
So, the 2XCO2 of 0.6-0.7 C in the papers that Chris Monckton quoted is directly measured by satellite. Beat that, Tarzan!
I don’t expect you to actually debate this science, my experience is they almost never do since they always lose. Chris Monckton cites the same science I do, and he always wins too, which is why warmist consensusees refuse to debate him. Before you invoke Dr Denniss, I might remind you that the Press Club were forced to offer Chris Monckton a spot after the press were criticing him for weeks, until pressure on them became too much and they had to extend an invite – which the warmist establishment was horrified at: give Chris Monckton exclusive access to the eyeballs of Australia? Can’t do that! So they made it a debate, which was the worst thing they could have done. On ABC TV too. Oh how Mark Scott must’ve winced when he heard how the ABC got mousetrapped into this.
10
Hi Adam Barclay @159. Assume you work at Green Ink (http://www.greenink.co.uk/). I’m sure you brief time here on this blog was quite confronting in terms of your professional work in the ‘real-world’ trying to sex-up less than self-evidently compelling research by helping those who “need to communicate [science] more persuasively?”; particularly your inability to tear down the entire ‘denier’ edifice with the wave of a few hyper-links here on this blog.
10
Another fly-by troll … seagull’s in and flies out so he doesn’t have to face the criticism of his ignorance.
Obvious troll is obvious.
10
Bruce of Newcastle, “You may like to note that Lindzen & Choi 2011 also directly measured 2XCO2 at 0.7 C.”
How could this be directly measured when there was not a doubling of CO2 in the satellite era? Both Spencer and Lindzen achieved their results using models.
10
cohenite @87
Thanks for the link to that paper. Seems like a calm, reasoned approach to the problem using readily available tools by an outside observer beginning from first principles. It certainly would seem to give a ballpark figure for the sensitivity and funnily enough it doesn’t seem to be all that far from Idso’s “natural experiments” paper. Got to love theory backed by observational results.
I’ve always been uncomfortable with radiative transfer calculations on CO2 alone and then H2O alone.
10
Bulldust @162 — actually not a troll, just looking for reasoned discussion. But I see that it’s a bit like trying to discuss the benefits of multiculturalism at a One Nation meeting. I’ll leave you all to it. This is the last from me here, which I’m sure will please you all.
10
Eric at #163
I think you need to cite specifically some basis for your contention, since I gave you a link to the actual satellite data used by Drs Spencer and Braswell to determine outward flow of energy after a climate forcing event. This is called d-i-r-e-c-t m-e-a-s-u-r-e-m-e-n-t. As a scientist I’ve been doing that sort of thing for the last 30 years so I hope I understand direct measurement by now.
Dr Denniss made a whole pile of statements without once citing evidence supporting them, whereas Chris Monckton cited papers with real measurements. I cited the data itself. You, sir, make an unsupported statement which demeans several scientists. Ante up!
If you criticise someone you need evidence, or you are a charlatan and snake oil saleman. You sully your own position and argument.
10
Good God, Almighty!
In “Madjak” dwells a Man after me own Heart!
Thank You, Dear Lord!
Amen!
10
Well my comment DID “getup” at the Drum.
10
Christopher Monckton decimated Dr Denniss IMO.
Denniss didn’t really counter the questions which I might add were targetted mainly at Monckton. A very wry attempt at discrediting him and I think the various Media outlets should look at the employment records of the reporters who actually asked questions and possibly suggest they take up coal mining, because reporters they aren’t.
They took the form of commentators and as such stand to loose a great deal of credibility if they are wrong and most of them were. This is a perfect example of the level of news worthy reporting we have in Australia they seem the be dogmatically trying to denigrate LM but do not do the same to the gods of Climate Change Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut etc etc etc.
At least the Monck suggested that the reporters take a walk from the hot coffee and the Computer screen and go do some research. I dont think the good Dr Denniss would have suggested it until LM said his piece.
And this seems to be the crux of the issue. I think the reporters formulate their decision for or against and once made they indulge in commentary without adequate, or in some cases, any facts. Sure there are a heap of things that LM says which make you occassionally grimace but he at least is saying something. All we get from the reporters is inuendo and poor commentary.
I went and saw LM at Noosa which was a small gathering on a horrible night. He, Dr Bob Carter and Dr Dennis Jensen. All speakers were frank and open to all questions. We didn’t have any warmist’s in the crowd but I doubt that would have mattered as Dr Jensen was hopeful we would have a couple of questions from the other side.
It was a very enjoyable experience and I didn’t find any of the speakers arrogant or condecending and they replied very eagerly to all questions.
I really hope that the Media start telling the facts and stop with ad homs.. but we live in a real world complete with gullible people.
Say YES to an Election now !!
10
This could be significant appeared on the 14th
Solar Wind Changes Atmospheric Pressure over South Korea
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8039&linkbox=true&position=6
This is a good example of other factors that have not been included in ANY analysis so far. Showing how complex planetry atmospheres are and that we dont understand the physical process well and too much ignoring of influences and therefore assumptions leading to ‘zeros’ being applied to parts equations that are used when they cant be ignored. Much physical analysis is full of these assumptions because the equations are very complex and small inputs are often reduced to zero for convenience or to reduce complexity. Nature has no zeros.
