No debate for Monckton
August 4th, 2011 at 8:41 am by David FarrarIsaac Davison at NZ Herald reports:
Prominent climate sceptic Christopher Monckton has arrived in New Zealand for a series of public talks, but his hosts are struggling to find a platform for his views.
Scientists approached to challenge the hereditary peer say debating well-established facts about climate change is a backward step which is bound to mislead the public.
Belief in man-made global warming has plummeted in recent years for a number of reasons. One of them is the arrogance of the scientists who say things like debating the science is a backward step, and refuse to do so.
Green Party MP and climate change spokesman Kennedy Graham, who was invited to challenge the Englishman, said there was no longer a debate about greenhouse gases.
Yes there is.
I actually accept the science that the more greenhouse gas emissions you have, the warmer it will get. I also think a price on carbon is a sensible thing to do. But my God I despair of the likes of Dr Graham who declare there is no longer a debate, when a massive proportion of the population do not accept the linkages.
You win people over by debating. If Monckton uses cherry picked facts, then you point that out. Why should anyone listen to people unwilling to debate?
Related posts:
- Global Warming on hold until 2015 claim Germans
- Free speech – but only for some
- AP on Climategate e-mails
- Climate Change Scepticism
August 4th, 2011 at 8:43 am
This is real funny coming on the heels of ‘I won’t debate anyone but Phil Goff’.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:49 am
Kennedy Graeme’s revelations come directly from Gaia so no debate is necessary.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:50 am
oiy xy 8 43 Who is this goff guy you wont debate
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:57 am
Climate science is not settled until they can tell me tomorrows weather with greater than 50% accuracy
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:57 am
The reason why the alarmists won’t want to debate Monckton is simple – their theory has been debunked.
These same alarmists are acting like school kids who hold their hands over their ears and shout “I can’t hear you” when they don’t want to hear the truth.
No surprises.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Can someone name one field of natural science which is completely settled, in which mankind’s knowledge is absolute, and nothing else could possibly be discovered, questioned, overturned, or challenged?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Good on you, DPF. Now all you have you do is convince your incompetent minister Nick Smith, a firm believer in global warming and father of the dreadful tax, the ETS.
Ask him to debate Lord Monckton.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:01 am
But surely the Greens wouldn’t lie??
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Monkton can be accused of cherry picking however no more that those whose data was exposed in the Climategate emails and the over 4500 changes to Wikipedia articles.
Vote:I happily wear the tag SCEPTIC – i am not 100% convinced either way and am therefore sceptical.
Here is what I believe I know (in no particluar order):
Global warming moved to climate change to climate disruption syndrome
Carbon is one of the most important ingredients of life especially CO2
Gore’s movie has had a huge number of holes run through it
Whenever the UN is involved I get suspicious – e.g. the very low numbers of scientists on the IPCC and the very high number of policy wonks
This is still only a THEORY – See NASA revelations last week
We are taxed on a theory – mind you the churches have been doing it for centuries.
Huge amounts of money have been used based on a theory.
WHY WONT THEY DEBATE THIS?
August 4th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Monckton won’t do an on-line debate – the reason being his cherry-picking of facts and distortions of the truth will be quickly outed. He’ll only do a stand-up debate in front of a crowd, where he has the advantage of his showmanship and the fact that climate science is so complex that those he is debating will usually not have the details at their fingertips to be able to immediately refute his misrepresentations in that forum.
The place for debating science is in scientific journals, and nothing Monckton has ever produced has a snowball’s chance in hell of being published in one.
What’s more, Monckton is litigious. When Professor John Abraham of the University of St Thomas, Minnesota gave his crackpot assertions a point-by-point debunking last year, Monckton’s response was to claim US$110,000 in libel damages and ask Abraham to issue an apology, a retraction, and to remove the critique from all public places.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Its all a Papist plot.. at least the arguments the warmists use are identical to the Virgin Birth.. its an article of faith, and you get excommunicated if you challenge it.
JC
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Why should anyone listen to people unwilling to debate?
Because they have control of government and will take your money regardless. When they talk, we get to listen ultimately at the point of a gun.
It annoys me intensely that warmists are allowed to get away with saying their opponents ‘deny’ (awful word) warming, or deny any connection between carbon output and temperature. Nobody or almost nobody does, certainly not Monckton. The plain implication of such disingenuous tactics from warmists is that the emperor has no clothes: the models are contrived, the data selective and dirty, the community is secretive, and the research process is incapable of recognising truth.
But we all get to pay more taxes because of this nonsense. So yes, I’m listening to Mr Graham with my wallet.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:06 am
A debate needs effective participants. A good example was the informed discussion last weekend between Robert Winston and Peter Gluckman.
It is pointless asking a scientist to debate with Monckton, as Monckton is not a scientist. There is no one to debate him becasue we lack in this country an anti-Monckton ie, a self-tutored, self-proclaimed ‘expert’. No one with reputable views cares to debate him as that simply lends an air of credence to his loopy views.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:07 am
“The place for debating science is in scientific journals, and nothing Monckton has ever produced has a snowball’s chance in hell of being published in one. ”
Yes and we see from the leaked emails why it can be quite difficult for the non-believers to get published. (Ignoring the fact Monckton isnt really a scientist and therefore not likely to be published or seek to be published).
The science is settled, the hockey stick is real, none of the data is faked, there was no conspiracy…..yeah right.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:09 am
ben reckons ‘deny’ is an awful word yet uses the term ‘warmist’ in a pejorative sense. Ha ha.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:11 am
queensfarmer said…
Can someone name one field of natural science which is completely settled, in which mankind’s knowledge is absolute, and nothing else could possibly be discovered, questioned, overturned, or challenged?
Umm!!! To the best of my knowledge is none. Newtonian mechanics is false, ie, it is based on false assumptions of the existence of absolute frame of reference. Is it useful? Definitely, because we use it in our everyday life to design things that we need for our survival (cars, aircrafts, bridges, etc,…). Is it the true representation of the physical reality? Nope. How about General Relativity (GR)? Some of its limitations have been exposed in recent decades and physicists have been extending it to account for its shortcomings (as Quantum Gravity). Quantum Mechanics (QM)? Again, its shortfall has been exposed for some decades now, which again, it has been extended to account for those shortcomings. String Theory claims to bridge and unify GR & QM. Their usefulness is unquestionable, however to claim that those laws are the true representation of physical reality is something that one cannot say for certainty that it is.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Or as Danyl puts it over at the Dim Post:
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:14 am
mike how many politicans who DEMAND we listento them on the issue are scientists?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:14 am
I actually agree with Toad on one point, which is that I am pretty sure debating is a poor platform for resolving anything on this matter. Evolutionary scientists are reluctant to debate creationists not out of fear of being shown up (ha!) but because in a debate a creationist can make one of their ludicrous points in a neat soundbite (“what part of the bacterial flagellum is expendable? Ah ha, Goddidit”) while a response may require much longer. i mean explaining a process by which a bacterial flagellum did evolve and the various pieces of evidence could take hours. A creationist can make their vaporous points in seconds.