10
Pity the ABC didn’t put up the video of the debate. It needs to be universally available – emailed to everyone in Australia.
At least for television, this is the first time we have had the big difference between “carbon Pollution” and Carbon Dioxide succinctly explained, in terms anyone with a modicum of intelligence can understand the difference.
Perhaps that is why Julia for the first time abandoned the term carbon pollution and used the real target term carbon dioxide in her windmill speech – is honesty finally creeping in ever so slowly!! Bring on more open debates between sceptical scientists and those who believe otherwise!! and then let us Vote!! I’d like to see that.
10
ABC News has reported that Port Arthur has been hit by a storm surge which sent sea water up the creek flooding the old penal buildings. Rising sea levels and climate change were of course to blame. They then went on to report that this has occurred only 4 times in the past 50 years!!…4 times in 50 years??? – that makes it a regular occurrence surely. Of course they had to get in the line that we can expect more and more severe surges in the future do to climate change.
10
Fair dinkum; this from the Switkowski thread at Unleashed:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2797922.html
Maria :
18 Jul 2011 5:49:14pm
No,the biggest shift will occur when the following question is asked: do you support nuclear power in Australia if your genetically deformed grand-children will look like Lord Monckton.
Alert moderator [????]
Where’s Adam Barclay and his sensibilities now; come back possum, we need some of your superior preciousness.
10
Janama in 173,
I have found another “sign” of the coming apocolypse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/13/idUS77740+13-Jun-2011+BW20110613
“ATS Euromaster is urging motorists to pre-order cold weather tyres after a meteorologist predicted this winter will “break all records” in terms of snowfall and freezing temperatures”
10
Adam Barclay:
Promises, promises… BTW you drive by, read one side of the debate (Abraham), expect us to address his strawman arguments and think you are hard done by because we call you on it? Think again.
Try reading Monckton’s response to Abraham’s ridiculous attacks before drawing conclusions and assuming we are stupid. The Abraham attacks are old mate, and have been discussed at length at WUWT, here and elsewhere. The man was a useful pawn for the CAGW team, no doubt, someone they could sacrifice to try and smear Monckton with false allegations.
So head back and do some real research. Try reading both sides of an argument before drawing your conclusions. I know it is difficult for many to do, and it is more emotionally appealing to jump on one bandwagon or another without acknowledging the opposition’s arguments. Monckton puts substantial research into his arguments, and most cases where he is picked up on an alledged error it is because his opponents have taken a slide or comment out of context and alledged he said something he did not. Abraham did this repeatedly, as described at length in Monckton’s reply.
You find there is little tolerance for fools that wander in here dropping a single link thinking it is the silver bullet that kills all sceptical debate on climate science. If you really think the debate is that simple, then you clearly do not understand all the issues.
I am sure Monckton makes the odd mistake, the Garnaut slur for instance, but unlike the CAGW team he apologises immediately and adjusts his presentations. That is what a reasonable man does.
This is quite different to the rantings of the lunatics pushing CAGW such as Flannery and Garnaut, whose statements are repeatedly demonstrated to be false, misleading or grossly illogical, but they keep repeating the government mantra.
I have shown, in a previous post on this site, how it is completely unreasonable for Australia to cut GHG emissions unilaterally (for all intents and purposes – a few countries in Europe and NZ don’t count for much), when we don’t even have an above average energy intensity in this nation. It demonstrates economic illiteracy to suggest that we should ahead of the major emitters like China, the US etc.
Here’s a basic fact for you – check the BP energy survey put out recently to check it if you want. China increased it’s coal consumption between 2009 and 2010 by…. wait for it… /drumroll…. more than 3 times Australia’s entire consumption in 2010. We could stop all coal consumption in Australia tomorrow and China will have more than made up for it before Christmas… this year. What we do is irrelevant. We are a pissant country when it comes to GHG emissions.
I went on a little longer than usual… but I DO find blinding ignorance quite irritating.
10
BTW this will all be moot within a year or so… the major economies of the world are heading for dramatic collapse. Perhaps China will emerge from the coming depression as the new economic superpower. I find it difficult to imagine any other outcome at this stage:
http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2011/07/18/three-competing-theories.aspx
There is no way out for the US anymore. They can either take a hit now or a bigger hit later, but they are going down. Europe is already on the ropes.
The timing of the “carbon price” and MRRT could not be worse for Australia.
10
theRealUniverse: @170
2.5 hPa isn’t that small a pressure change at sea level in meteorological terms. The quoted paper says it is small compared to atmospheric pressure of around 1000 hPa but sea level pressure only varies from around 1050 hPa down to 980 or so is 70hPa so the 2.5 hPa change is nearly 4% of normal range. Most of the time 1035 down to 995 or so is the range so it makes over 6% of that.