Now, Monckton is no climate creationist, but nevertheless it is relatively easy for someone in his position to poke holes and ask questions, and relatively hard to mount a case in response. It could take hours to epxlain the process by which CRU completely cocked up all its data, but only seconds to point the travesty out. This is true regardless of the relative merits of the two sides. So I can understand the reluctance of the
Vote:scientistswarmists to debate and I do not think that is a reasonable indication of the merits of their case.August 4th, 2011 at 9:15 am
If we want to read the dimpost we can go there. You been reduced to being a link whore troll now toad?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:15 am
toad Says:
“What’s more, Monckton is litigious. When Professor John Abraham of the University of St Thomas, Minnesota gave his crackpot assertions a point-by-point debunking last year, Monckton’s response was to claim US$110,000 in libel damages and ask Abraham to issue an apology, a retraction, and to remove the critique from all public places.”
to be continued………..
What do you do when someone speaks against your faith, sounds authoritative, well informed, and backs everything up with lots of evidence? If you’re sane, you change your mind.
If you are John P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, you write to a few select scientists distorting what your opponent said, and then collect the infuriated responses. Abraham went on to assemble a list of things Christopher Monckton didn’t say, complained about things he didn’t cite (even if he did and it’s printed on his slides), pretended he couldn’t find sources (but didn’t take ten minutes to ask), and created a litany of communication pollution in an effort to denigrate Monckton’s character.
The untruths and fabrications have come back to bite him.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:16 am
I almost think climate change is a missing the point as far as hydrocarbon uses are concerned. The global economy needs to fix the energy deficit; we’ve been living on a global energy savings account since the industrial revolution. An added benefit would be changing the dynamic in the middle east, reduce western interference, stabilize that whole region and bring some accountability to some of the regimes there.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:17 am
Hey mikenmild – the minute the term warmist develops a holocaust connotation I’ll stop with it.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:17 am
I think you dont understand who Monckt’on is.
He’s the guy claims to be a member of the House of Lords, but isn’t.
He’s the guy who claims to have developed a cure for pretty much every disease, but won’t share his results
He’s the guy who claims to be a Nobel laureate, but isn’t
He’s the guy the champions “free speech” on climate change but tried to get someone fired for showing him up
He’s simply not credibly. And a real scientist sharing a stage with a loon like that creates the impression that really is a scientific debate about whether climate change is happening at all.
Worse yet, these sorts of debates are very asymmetrical, because scientists have to stick to the truth whereas ‘sketpical’ folks can make up a fact a minute. A real climate scientists debating Monckton would be like a real evolutionary biologist debating a creationist – and every bit as helpful.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:20 am
I remember listening to an interview conducted by Kim Hill with a creationism theory advocate Stephen P Meyer, who also happened to be an excellent debater. He had a reasonable answer for everything, backed up by research and it became clear to me why it is that so many Americans reject the theory of evolution.
All you need to do to convince someone of something, is to take what they want to believe and give it some semblance of plausibility, even if the premise is quite ridiculous.
Monckton is reputedly a very good debater, so unless you are a far better debater, it would be a mistake to take him on, even taking into consideration the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting AGW. Climate science is complex and esoteric, so 99% of an audience would be out of their depth almost immediately, regardless of the validity of the arguments proposed.
Secondly, Monckton is not a scientist, so from an academic point of view, why would a climate scientist wish to engage with him?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:21 am
MM I would have thought Salinger was a self-tutored, self proclaimed ‘expert’. And has NIWA yet released the raw data that Salinger used to proclaim that warming in NZ was increasing at a surprisingly high rate. Or is it sill buried?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Toad is right – this isn’t about having a scientific debate – it’s about showmanship. I recently critiqued an ‘expert’ at a forum and he cited evidence to back his view – so I went away and looked up his source and found it said the opposite to what he claimed. Of course, by the time I’d done that, it was too late to refute him in that forum.
People like Monckton are very careful to choose their fora to suit their style of debate – ones where rhetoric hold sway and facts aren’t immediately able to be checked.
And why should anybody debate him? I’m a pretty opinionated chap, happy to engage in public debate, but that doesn’t give me the right to demand people discuss my pet subjects publicly with me.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Apart from the creationist similarity, the other parallel I was think of was ‘historians’ such as David Irving vs actual historians. An example would be someone who thinks there was an ancient civilisation in NZ seeking to debate an actual expert in NZ archaeology – it just wouldn’t happen.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:25 am
Mikenmild said…
a self-tutored, self-proclaimed ‘expert’.
Well Einstein was a self-tutored expert. He learnt (multi-dimension) Tensor Calculus in order for him to formulate his General Theory of Relativity. Without that, he would have been hopeless. Also, he taught himself the discrete nature of light/radiation from the work of Max Planck & others before him, which enabled him to establish the quantum nature of light. He learnt statistical mechanics (brownian motion) on his own that enabled him to establish the existence of atoms. All those ground breaking discoveries culminated in his publications in 1905 of 3 famous papers. Special Relativity, Brownian Motion and Photo-Electric Effect. He won the Nobel Prize for the Photo-electric effect. All his inventions were his own work and he didn’t have a University supervisor to help him. All on his own via self-tutored.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:30 am
ben: i mean explaining a process by which a bacterial flagellum did evolve and the various pieces of evidence could take hours.
Well Ben, obviously you can point me to a credible attempt? And secondly, a story not a fact makes.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:30 am
If climate change science is settled then why are we paying morons like Dr Graham.
What does he do all day then?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:33 am
Science is all about open enquiry and debate – it is never settled
And any scientist who claims that it is has foregone the title “scientist” in my books, they have surrendered to political advocacy and expediency.
As for smearing Lord Monckton rather than debate him – well isn’t that a typical left wing response.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:35 am
Aaaaaaah.
So good to see ‘shoot the messenger’ is alive and well.
What is most surprising of all is the realisation that the vast majority of the most vehement global warming cultists are also atheists.
I know where I’d rather put my faith.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:37 am
The reason is simple. Monckton has already been widely debunked. He has an entire section of Skeptical Science dedicated to him. He claims to have a cure for cancer and AIDS (or some similar equally ludicrous claims). He had to have the House of Lords issue a cease and desist letter for his claim to be a member of the House of Lords.