10
Bruce of Newcastle, from Dr. Spencer’s paper;
“The impact of time‐varying radiative forcing on the diagnosis of radiative feedback
from satellite observations of the Earth is explored. Phase space plots of variations in global
average temperature versus radiative flux reveal linear striations and spiral patterns in
both satellite measurements and in output from coupled climate models. A simple forcingfeedback
model is used to demonstrate that the linear striations represent radiative feedback
upon nonradiatively forced temperature variations, while the spiral patterns are the result
of time‐varying radiative forcing generated internal to the climate system.”
Dr. Spencer’s results are based on modeling.
10
Dumbass Eric somehow believes that all modeling is good or all modeling is bad. Would someone please help Eric?
Whilst helping Eric with the “good Bad” lesson, Please also inform him that skeptics do not all have to agree lockstep in order for their skepticism to be valid.
10
This is a link to bolt
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_julia_the_rest_of_the_world_does_not_want_to_follow/
I normally dont link to bolt directly but there is a few embedded links in the story that i wanted to share and at the same time keep it all in context. The main link is this one:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-20/nauru-s-plea-for-un-action-on-climate-threat-goes-unheeded-1-.html
If it wasn’t for the Ruskies the UN security council would now ne in charge of fighting AGW, the UN could not organise a fist fight in a prison can you imagine if the security council got involved….thank you Russia.
Russia’s reasoning was simple:
Russia’s Deputy Ambassador, Alexander Pankin, referred in his remarks to the Security Council to the “hypothetical nature” of the threat and “lack of empirical evidence” linking carbon emissions to droughts, rising sea levels and other extreme weather patterns.
Here is another link pushing the “security threat”:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/us-climate-un-idUSTRE76J7QY20110720
10
Eric 179,
Dr Spencer’s interpretation of the satellite data uses a model to explain the data. This is standard scientific procedure. His results are the satellite measurements which are then interpreted.
AGW has never been observed (no data) but a belief that in the future it might happen is based on a belief that climate sensitivity is 2-5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and that the GCM’s are actually an accurate model of the climate system. AGW science promoters obtain their “data” from computer modelling, not from observation. Computed data are not observations or raw data.
10
MarkD, thanks for the reply. Maybe you can explain why Mr. Monckton and yourself believe Dr. Spencer’s model is good will other models are bad. Perhaps you could explain as well why Mr. Monckton references as supporting evidence a paper whose results are not only not in lockstep with his own, but contradict his results.
Mr. Monckton referenced 3 papers in support of his repeated assertions on climate sensitivity. First was his own which was not scientifically reviewed. Second was Dr. Spencer’s which contradicts Mr. Monckton’s results. Third was Dr. Lindzen’s which, according to reviewers of it, has significant issues. http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf
A weak case to say the least.
10
Bulldust
Cynic that I am but the last time the totalitarians got into political power was during the Great Depression last century, so I wonder if this economic collapse is being engineered so they can regain power again. I do not easily dismiss Gillard’s core political beliefs of hard left socialism. (You should have heard the snorting ridicule at the National Press Club when Monckton stated that Greenpeace was hijacked by the Marxists; that reaction confirmed Monckton was spot on target – you know you are on target when you start getting so much flak).
10
Eric @ 183
Monckton’s paper on climate sensitiviy was actually requested by the journal in which it was published, and was reviewed by a physicist nominated by that journal before publication. Better do some homework before mangling the facts.
10
Louis Hissink, ” AGW science promoters obtain their “data” from computer modelling, not from observation.”
Not sure what you mean by “AGW science promoters”, but climate science is based on observations including observations which are then used in models. Future climate behavior can not be based on observation because it has not occured yet and so any one trying to discover the most likely future events must model. A model of any use must be based on observation.
10
Louis Hissink, I can only go by what is said and the APS clearly says on the site which Mr. Monckton’s paper is available that Mr. Moncktons’s paper was not scientifically reviewed. Perhaps instead of believing Mr. Monckton without question, you should do some research into what he says.
10
Eric, the difference between Spencer’s model and the IPCC’s models is that Spencer’s works; a model in this sense is an algorithm for interpreting real world data. This has been discussed here many times before but let’s do it again just for you Eric.
The IPCC attributes ACO2 [CO2 from human emissions] as being the forcing agent, F, for the 2XCO2 = 3C scenario, with water vapor the feedback, f, and temperature, t, the parameter for the change; the interaction of these variables is measured by the state vector, S, which would itself change if F has the effect the IPCC alleges. IPCC represents this dynamic thus:
dS/dt=S/f+F
IPCC assumes that f is +ve so if we intergrate by dividing both sides by fS+F, and multipling both sides by f*dt we get:
(S2+F/f)/(S1+F/f)=exp(f*(t2-t1))
The problem with this is because it predicts that as the final value of t, t2, approaches infinity, the value of S2 becomes infinite. This is wrong because if there is a climate forcing in operation, at infinite time, the temperature anomaly should approach its finite equilibrium value even if there is positive feedback.
In layman’s term you can’t have it both ways; either the IPPC forcing formula is correct and there is no limit to the temperature response, that is, the runnaway condition is extant, as Hansen has concluded, or there are constraints.
In respect of those constraints Spencer and Braswell have looked at the issue of boundary conditions to forcing from ACO2:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf
Their equation 2 is:
Cp*T/*t=-^T+N+f+S
The difference with S&B’s equation is that it introduces a term for the stochastic properties of clouds, N and breaks F into -^T and f; f is ACO2 and -^T is a total feedback term which must be negative so that an infinite equilibrium is impossible. S&B ran their equation using observed variations in radiative flux related to random cloud movements; their model is therefore much more realistic than the IPCC’s formula which is limited to temperature and ACO2 forcing. S&B found that in the real world, even assuming a +ve forcing from ACO2, climate senstivity and feedback were much smaller than that relied on for AGW. Given this a tipping point based on ACO2 forcing is not possible.
10
Eric at #179
Eric – Good start, but try reading the rest of the paper. Look at Section 3 on page 2:
The ‘temperature estimates’ are from the same UAH dataset you see every month, since Dr Spencer runs that dataset.
Now look at Figure 3, the data is titled “monthly satellite”. The slope of the lapse rate fit line is “6W^-2K^-1”.
Now maybe this is a model satellite hanging on a piece of string in Dr Spencer’s office. Or it just might be the NASA Terra sattelite in orbit.
What Spencer and Braswell did is they (a) measured the real data (b) did up their own model which matches it and (c) checked how the IPCC models went against real data. Answer – the IPCC models failed appallingly. This is called in the modelling fraternity (of which I’m a paid up member in my particular field) ‘validation’. They validated their model to the real world data which they collected from the Terra CERES instrument and analysed. That is what Figure 3 is. This is what you do with data. This is what you’re supposed to do with models. No one at IPCC has done this, they’ve only smooged their models to fit the temperature record with high sensitivity as an assumption, and whatcha know? As soon as they extrapolate out of range it doesn’t match any more.
You really need to read the whole of a paper mate, rather than just pull the bits out you like.
10
Eric @ 186
If I drop a marble onto an inclined surface I observe that it ALWAYS seems to roll down the slope, and never up it. Having dropped marbles onto inclined surfaces for sixty years now and watched them all roll downwards I feel pretty confident that if I do it some more next year, I can predict the outcome with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Climate appears to vary in 20 to 30 year cycles of warming and cooling. These cycles, in turn, appear to fit into longer cycles of warming and cooling, as demonstrated by the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age respectively.
The severity or mildness of the 20 to 30 year warming and cooling cycles also appears to depend on the state of the Pacific Decadel Oscillation (PDO), the Atlantic Mutlidecadel Oscillation (AMO), and a few other cycles. When these are positive, cooling cycles are milder and warming cycles are hotter. When these are negative, cooling cycles are colder, and warming cycles are milder.
Finally solar activity appears to have an influence on all these factors. When the sun is active (as proxied by sunspots) then PDO AMO etc tend to be positive, and when the sun is quiet then PDO AMO etc tend to go negative.
Based on all these long-established, well-observed FACTS, it pretty easy to predict – as with the marble rolling downhill – that the next 20 or so years are going to very cold, the following 20 – 30 years will improve a bit, and then the following 20 – 30 years will be cold, but not as bad as what is unfolding now.
One does not need to “model” anything. Neither does one need to be a “climate scientist” to be able to apply past observation to the prediction of future events.
10
Bruce of Newcastle, good to see you now admit Dr. Roy Spencer used a model to achieve his statement of climate sensitivity. Getting back to the basis of this thread, is it hypocritical of Mr. Monckton to imply climate models do not show accurate results and then turn around and reference a paper based on a climate model to substantiate his claims?
10
Eric at #183
I draw your attention to my post at #99 which I addressed to you. Which you apparently haven’t read. You certainly haven’t addressed Dr Judith Curry’s analysis of NAS’s extraordinary behaviour towards Prof Lindzen. Dr Curry is about the most neutral arbiter you’ll find, and she is scathing of them. She says:
The journal in which Lindzen and Choi 2011 is not PNAS, it is AJPAS, who did not have any problems with accepting it.
Dr Curry says “the PNAS reviews were actually quite thorough and do not seem unfair to me; they raise many valid concerns”. This is quite fair. She does not opine what would have happened if Prof Lindzen hadn’t moved it to AJPAS. I will opine, by quoting Dr Spencer of his experience:
Tell me Eric again how well peer review is working. Then tell me exactly what “significant issues” you had with Lindzen and Choi 2011 so that we can debate you on it. For if you fail to defend your statement you will have shown by inaction that the proposed carbon tax is a lie, a fraud, an unjustifiable catastrophe for Australian industry and the death for unionised workers’ jobs all over the country.
10
Bruce of Newcastle, are you really asserting that no models in any studies used by the IPCC have been validated? A large accusation. Perhaps you could offer support to your contention.
10
Eric at #191
Troll. I wrote that Dr Spencer and Dr Braswell directly measured lapse rate to climate forcing of 6Wm^-2 using the data from the Terra satellite. You choose to lie about what I wrote. You therefore have proven your dishonesty and the dishonesty of your statements in this blog.
How exactly does this serve your cause? That you lie as your master lies? Fortunately she must face the voters in the next election even if you do not. They do not like liars, as we’ve seen this week.