This is the problem, you can’t really find a skeptic for which this is not true. All of the high-profile skeptics who are actually scientists: Spencer, Singer, Carter, Plimer, have made their argument and lost on the grounds of the facts. It’s no longer the time for debates, but for documentaries which state simply the facts about the case. I recommend Climate Denial Crock of the Week.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:40 am
Falafulu
As the saying goes, Monckton is no Einstein. And at least Einstein actually won a Nobel Prize, unlike Monckton who pretended he had won one.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:41 am
Mikenmild – Robert Winston and Peter Gluckman are scientists, but neither are experts in the field of child development and psychology, so the discussion lacked real expertise.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:43 am
Climate “debate” seems to have degenerated into name calling – deniers and warmists/alarmists.
Sensible debate is less likely than proving or disproving climate change.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Scott
Good point, but their main contribution, I felt, was a commitment to the importance of evaluation and moving from that to what works. I think their level of expertise was sufficient for a discussion that is not really about child development per se, but more about what the community needs to do to better support parenting.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:46 am
I’ve got no problem with nobody wanting to debate Monckton, that’s their right. Similarly people have the right to point out controversy about whether he is a ‘Lord’ and what his scientific pedigree is.
I have a problem with people trying to shut down his freedom of speech, and those who would try to bully others who want to hear him speak.
Freedom of speech.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:48 am
I do not know the current definition of a scientist buy Monckton is a mathematician and a mathematician with specific expertise in modelling.
He was also science policy adviser to Maggie Thatcher’s government where is job was to review the quality of the science being put to cabinet as a basis for policy.
The IPCC theories are based on models so as an expert on mathematical modelling Monckton is quallified to debate the topic. He may not be an atmospheric scientist but then, the atmospheric scientists are not experts in modelling.
Vote:THe models are really basic. Skeptics are often called “flat earthers”. The irony is that the IPCC models assume a flat earth.
August 4th, 2011 at 9:48 am
Samv, whenever anybody produces work that contradicts “the sky is falling” narrative the AGW crowd a peddling out come the “debunkers” quite often wackos themselves.
Famous case Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Astrophysicists, no less – with impeccable credentials.
My goodness there a thousands of papers published in learned journals every year and the majority are crap – so why a huge tizz over one particular paper in a reasonably obscure journal?
You know why – this paper showed the whole AGW thing to be a crock and therefore the mob was roused to “discredit” it and its authors.
Disgusting and totally unscientific behaviour!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Adolf Fiinkensein (2,063) Says:
August 4th, 2011 at 9:35 am
“What is most surprising of all is the realisation that the vast majority of the most vehement global warming cultists are also atheists.”
Hardly surprising really Adolf. It comes down to being able to think critically and objectively. Praise Gaia
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Gee were was every one last nite
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:54 am
No he didn’t – he was mocking the award of the Nobel Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore.
You wanna put Al Gore in the same league as Einstein?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Owen McShane
Monckton was not a science advisor; he worked on economic policy. He has a degree in classics.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:56 am
mikenmild
I take your point. I was being pedantic. Robert Winston is also able to convey ideas effectively, whereas, a more academic approach may miss the mark.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:02 am
“I do not know the current definition of a scientist buy Monckton is a mathematician and a mathematician with specific expertise in modelling.”
Is he? He has qualifications in classics and journalism, nothing past high school level in maths. He published a bunch of Sudoku puzzles and a couple of other mathematical puzzles – of a high degree of complexity – but what is is expertise in mathematical modelling?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Toad is right – this isn’t about having a scientific debate – it’s about showmanship.
Congratulations Sherlock.
The problem is that the existing show doesn’t like competition.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Lord Monckton is being interviewed on Newstalk 1ZB after 10qm today.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:07 am
No he didn’t – he was mocking the award of the Nobel Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore.
So you mean to say that like Crosby Textor, Palin, Bush, Key et al the left lied about someone they don’t like?
I’m shocked, truly shocked.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Toad woul dhave us believe that a public debate is no place to discuss the science of climate and temperature. But the Green’s blog is apparently, as long as you are all on the same side.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:09 am
There is an excellent article and discussion on the “consensus” here:
Vote:http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/16/manufacturing-consensus/
August 4th, 2011 at 10:11 am
PG said…
deniers and warmists/alarmists.
The use of the word denier in relation to climate science debate is a modern invention by warmists solely for the purpose to denigrate those with opposing views (including skeptical climate scientists).
Einstein was the chief denier of Quantum Mechanics (QM) theory up until the day he died. But his Physics Nobel Laureate opponents (Neil Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, Paul Dirac – dub the Copenhagen Group) at the time didn’t label Einstein and his other fellow Physics Nobel Laureate deniers Erwin Schrödinger and Louis de Broglie as deniers. WHY? Because they were open to critiques and accept that science can only be advanced via having opposing views. It won’t advance via calling them deniers.
The scientific sparing between the proponents of the Copenhagen Interpretation of the theory of QM (Bohr, Heisenberg and others) with the QM denier group (Einstein, Schrodinger & others) culminated in the Solvay Conference debate in early 1930s, where Einstein (with coauthors Podolsky and Rosen) presented their paper on Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox.
So, the question to the warmists. Why do you label skeptical climate scientists as deniers? Can you also label great scientific intellectuals as Einstein a denier? If not, then why not?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Some years ago I posed a question on-line to the effect of surely there were arguments either side and asked for more information. I naively thought this would result in details as to the science of man made climate change. Oh how foolish my younger self was. I was basically told there was no argument and I was a heretic even suggesting there was.
If the science is as settled and strong as we are told there is then why can’t at least one scientist, try and get one that can use little words, be wheeled out every time there is a challenge to explain to the masses why that challenge is wrong. It cannot be that hard.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:12 am
While I may or may not agree that the science is settled, what we should then do is most certainly not settled, and is very much up for public debate.
To me, that is the debate we must have – are we prepared to destroy our economies and throw billions back into poverty “just in case” something goes wrong with the climate? Especially since if we *didn’t* throw away our economies we’d have more than enough money to deal with the predicted consequences (some of which are actually quite good).
Wait, did I suggest that that debate was settled? Sorry, my bad.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:16 am
I said…
scientific sparing
but meant to be:
scientific sparring
Sam Buchanan said…
He published a bunch of Sudoku puzzles and a couple of other mathematical puzzles – of a high degree of complexity – but what is is expertise in mathematical modelling
Sam, didn’t you know that NASA chief warmist Dr Gavin Schmidt got his PhD in Mathematics? Is he a climate scientist, a physicist or a mathematician? I would be keen to know your answer. Do you understand the boundary in physical science or not?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Mikenmild: “It is pointless asking a scientist to debate with Monckton, as Monckton is not a scientist.”
What shallow reasoning. On that basis I have to agree with everything that John Key says because I’m not a politician. Or what the Pope says because I’m not a bishop.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Call me sceptic, I don’t care, but I am a bit wary of people walking around with signs “The End is Nye”. If those people then start to label those who don’t toe the line as heretics, deniers, terrorists and worse, the whole ‘movement’ starts to look like one of those crazy religious cults.
Vote:I am with “wreck1080”. Those scientists predicting Anthropogenic Global Warming\Climate Change\Climate disruption are the same ones that can’t even predict the weather accurately from one day to the next.
And..
The claim that they have proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming is disingenuous. The Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory (Yes, it is a theory!!) is based on computer modelling, not on proof.
“Garbage in- Garbage out”.
August 4th, 2011 at 10:24 am
scrubone
You are right – that’s where the debate needs to be.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:25 am
berend you embarrass yourself. Have you tried google? How’s this
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Excuse the insult, but you and your ilk are pathetic. If God is watching he is surely embarrassed by your rampant dishonesty. What faster way to turn people away from God than to follow such obvious trickery as you do. /rant
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Other_Andy: It is amusing as a Christian to make that observation. It used to be that Christians were the ones predicting doom and gloom, and the atheists mocked. Now it’s the atheists doing the predicting.
God certainly has a sense of humour
calendar girl’s point is a good one. You have to be able to justify your field to non-specialists.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:27 am
Or what the Pope says because I’m not a bishop.
Calendar Girl: actually I think that is precisely how the church sees it!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:27 am
The debate is over in one respect: nobody is really going to do anything about AGW.
Oh, they’ll be silly little exercises like the ETS and carbon taxes in various places around the world. But they’ll be sops, moving money from one group to another and perhaps even adding a small amount to the tax revenue pile of government but having no real effect, for the simple reason that few voters will ever be (or ever were) willing to wear the increase in energy costs that would be required to make any real difference.
Science wedded to engineering and capitalism will bring about incremental changes to how we produce and distribute energy and while they’re small changes they will compound over decades to make far bigger differences than any silly government scheme that tries to push faster.
I’d have thought that in the wake of the collapse of the Copenhagen deal, warmists would have figured this out by now but since they have not let me leave you with two takes on the “problem”.
First, if we could wind back global CO2 production to that of 1960 (and remember that global GDP is about three times larger than in 1960), and if we could then hold it at that level for the next 90 years – we would still double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100.
Second, quoting Peter Huber:
I’d like to persuade people that we can’t override these facts with government – at least with anything short of a global authoritarian government – but if the failures of AGW initiatives in the last few years have not convinced them then nothing will. So I guess I’ll just continue to watch the Kabuki dance, both nationally and internationally.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:29 am
Falafulu Fisi – no I didn’t know Gavin Schmidt had a PHD in Maths, and I haven’t a clue why you think this is relevant. I asked what reason there was to call Monckton a mathematician. Pretty simple question, I’d have thought and nothing to do with Schmidt.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:31 am
True to form the lefties come out and attack the man not his arguement.
Here is Monckton speakin at the Press Club. He is very good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6cnPLcrtA
“I actually accept the science that the more greenhouse gas emissions you have, the warmer it will get”
DPF- good news for you then. Despite CO2 rising over the past 15 years the Temperature has hardly moved, in fact as James Hansen from GISS (a true warmist) said, “the rises are statistically insignificant”. (he was referring specifically to 2010 which is widely touted as the warmist year yet)
Current Peer Reviewed research is showin that our Climate is more likely to be insensitive to CO2 than the Models predict.
Also heat is escaping to space more than they thought as our climate goes through its cycles.
“New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011
There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is
Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.”
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
Not only does the atmosphere release more energy than previously thought, it starts releasing it earlier in a warming cycle. The models forecast that the climate should continue to absorb solar energy until a warming event peaks. Instead, the satellite data shows the climate system starting to shed energy more than three months before the typical warming event reaches its peak.
“At the peak, satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained,” Spencer said.
Now argue against that Toad. You should look across the Tasman and note that the Carbon Tax is going to destroy the Greens.
Vote:Btw Carbon is different from CO2……
August 4th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Falafulu Fisi (1,160) Says:
“Einstein was the chief denier of Quantum Mechanics”
Einstein’s postulation on light quanta was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics, and he never denied that the experimental data and analysis showed that quantum theory works. He did, however, reject the notion of ‘uncertainty’, and spent the last half of his life trying to show that a particle’s position and angular momentum could be known simultaneously.
This doesn’t make him a denier, in the sense that it is used to describe the climate change skeptics. You flatter yourself.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Excuse the insult, but you and your ilk are pathetic
So he asks a question and you answer and then insult him.
Classy
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:34 am
tom
I tend to agree with you, it is highly unlikely that any effective global agreement to restrict emissions will evercome into being. Collectively, that means that humanity has decided to accept the risks of global warming. It seems likely that improving technologies could make some difference – time will tell.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:37 am
The debate is over in one respect: nobody is really going to do anything about AGW.
Correct. The Chinese simply aren’t stupid enough to join in the “hey, let’s all shoot ourselves” exercise. Without them and India the entire point is gone. Heck, I read somewhere that emissions actually went down under Bush – cos they moved the factories to China.
What annoys me is that the entire exercise has taken so much effort away from things like cleaning up beaches etc – things that actually make a real, demonstrable difference. It’s the rubbish that *doesn’t* get into landfill that causes the biggest problems. the Green movement simply doesn’t seem interested in that anymore.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:43 am
How can you confidently predict technology and money will always come to the party? Especially when we know that the population is increasing and many resources are diminishing.
Can you predict the future better than climate scientists or something?
I’m sure you are at least partially right, but that probably isn’t enough. You seem to have a lot of faith in always being able to keep ahead of the problems.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:44 am
Given that that is one of the foundations of QM I’d say that equates to being a “denier” – if his cohorts had been disrespectful enough to so label him.
But then they were scientific giants not politicised pygmies.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:45 am
The correct term is “Climate Change” and we have to accept the “risk” because we have no choice. And the reason we have no choice is that climate change has always been a feature of this planet and was occurring long before there were even people and will be occurring long after we have gone.
And despite all the pointy head pontification there is absolutely nothing any politician can do to change this. But what politicians can do (and are exceptionally good at) is primp and posture over it and use it to increase their power and control over people, as well as line their pockets and those of their mates.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Surly as this is a political blog the politics are more important National is most at risk from the sizable proportion of its voters who have some degree of “green” philosophy Play with the Fairfax polls previously posted on this blog and you will see wot I mean .The Greens at present inhabit the high ground If they split into green and socialist party’s they will impact on the Nats voter base
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:48 am
I think it makes sense politically for the Greens to treat this guy like a fringe nutter who doesn’t deserve their time; which I guess is quite similar to Key’s approach in refusing to debate the Greens and other minor parties.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:49 am
You canstudy mathematics in an English University it will be within a Classics degree.