10
I was under the impression that the models suffer in two ways.
1, They simply do not model ALL the parameters with precision, evidence in support of this would be no warming since Jesus played full back for Nazareth or some such and
2, What is the starting point of the model? In other words you need to synchronise (with want of a better word) the climate model to the real world climate. I believe at time of writing this was an impossibility
If wrong i will stand corrected.
Cheers
10
Eric at #193
Spencer & Braswell 2010, specifically the following: Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12.
10
Eric is a troll, no doubt about that; however in respect of the IPCC models; no, they have been repudiated; see Koutsoyiannis, McKitrick, Fu etc.
10
Louis Hissink@184
Louis, How do you think that they will react a week later when Czech President Vaclav Klaus says something similar?
I wonder how many of them did their homework and checked the marxist manifesto against the Australian Greens policies?
10
I think Richard Denniss is to be congratulated for showing up for the debate, even though he was completely out of his depth it showed at least he was willing to engage. The problem with trying to debate Mockton is that he tends to stick to the science whereas Denniss try’s to make simple argument with gut instinct and generalisations.
Had the whole of Australia seen the debate live on television, the few remaining public who favoured a carbon tax would have had Gillard sent down the mines.
10
Eric the COMMUNIST TRAITOR !
SHAME SHAME SHAME !!!
10
You know what really annoys me???
Warmists/Alarmists that, when argued into a corner, come out with “Are you a climate scientist? No? Then shut up” (or something of the sort).
No, Monckton is not a climate scientist. Neither is Denniss, Gore, or any of the other warmist/alarmists pushing their agenda.
Im not a climate scientist, but I do have a diploma in Aviation which covers a large chunk of meteorology. But most importantly. . . I read. I read and read and read. Not fiction novels but scientific information. At least a couple hours a night. I cant get enough of it. I just have to know facts.
I have read enough about climate change to come to the conclusion that I believe that AGW is wrong. I dont need to be a climate scientist to read and educate myself on the issue. I dont need to be a climate scientist to have an educated opinion on the matter.
Ive always been one to question what Im being told, whether its right or wrong. I think the biggest problem with school education is kids inability to question what they are being presented with.
From the moment a child is born to sometime in their 20’s (and for many, beyond) people are told what to do, what to think, where to sit, how to act, what to believe. . . there is no opportunity to question. No freedom of thought.
So kids are sitting in their class and having their heads filled with climate change. Told to believe it, not to question it.
But, just like Monckton says “Do your homework.” Question everything, do your own research.
It doesnt matter if, at the end of it all, you believe in climate change or not. What matters is if you yourself took the time to come to your OWN conclusion.
And remember. . . people who think they know everything dont know enough to realise they dont know everything.
10
“I am Doubting”???? How about “I doubt”? ESL perhaps? In any event you are wrong again. On all accounts. I did watch it (with the Youtube link since it was a better quality) and guess what? You are wrong about his “unsupported assertion”, you are wrong about “repeat …. over and over”, in short, you are just plain wrong all over. Congratulations – you are going for a record on the most wrongs in one sentence.
10
Adam Barclay:
July 20th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
@ 130
======
Adam,
If you wish to dispute Lord Monckton’s statements, you need to reference someone with more credibility. John Abraham, at best, is a self-serving joke.
see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/07/john-abraham-panics-the-agu-into-forming-climate-rapid-response-team/
10
Adam Barclay
John above links two articles in reference to John Abraham. The second talks about Abraham’s drive to establish the Climate Rapid Response Team to attack and undermine skeptics.
Steve Goddard from real science asked them some pointed questions regarding some of their utterances on the state of the climate.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/my-first-query-to-the-climate-science-rapid-response-team/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/still-waiting-on-the-rapid-response-team/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/my-third-query-to-the-climate-science-rapid-response-team/
To the best of my knowledge Abraham and his team are still unable to answer his queries. The man has no credibility.
10
This is obviously not a site of true sceptics, but instead a place for reenforcement of ones views. The unquestioning acceptance of Mr. Monckton’s performance shows a lack of scepticism as does the reliance on a small subset of available studies. I saw fabrication by Mr. Monckton in the debate and am sceptical of much of what he said. For stating this I am labelled a communist, troll, dumbass and other insults. It is obvious the level of discourse which can be expected from those on this site and obvious the amount of sceptism which there really is by those on this site. Enjoy your echo chamber.
10
Eric @ 205
Strange you should feel that way Eric. At your post #186 you made a claim that:
At my post #190 I challenged that assumption, which you chose to ignore.
Now Eric, I’ve been back and checked my post. Nowhere in it can I find:
Any acceptance (unquestioning or otherwise) of Monckton’s speech;
Any reliance on any sub-set (no matter how small) of available studies;
Any claim that you were a communist, troll, dumbass, or indeed any other kind of insult.
In fact all I can see is a reasoned rebuttal of your claim highlighted above, based on nothing more than experience and observable fact.
Now, I’m sorry, but if this does not represent an example of “true scepticism”, if this is not an acceptable “level of discourse” for you then I’m afraid I fail to understand what is.