Just as you can study maths within an Arts degree here.
Monckton has spent most of his life analysing models and his work for the Thatcher government was mainly about modelling of the economy etc because that was the Golden Age of the emergence of mathematical models (econometrics) of shaping national policy.
Of course modelling of the macro-economy has lost much of its credibility in recent years.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:51 am
Not me, I know our civilization will collapse when we fail “to keep ahead of the problems” and it will happen. It is only a question of when.
And I also know humanity will become extinct when collectively we fail “to keep ahead of the problems” and this to will happen and is only a matter of when.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:51 am
scrubone (828) Says:
August 4th, 2011 at 10:12 am
“are we prepared to destroy our economies and throw billions back into poverty “just in case” something goes wrong with the climate? Especially since if we *didn’t* throw away our economies we’d have more than enough money to deal with the predicted consequences (some of which are actually quite good).”
You may be happy to deal with these possible consequences if they arise. I doubt the Dutch or Bangladeshis or anyone in a relatively low lying area will be happy to take that gamble. A lot of wasteful use of carbon can be stopped without affecting productivity. That’s a start at least. Making carbon more expensive provides more incentive not to waste energy, as well as to find viable alternatives.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:58 am
I doubt the Dutch or Bangladeshis or anyone in a relatively low lying area will be happy to take that gamble.
I know dutch people. Don’t ever suggest that a Dutchman can’t deal with high water – it’s a matter of national pride.
In fact, I have often said that if we are serious about believing in future climate change then we ought to be sending engineers *now* to Holland to discover how they do it before the rush starts.
As for Bangladesh, I suspect they’d be very, very much happier to have the money spent now on climate research and lobbying as aid – because it might help their real problems, that exists right now.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:59 am
The headings on Monckton’s rap sheet include:
Being a “Snake Oil Salesman” Who Actually Sells the Equivalent of Snake Oil
Shady Business Dealings
Inflating His Résumé
Deflating Others’ Résumés
Misrepresenting Scientific Literature
Making up Data
Abusing Scientific Equations
etc….
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:01 am
If a sports team doesn’t turn up for a match they automatically lose, I fail to see the difference here
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Since this is a debate about a debate (or the lack of one) I have a memory that someone might like to confirm or deny by tracking down the source in question, which was a British documentary on the 2000 US Presidential race. The programme seemed to focus on the Bush campaign as a how-did-they-do-it? piece.
One aspect they looked at was how the GOP had coped with the controversy of Global Warming. The answer apparently was that the evil mastermind Rove had coined the term Climate Change instead, thus enabling Bush and co. to employ the argument that Andrei does: of course we accept Climate Change, the climate has always been changing, the real question is ….., etc, etc. Naturally this was portrayed in the darkest tones possible; cynical, soundbite-driven, right-wing politics at its worst, akin to covering the destruction of welfare programmes with the term Compassionate Conservatism.
I’ve tried to track the documentary down (it was ITV I think) because I’d love to watch it again, while wondering what they thought as the dreadful right-wing meme was picked up by none other than the supporters of the AGW theory.
Politics. You can never get away from it.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:02 am
The mind boggles that people seriously suggest that Holland might go underwater if sea level rises.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Futile bickering over climate is clouding wider issues.
There’s too many of us (and growing).
We use too much of finite resources (and growing).
We pollute far too much (and growing).
We should focus more on dealing with the known problems.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Mikenmild: >“It is pointless asking a scientist to debate with Monckton, as Monckton is not a scientist.”
calendar girl (586) Says: >What shallow reasoning. On that basis I have to agree with everything that John Key says because I’m not a politician. Or what the Pope says because I’m not a bishop.
On that basis? No. Doesn’t follow.
The pope might not see any point debating with you, on the grounds you have no expertise or credibility – especially if you portrayed yourself to listeners to that debate as some kind of authority.
You’d still be free, as an ‘amateur,’ to disagree with everything he said.
I’d be more convinced on the whole climate change subject, one way or the other, if it didn’t seem that all the global warming believers were on the left and all the sceptics on the right.
Seems to me a lot of people believe the science they want to believe in cos it fits their politics.
Pete: I agree
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:11 am
We can have the luxury of debating climate change but the political reality is that we, in Kiwi land at the bottom of the world, have to do whatever our customers demand of us. The meat export industry in NZ has been continually lumbered with new requirements by European and middle eastern clients leading to expensive process changes . It is true that much of this is non-tariff restrictiveness but we have to suck it up. The ETS is not about a practical reality (it will have no influence on the climate) but a political reality which requires us to bend over for our European customers.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Mr Monckton
Vote:Is not a climatic scientist he is an expert at debating the denial of climate change he has come here to push his views.Probably paid to. Any scientist dropping his lab coat and debating with him is at a server disadvantage. Social skills are a negative indicator when it comes to scientific genius
August 4th, 2011 at 11:17 am
@ scrubone 10:58 am
What, like their crap cricket team? Even worse than ours.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Scrubone
Today, approximately 27 percent of the Netherlands is actually below sea level. This area is home to over 60 percent of the country’s population of 15.8 million people.
Note: The rest of it isn’t much above sea level.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Scot Chris said…
Einstein’s postulation on light quanta was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.
Redundant argument. We all know that and it is irrelevant to the argument here. Yes, it was instrumental in the development of QM, but he still thought at the time, that causality exists. QM came along (as you said, consistent with observation) and threw out causality out the window. Yep, things have no causation at all in QM theory. What’s the cause/s of radio-active decay? QM says that it is solely due to chance. It is not caused by any physical action at all. Decay is simply probabilistic and has no causation whatsoever. Or perhaps we can all say that it is caused by God (hehe!). This is the main reason that Einstein was set out to prove that QM is either completely wrong or somehow incomplete. His obsession with trying to prove that QM is wrong, lead to the publication of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR).
Get this straight, the very purpose of devising the EPR thought experiment was to show or prove that QM is wrong or in other words, to deny that QM theory is a theory of physical reality. .Is that simple enough for you to understand? So, basically, in the language of warmists, Einstein was denying the validity of QM by devising the EPR to show exactly that. Why would he waste his time coming up with EPR if his very purpose wasn’t to deny the validity of QM? Basically, that makes him a denier. So, I suggest you stop playing word semantics here.
Anyway, here is the original EPR paper for the description of physical reality, which was published in Physical Review Letters, Volume 37, May 1935. You may want to read upon it.