Perhaps the level of vitriol you seem to inspire – and then complain of – might be explained by your continuing habit of making stupid, false, and easily refutable statements like the one the one highlighted above, and then ignoring any response to it – which you did – and instead slithering away on some other tangent. Which you also did.
In other words Eric, maybe you inspire exactly the level of response that your level of “acceptable discourse” deserves.
10
Eric
There is a video out there of Monckton interviewing a dewy-eyed greenpeace supporter. He asks her what she would do if she ever found out that Greenpeace disseminated false info. She answers that she would still follow them. That’s blind, stupid faith Eric. Nothing more, nothing less.
Monckton always advises people to be sceptical of everything – including him. I don’t hear that from “believers”. Rather, they demand I accept that the science is settled. This, in spite of all the “uncertainties” which they admit exist. This, in spite of the “grey” activist literature which has found its way into the hallowed library of IPCC “gold-plated peer reviewed” publcations.
If it looks like a fraud, smells like a fraud and acts like a fraud then it is a fraud. If you find this site so awful, the solution is easy. Go away!
10
Warcroft in 201,
I could not agree more, in fact my son is in high school and he told me they were going to watch AIT. I then gave him some literature to read. At the end of the screening the science teacher said “Are there any questions” and after the usual “Gee how can we help” type questions my son asked “Is it true that a UK judge found 22 scientic fraudulent statements in the movie and the only reason why he did not ban it was because Gore would sue him for restriction of trade?”
His teacher responded ” This is true, i am only showing you this movie because i have to” and “I dont expect you to believe what he says its up to you”. In other words Warcroft its not that they dont ask questions its that they dont know what questions to ask because they are indoctrinated not educated.
10
A bit more good news; another brick kicked from the already crumbling foundations.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-panel-votes-bar-climate-funding.html
10
Eric at #205
Eric – I labelled you a troll after you misrepresented my own words to everyone on this blog.
I never label someone such for honestly arguing climate science, politics or toad-wrestling. Your opinion is your own, sceptics respect this. However we will debate with you on your views. Or our views, and we will do so with references. Indeed Chris Monckton gave references, Dr Denniss did not. You can make a judgement on both the behaviour of people contributing to this blog and on the science they cite. I assure you the silent majority watch, and decide, on the basis of what they see.
This is why the polls are so bad for Ms Gillard right now. Perhaps she should look at the science herself.
Therefore I recommend you take this on board and debate in a polite and scientific way. If you do not have the background to do so I can assist by advising of papers you can read or universities you could study at.
10
Eric @ 205 says
Duh dumbass what did you think it would be a reinforcement of YOUR VIEWS?
Naw you are labeled those things because you have done nothing to prove otherwise.
Your post at 205 is what I recognize as the “Troll Death Rattle”. Bye Bye….
10
Hear Hear!
10
Koozzoo News on the starting price, Blood and Gore and more.
10
Hey maybe we can constrain the debate to the following which i pilfered from this site,
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/07/clean-energy-future-advert-count-the-lies/
Government propaganda at its very worst. Let’s go through it:
Lie Number 1: Carbon Pollution. It isn’t carbon and it isn’t pollution.
Lie Number 2: The majority of scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. A manufactured consensus from a politicised organisation (the IPCC) which was formed to find evidence of a pre-conceived conclusion. How much climate change is actually a result of human activity? We don’t know.
Lie Number 3: We can avoid the worst impacts by reducing “pollution”. No we can’t. The carbon tax will do nothing to change the climate.
Lie Number 4: Climate change is predicted to lead to further rises in temperature, rises in sea levels and some extreme weather events becoming more common, making life more difficult. Temperatures and sea levels have been rising slowly for centuries, without any help from man-made emissions. There are no confirmed links to more extreme weather events despite what the media tries to tell you.
Lie Number 5: Countries around the world are already taking action [lists China, USA, India and Europe]. No, they are not. China’s emissions will rise for the foreseeable future despite a few token environmental gestures, India’s carbon tax is $1/tonne, the USA has backed away from any federal climate action leaving just the tiny RGGI, and Europe is a hopeless economic basket case on the verge of collapse, thanks in part to a crippling ETS mired in fraud and corruption.
Lie Number 6: These clean energy sources [solar, wind, tidal and geothermal] are sustainable, renewable, their supply cannot be disrupted by events elsewhere, and they don’t contribute to pollution. None of those energy sources can replace fossil fuels for base-load electricity generation. And wind and solar are “disrupted” when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. Tidal power is non-existent in Australia, and geothermal is so tiny as to be not even worth mentioning. The manufacture of solar panels and rare earth magnets for wind turbines releases millions of tonnes of real pollution into the environment.
Lie Number 7: Developing these new industries means developing new jobs. False. Every fake green job costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and takes away on average 2 – 4 real jobs. Subsidising inefficient, unreliable and expensive alternative energy is like burning $100 bills. The market will decide when “alternative” energy becomes competitive, not the government.
Lie Number 8: Meeting the challenge of climate change means being responsible, staying competitive and Australia continuing to prosper. A unilateral carbon tax does nothing for climate change, it is totally irresponsible, will make Australia less competitive compared to its trading partners, and will damage the economy for no benefit.