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:21 am
Yep that settles is alright. Someone better inform the legislative bodies and scientific institutions of every developed nation in the world. To the bullshitmobile!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:26 am
I said…
…prove that QM is wrong or in other words, to deny that QM theory is a theory of physical reality.
meant to say:
…prove that QM is wrong or in other words, to deny that QM theory is NOT a theory of physical reality.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:27 am
I would agree with the general consensus that the science is not yet complete and further work is required beyond modelling. What is clouding the issue is the debate, unquestionably there are misrepresentations of evidence emerging from both sides of the divide.
Vote:Lord Monckton does himself no favour by using gimmicks to argue his case; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8594194/Outrage-as-Lord-Monckton-calls-Australian-climate-change-adviser-a-Nazi.html.
August 4th, 2011 at 11:30 am
And in the mean time.
Some scientists are finding real solutions to real problems…
New Process Could Make Canadian Oil Cheaper, Cleaner
A method for getting oil out of tarry sands could reduce the costs and lower the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with its extraction. Canada’s oil sands are a huge resource. They contain enough oil to supply the U.S. for decades
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/38204/?p1=A1
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Sea level rise is about 3 mm per year. And its decreasing as the oceans cool.
Vote:http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
August 4th, 2011 at 11:37 am
KevinH
To be fair to Monckton, he did apologise, saying that his comments were ‘unparliamentary and unstatesmanlike’. Which was quite rionic really, as Monckton is neither a parliamentarian nor a statesman.
Andy
While extraction methods and technology can imporve, there is no doub that the supply of hydrocarbons is running out. The race is really about the development of alternative energy sources for the post-oil age.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:38 am
Today the city of Auckland sits atop an active volcanic field which could erupt at any time
Today the central North Island sits atop a super Volcano which could erupt at any time and has the potential to kill every man woman and child in the North Island
Today Wellington sits atop an active fault line with the potential of producing a magnitude 8+ earthquake if it ruptures
etc
I’ve an idea lets create a tax that everybody has to pay which will keep everybody safe from these potential threats
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:38 am
The major energy source we have in this country is low grade coal. There has been little commercial success in converting this to a more palatable form of energy
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Falafulu Fisi
Fine, I concede the point. Einstein was a denier, and it turns out that his effort to prove physical causality was fruitless.
Do you think that maybe, the arguments proposed by AGW skeptics may suffer a similar fate?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:43 am
There is most certainly a pattern to climate change…
Climate Change Timeline – 1895-2009
Vote:http://butnowyouknow.wordpress.com/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/
August 4th, 2011 at 11:44 am
This guy had a bit to do with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
I think you could look at the term “climate change” in another way: saying “it’s gonna warm” is a bit simplistic when the effects are purported to be a little more varied – the effect on precipitation, for instance.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:44 am
scrubone – I might be less insulting if his question were not so patently disingenuous.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:46 am
“If a sports team doesn’t turn up for a match they automatically lose, I fail to see the difference here”
The difference is sports teams have agreed previously to play each other. If me and a bunch of mates challenge the winner of the Rugby World Cup to a game at the local cow paddock, and they don’t accept, does that make us world champions?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Has someone Godwinned this thread yet by suggesting that if someone refused to debate David Irving, it would be an automatic win for Holocaust denial?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:54 am
We know it already, Adolf: you worship John Key.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:55 am
@griff
Not so….
The leading company in the commercialization of synthetic fuel is Sasol, a company based in South Africa. Sasol operates the world’s only commercial Fischer Tropsch coal-to-liquids facility at Secunda, with a capacity of 150,000 barrels per day (24,000 m3/d).
Other companies that have developed coal- or gas-to-liquids processes (at the pilot plant or commercial stage) include ExxonMobil, StatoilHydro, Rentech, and Syntroleum .
In the United States, a number of different synthetic fuels projects are moving forward, with the first expected to enter commercial operation starting in 2013.
Vote:American Clean Coal Fuels, in their Illinois Clean Fuels project, is developing a 30,000 barrels per day (4,800 m3/d) Fischer Tropsch biomass and coal to liquids project with carbon capture and sequestration in Oakland Illinois. The project is expected to come online in 2013.
Baard Energy, in their Ohio River Clean Fuels project, are developing a 53,000 barrels per day (8,400 m3/d) Fischer Tropsch coal and biomass to liquids project with the carbon capture and sequestration. Pending close of a financing package, Baard hopes to begin on site preparation work before the end of 2009, with plant construction starting in 2010. Initial project startup is anticipated in 2013, with full production capacity targeted in 2015.
Rentech is developing a 29,600 barrels per day (4,710 m3/d) Fischer Tropsch coal and biomass to liquids plant with carbon capture and sequestration in Natchez Mississippi. The project is in the permitting phase, with receipt of permits anticipated by Rentech in 2010.
DKRW is developing a 15,000 to 20,000 barrels per day (2,400 to 3,200 m3/d) Fischer Tropsch coal to liquids plant with carbon capture and sequestration in Medicine Bow Wyoming. The project is expected to begin operation in 2013.
August 4th, 2011 at 11:56 am
The issue of climate change has become heavily politicised, which usually means the truth tends to be obscured. Big money is also an important ingredient here. The sceptics have been accused of being in the pocket of big business. But then we learn that Phil Jones and his colleagues have been getting large sums of money.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6735846/Climategate-professor-Phil-Jones-awarded-13-million-in-research-grants.html
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:56 am
I heard Leighton Smith say the lecture theatre was AF114. In any case it should not be hard to find.
Prof Austin will put to Lord Monckton some of the arguments that there is a human component to warming.
venue: Lecture theatre AF116 AUT Akoranga Campus , Akoranga Drive, Takapuna, Auckland
time: gather at 5pm for a 5.45pm start, event ends 7.45pm
cost: $20, students and children $5.
hosted by: Climate Realists (NZ)
tickets: door sales only-cash or cheques- no credit cards
parking: Ample metered parking is available nearby
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:57 am
Now, now Other_Andy – you keep bringing up stuff like that and pretty soon you’ll have people thinking that “resources” are as much a product of human ingenuity as stuff that just sits in the ground waiting for humans to simply dig or drill for it.
Check out the latest information on US reserves of recoverable natural gas:
Those who are still pushing the idea of greatly increasing the cost of fossil fuels might also like to take note of this:
But please continue with the primary school kid’s understanding (constantly reinforced by the Club of Rome meme even during my days there in the mid-70′s) that resources are dwindling. From another article I think the total recoverable NG reserves in the US alone now stand at something like three times what they were in 2000.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Engineer John Abraham’s 75 minute rebuttal of Monckton.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Remember it was Phil Jones who said:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
When I hear a scientist talking like that, I begin to think their idea of science and my idea of it are quite different.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
tom
No ‘peak oil’ then? Is the supply of hydrocarbons inexhaustible?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:09 pm
@cha
And Monckton’s reply.
Vote:http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf
August 4th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
An article in Nature Climate Change (July 2011) postulates that climate change has reached a level of ‘scientific consensus’, but is not yet a ‘social consensus’.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n4/full/nclimate1144.html
So many ridiculous claims above that I don’t have time to bat them all away for the visitors, but here’s one:
Trouble is, it does no such thing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
From a recent article on Stuff:
Climate scientist and Victoria University professor Martin Manning said the scientific community had decided not to engage with him because that would mislead the public. The science was done and there was no debate to be had, he said.
“We can immediately see the statements Monckton makes as completely wrong. If you then go into a one-on-one debate with him you effectively say these statements need to be debated again.”
I certainly hope Prof Manning does not teach. Indeed his public comments are the antithesis of what universities are all about.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
75 minute rebuttal
You have absolutely nothing less painful than a 75 minute talk?!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
@mm
No.
But we have consumed less than 1% of the world’s hydrocarbon reserves.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-06-at-6.20.18-PM.png
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
There was a documentary on a Sky channel (I think Rialto) recently that examined this very issue. Check the schedules for a repeat.
The Netherlands is preparing now defences for a 1m seal level rise by the end of this century. From memory, at about 2m they will concede defeat.
Very few, if any, recent studies put sea level rise by 2100 at less that 1m, and if a tipping point for ice melt has actually been reached, as many scientists are coming to believe, the melting WAIS could add metres to those projections.
Which is why it would be foolish to rebuild Christchurch in its present location.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
The basic natural process by which fossil fuels are created in the earth’s crust have been reasonably well understood for almost 100 years, even if the precise details are a little hard to pin down.
But over that time everybody – even in the oil industry – has understood that there must be some natural limit to the amount that exists, and that the rate at which humanity uses the stuff exceeds the rate at which it is created.
That said, nobody can say that they understand what the limits are. The Club Of Rome nutters made fools of themselves in the 1970′s by predicting that we’d run out of oil and various metals sometime around 2000.
The “Peak Oilers” have learned from that PR disaster and more cunningly argued not that the stuff will run out, let alone when, but that it will become increasingly difficult to recover, pushing the costs far beyond what consumers can afford to pay. That’s cute but it still contains the fundamental flaw of assuming a status quo (or near as) of technology in both production and consumption.
It took about a decade to prove the CoR idiots wrong. Judging from articles in various energy and oil and gas industry journals it appears to have taken less time here to deal with the “Peakers”.
It’s been forty years since The Limits to Growth hit the best seller lists. They relied on computer models too, one of the early examples of Systems Dynamics in operation, but it was fed crap assumptions. The then chairman of Britain’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, Sir Eric Ashby, was scathing in remarking that, if you feed doom-laden assumptions into computers, it is not surprising that they predict doom.
Amazing how a whole new bunch of “activists”, not to mention many of the old ones who were around at the time, have forgotten all that.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
That’s the problem with debating with the wild-eyed ones. They can just make up anything and throw it into the mix and real scientists have to spend ages to dredge up the evidence rebutting the nonsense – mainly to no avail as confirmation bias has done it’s work.
A short cut is to visit http://www.skepticalscience.com/
They have a special Monckton file!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Luc
Rebuttal of the rebuttal. It seems the bloggers at Real Climate dont understand the 1st Law of thermodynamics
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/01/rise-of-the-1st-law-deniers/#more-44456
“What’s weird is that these scientists, whether they know it or not, are denying the 1st Law of Thermodynamics: simple energy conservation. We show it actually holds for global-average temperature changes: a radiative accumulation of energy leads to a temperature maximum…later. Just like when you put a pot of water on the stove, it takes time to warm.
But while it only takes 10 minutes for a few inches of water to warm, the time lag of many months we find in the real climate system is the time it takes for several tens of meters of the upper ocean to warm.
We showed unequivocal satellite evidence of these episodes of radiant energy accumulation before temperature peaks…and then energy loss afterward. Energy conservation cannot be denied by any reasonably sane physicist.”
oh dear-try again.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
“They can just make up anything and throw it into the mix and real scientists have to spend ages to dredge up the evidence rebutting the nonsense”
‘NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.’
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I now despair for New Zealand a land that I love.
The crap being delivered on this thread is beyond belief.
One does not need to be a “SCIENTIST” – just educated and posessed of a questioning mind. Simple questions, more often than not, trip up the gravy train riders. Chris Monckton is not one.
What is a “scientist”? None other than a person who professes knowledge in a narrow sphere of expertise. The application of his/her views/conclusions to wider issues is contestable, to say the least.
Does science work by consensus? You must be joking.
This issue is not about AGW, climate science or any of the other idiotic descriptors. It is politics, pure and simple – Watermellon Red and anarchist. Stand back and look at the facts.
Grow up c hildren!
Vote:McShane- Excellent!
August 4th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Oh Luc, trying to use RealClimate as a reference ! A site so dishonest that they will take a comment that makes a point that they don’t like, change the words, and post it as if it was original and then take great delight at demolishing it to show how the poor sucker who posted it is so incorrect. And if said poor “sucker” tries to post and correct the original, it is simply censored to oblivion. Oh yes, a great source.
And you’ll find that those criticisms’ of Spenser et al’s latest paper don’t actually understand what the paper is saying, one suspects that they haven’t read it but only read a critic’s mash up of it.
Climate alarmism is simply the latest quasi-religious millennialist style political movement designed to sequester power to a governmental elite. Unfortunately for most of its proponents, they will find that if the power is gained, they won’t actually be part of the actual elite. Useful idiots is the usual term.
The language and refusal to engage is all part of the political program, science simply doesn’t enter into it.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
If National and the global warming alarmist like Nick Smith and John Key are so sure the science is settled and want to undermine New Zealand economy why will they not debate the issue with ACT MPs Brash or Boscawen?
For those who do not beleive the science is settled the solution is simple – Vote ACT.
You will still get a National lead government but lower taxes.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
I did some research on global warming and climate change which I have listed it below. Apologies in advance for its length, but it does highlight the following facts:
Climate change both warming and cooling is a constantly occurring event with or without human intervention.
Humanities effect on the environment is somewhere in the range of a best case scenario 1/600 and a worst case 1/18 of the polluants entering the atmosphere.
Levels of carbon dioxide are higher now than they have ever been.
Based on the facts it seems to me that climate change is a naturally occurring event but the real issue is the increase in carbon dioxide levels and this is the area where we should be directing our environmental efforts.
During the past two hundred years humans have been pouring more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide comes from the burning of fossil fuels which are coal, oil and gas and there is no doubt that prior to the start of the industrial revolution the levels of carbon dioxide were much lower than they are today. About 200 years ago they were around 280 parts per million by volume [ppmv], now they are about 380ppmv and since 2,000 they have been increasing at an annual rate of 1.9ppmv. The current concentration falls outside the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300ppmv and this is what has got the scientists worried and searching for answers.