Who wants to go first?
10
Eric, if you saw fabrication by Mr Monckton in the debate, then you must be able to describe it so we can check to see whether he did, or not. If you are not prepared to do this, then your comment is nothing other than an ad hominem, and to be simply ignored.
10
Hey Eric, You are on the money mate, this site is totally polarised. To provide some data, of the 215 posts on this thread I could find only two that had registered both ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ votes, and both of these were due to lone upvotes from me (oh and you, MattB and I are the only posts to register ‘dislikes’). Everyone else here is a free thinking skeptic, its just that they all happen to think identically. You’ve got to laugh…
BTW I posted earlier, with questions that nobody was willing to answer. Should I read that as a resignation from this Closed Compact Kernel of free thinkers?
10
Not a groupie @ 216
Speaking for myself this is true I am polarized against dumbasses. But I ask; what did you expect? Did you read some of the older posts and information here before you came to your “snap determination”? Or are you here to just pick a fight?
@124
I somewhat agree with your point here but the subject of AGW has moved well past the time to “exchange clearly written arguments”. Take a look around there is a carbon tax about to be put in place. AGW is now in the political arena. You play differently in the political arena. You use showmanship and Monckton does it well. I accept that you don’t like that Monckton is effective, but as they say: TOUGH!
The rest of your post at 124 is mostly insults and it’s no surprise that people ignored you. BTW it is classic Troll behavior.
10
Hello Not a Groupie @ 216
Presumably you are the night shift. Presumably now we are supposed to pretend that Eric never got around to answering anything meaningful thast was asked of him, and start afresh with you.
So let’s start by showing you up for as the bag full of d^g shit that you are. To quote you:
“BTW I posted earlier, with questions that nobody was willing to answer.”
Truth is, you have only posted once on this thread, at #124.
In that post, far from “questions” (plural) you only asked ONE question which was to denigrate Monckton’s physical disabilities.
You REALLY expected a serious discussion based on that?
And you wonder why you people are losing the debate?
10
Not a Groupie @ 216
What next?
Rubbish Professor Stephen Hawking’s electric chair?
THAT should win you some followers.
10
I watched the debate online, too.
Dr. Richard Denniss demonstrated that he not only does not know either the science or the principles of formal logic, but he’s a quack as an economist in the bargain.
Where the dickens did los warmistas dig up this sorry excuse for a disputant?
10
From Eric: “This is obviously not a site of true sceptics”
You’re right there Eric.
The term skeptic is misused to describe people who know that AGW is fraudulent.
Those of us who are trained scientists don’t see ourselves as skeptics when all we are doing is saying that there is no scientific basis to the CO2 – AGW – IPCC – Labor – Greenpeace – Rising Tide – AlGore alarmism over climate.
It is pure scientific fantasy. At a very simple scientific level the man made AGW – CO2 theme FAILS from the point of view of Theory. At a more practical level, that of measurement, there is a more catastrophic failure. The Real Science is now being brought to public view and it is not being challenged – We Win.
10
memoryvault @219
you suggest I denigrated Monckton’s physical disabilities. Actually my question verbatim was:
“can anybody suggest why Monckton’s supporters cry foul when people interrupt Monckton or joke about his physical disabilities whilst cheering-on Monckton’s ‘shut up child’ responses to Journalists and parodies of Gillard’s accent. Isn’t this hypocritical?”
I have not denigrated Monckton’s physical abilities and deplore such attacks on him as much as I deplore his personal attacks on others. Both are the acts of cowards. I just wonder why you all can’t see Monckton’s behaviour, and your own, as hyprocritical?
10
NAG #222
I believe the custom is as follows:
1. Invite a guest speaker.
2. Allow guest to speak uninterrupted
3. Form opinion of guest speaker.
If the speaker offends you personally by any statement you are free to leave or change the channel. You are not free to interrupt and prevent anybody else from forming their own opinion. That you choose to argue on such a piffling point is also telling. Can’t and/or won’t debate the science so are reduced to minutiae. Just like the shallow question from the female journo at the conference.
It is your side which chose to attempt a shutdown of debate on this important topic. Now that you are losing and losing badly you squeal like stuck pigs.
Get used to it because there’s worse to come.
10
As an ex Science teacher I agree. My 17 year old daughter has never had any Science taught to her in all of her schooling to date Very sad and worrying. Seems the dumbing down may be taking effect!
10
Hey Mark 223,
Sorry I’m new to this particular site although I have known Jo and David for 15 years, but to respond to your comments re “won’t debate the science” I was taking the advice provided to me by of Mark D 217 that “the subject of AGW has moved well past the time to “exchange clearly written arguments””. As he then called me “bag full of d^g shit” forgive me for thinking that this particular blog was not one for exchanging arguments about empirical estimates and boundary value problems.
You state “If the speaker offends you personally by any statement you are free to leave or change the channel.” I disagree, unlike you I believe that people, including Monckton, should not have to endure insults based on their disabilities, and in particular that their only recourse should not be limited to “leave or change the channel”. I believe human rights should always be upheld.
My point is that in my reading of the discussions on this threat its apparent that bloggers on this site routinely employs intimidation, insults and bullying behaviour to reinforce their own beliefs and to ward off those who present a dissenting view. I would suggest that this is not the hallmark of true skeptics.
10
NAG
Your smart@rse mate Eric blew in here not in a spirit of genuine inquiry but with comments that reeked of snark right from the beginning. Now you’re squealing! You don’t have to stay, you know.
10
NAG @ 225
We “skeptics” (for wont of a better term) are those who for the last 20 years have been labelled “deniers” (with holocaust implications), classified as having a “mental illness” and being “inferior”, (with much the same implications), threatened with “Nuremberg style” trials” (with much the same implications), threatened with confinement to concentration camps (with much the same implications), and demands that we be “tattooed” (with much the same implications), and “gassed” (with much the same implications), not to mention being subjected to “Salem style witch-hunt trials” and ritual burning at the stake.
These are all documented claims for action by YOUR SIDE as suitable actions against we “unbelievers”. All without a murmur of dissent from the likes of you and our resident trolls.
And now you are surprised and your sensibilities are shocked that we don’t want to “play nice” now that the wheels are falling off your CAGW scam and you cut-throats are on the receiving end of a bit of “intimidation, insults and bullying”.
Given that you monsters are already responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and given that you are now going to be responsible for the deaths of tens if not hundreds of millions of people, I’m actually looking forward to an end to the “intimidation, insults and bullying”, and a start to the REAL retribution.
I’m too old to play an active part in what is going to happen now, but when they (hopefully) introduce the guillotine for people like you I’ll be there in the crowd with my ball of wool and knitting needles, cheering.
10
Geez memoryvault 227, its hard to compete with balanced, reasoned arguments like that. Don’t forget to take your benzodiazepines or you might go over the edge. But thanks for that spray, from now on I’ll be copying and pasting that as a low-tide mark for the quality of deniers arguments. At least you don’t pretend to be rationale (or even sane), however I did think that Jo claimed this site had something to do with science….
And Mark, yes I think I will move on. I came to this site looking for a transcript of the Monckton-Dennis debate, but feel like I’ve stumbled into the set of Deliverance.
10
At 8:53 PM on 23 July, Not a groupie claims to believe that:
…and asserts that in Not a groupie‘s
Not a groupie has a terribly screwed-up idea of just what “human rights” really are.
Let me clarify this matter for Not a groupie.
Human rights are primarily the negative rights of the individual to go about unimpaired by violent aggressors in the enjoyment and other uses of his life, his liberty, and his property.
Secondary to (and dependent upon) these negative rights are positive rights secured under explicit or implicit contract in a society devised to provide for a division-of-labor economy.
All societies are so devised, no matter what other characteristics they may demonstrate.
Unless you have entered into some sort of contractual relationship with the participants and administrators of a forum such as this one, Not a groupie, you have absolutely NO “human rights” to be received politely, and when you are verbally – and remember that word: verbally – slagged by way of “intimidation, insults and bullying behaviour,” your “rights” have not been violated in any way at all.
Gender notwithstanding, I admonish you to “man up.”
Or quit participating in the exchange of comments in venues such as this one.
10
Not a groupie
A couple of things stand out. The tail end of this thread has soured and your contribution is obvious.
You say
We all for the most part are far more civil than you have been. Claiming you have known Jo and David for x years does not give you licence to tar and feather with a broad brush. I suggest the last post from memoryvault with ball of wool and knitting needles, cheering has as much to do with your own language as anything else.
For example:
You suggest Monckton should do the same (exchanged clearly written arguments that were specific and testable) if he wants to engage in science rather than the media circus of which he is so critical and contemptuous. What’s this then if not clearly written, specific and testable?
You say you came to this site looking for a transcript of the Monckton-Dennis debate. Why not write one yourself? Watching and listening might help as well.
10
MV #227 you are an absolute nutter, you know that. You are clearly a psychopath.
10
MattB @ 231
You people want to put we dissenters on trial for “denialism”, lock us up, brand or tattoo us, and “gas” us as a “final solution” to our dissent.
But I’m the nutter because I’m not going to let you people forget you’ve said these things?
You people have already killed millions with your effective banning of the use of DDT in Africa, killed millions more with your support for the diversion of food to the manufacture of biofuels, and are now in the process of ensuring the wholesale slaughter of millions more as the planet cools with clearly inadequate energy generation capacity.
But I’m the psychopath because I look forward to the day of legal retribution for your continuing genocidal mass-murder?
10
NAG @ 225,
Excuse me but I did not call you a “bag of dog S— at 217. In fact I think I was pretty civil to you in spite of your insults @ 124.
Retract?
10
And so it does, as you could have easily found out by reading any of the background information Jo keeps linked on the home page.
So, why is it that you have yet to make a scientific argument? Perhaps you expected us to reply with mathematical formulae to snark and ad hominem?
10
[…] Christopher Monckton debated during a National Press Club in Canberra final July, he showed accurately since a fans of a synthetic disaster are so fearful of […]
10