On the other hand it has been scientifically proven that the earth periodically oscillates between warmer and cooler periods. In fact as late as 1977 there were concerns that the world was about to enter another ice age or at least a mini ice age similar to the one that occurred between 1500AD and 1880AD. Now we seem to be entering a period of global warming similar to either the major one that occurred between 900AD and 1500AD or the minor one that happened between 1880AD and 1940AD. The difference this time though is that we are placing the blame for it on the activities of humans.
Yet most scientists agree that humanities contribution to global warming is somewhere between 0.17 of 1% to 5.5% dependent on how you measure it. In other words the best case is that humanities activities are responsible for about one six hundredth part of global warming, in the worst case about one eighteenth part. Which rather indicates that we may be confusing issues, it seems obvious that we cannot change the effect of global warming, but what we can do is make the world a less polluted place and this is the problem that humanity should be addressing, to tie this problem in with global warming serves only to confuse and to dilute the efforts that we making in the area of pollution.
In spite of what we are being told by experts no one can really assess the effects of global warming because quite simply no one knows how long this particular period will last. Will it be 600 years as in the 900AD to 1500AD period or a short 60 years as in 1880AD to 1940AD? It could even go on for thousands of years but one thing is certain it will cause changes. We should however approach those changes based on solid and realistic evidence and not on the hysteria generated by those who blame only humanity for global warming.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Not so fast there buddy.
http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html
p.s. do you realise that Spencer is a proponent of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Fail.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
This is a prime example of disinformation contrarians and fools revel in. A little due diligence finds this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
There are genuine limitations to the Limits to Growth, but there is no need to simply invent untruths, Tom.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:53 pm
questlove: argumentum ad hominem, on its true meaning (i.e. not name calling). Fail.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:55 pm
yesjg
Read again my 12.30pm post.
You prove my case, thank you.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
“However, mainstream climate scientists say that the argument advanced in the paper is neither new nor correct.”
So, theoretical computer models are right, but actual scientific data from NASA sattelites are wrong? Fail.
“p.s. do you realise that Spencer is a proponent of INTELLIGENT DESIGN. Fail.”
So?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Supporting ‘intelligent design’ might be seen by some as a barrier to making credible comment in scientific matters.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Intelligent design is not intelligent science it is faith
yesjg http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
1992?
So they were even more apocalyptically stupid than I remembered. Thanks Luc!
I love the fact that you and Wikipedia think you can squeeze some sophistric tissue paper between:
and
running out of oil.
Still, from a supporter of various Socialist Democratic Revolutionary movements around the world I should have expected nothing more.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Which is why it would be foolish to rebuild Christchurch in its present location.
I’d answer you, but somehow I don’t think I need to.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:16 pm
ben the link I posted showed Spencer to be wrong not the fact that he is a creationist. Him being a creationist shows his intellectually dishonesty in that he’s happy to advocate a position as valid science without having ‘performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position’.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Chuck Bird
I haven’t heard Don Brash issue any challenge to debate the issue of AGW. I, for one, would be a keen spectator if he were to go head to head with Nick Smith. And yet, he seems strangely reticent over a subject so fraught with political contention.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:22 pm
The peak oil stuff is actually quite interesting, from the original hypothesis in the 1950s (I think) through to today. Of course there’s always a range of opinion on what level of reserves remain and are recoverable. Technological advances may well make a big difference between a global hydrocarbon shortage in, say, 2050 or 2100. What we know is that it is a finite resource and the price can be expected to move steadily upward. The only question, to my mind, is the extent to which replacement energy sources can be brought into economic production.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Tom, yet another example of the CE syndrome, whereby the presentation of contrary evidence does not result in the subject altering his false narrative..
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
You mean how the land mass in Bangladesh is actually increasing?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
Scott Chris said…
Do you think that maybe, the arguments proposed by AGW skeptics may suffer a similar fate?
No, the great debate that started by Bohr’s faction (QM enthusiastic) against the Einstein’s faction (QM unenthusiastic) is still going on today. It has never been settled over the decades since it started and I doubt that it will be settle in the near future. There have been alternative theories that have been proposed over the last 7 decades but solve the philosophical problems of QM (including the multiple universe theory, theory of elementary waves, etc,…) and they manage to solve contradictions in QM (such as restoring physical causality) but then they brought with them more contradictions. Eg, the multiverse theory is causal, however it says the everytime a conscious observer is making a quantum measurement, the universe is split into 2 non-communicating universes instantly. The non-causal observed in QM is in fact, come from the other twin universe. The theoretical prediction of that theory is the same as standard QM (mathematical derivation, physical observables and so forth) and so as other theories.
But to date, the QM version of the Bohr’s faction is the widely adopted one today. It means that the QM skeptics/deniers are on the minority. Here is an informal survey (more than a decade ago) in a conference which showed that there are more QM enthusiastic than QM unenthusiastic followers.
THE INTERPRETATION OF QUANTUM MECHANICS: MANY WORLDS OR MANY WORDS?
To date, the debate on the validity of QM (which was started by Einstein and Bohr in the mid 1920s ) has been going on for over 80 years and none of the participants managed to call the opponents as deniers. Now compare that civility of debates back then to the climate science debates of today, which just started yesterday (on a time scale compared to 80 years of QM debate). The politicised pygmies & warmists (as Tom Hunter pointed out correctly above), have managed to denigrate and label their opponents as deniers. That says it all. Warmists are not interested in genuine scientific debates from skeptic climate scientists.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
The model he linked the data to in his study is incorrect. None of the other climate scientists agreed with his results.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
yesjg
Read again my 12.30pm post.
You prove my case, thank you.
Nice try Luc but I don’t think so.
It seems to me that there are many scientists and environmentalists fighting the wrong battles and that Monckton is right to attack them if they are wrong. Furthermore by refusing to debate with him scientists are giving an impression of collective arrogance. If they are not afraid of the truth then they should debate him even if it involves effort in trying to repudiate his views. If they don’t then what right do they have to force their views on us?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
#Other_Andy
And yet, despite his threats, Monckton hasn’t sued anyone and the original Abrahams piece is still up with a slightly revised version alongside.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Just a debating hint for you – demonstrating that the predictions were even more wrong than I remembered does not alter the fundamental point that – they were very wrong or why they were wrong.
And as I’ve pointed out many times before, the concept of irony is utterly lost on you. But I’ll wait until the next time you start trumpeting some People’s Revolution somewhere on the planet to remind you of that.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
“Supporting ‘intelligent design’ might be seen by some as a barrier to making credible comment in scientific matters.”
Yes, to narrow minded bigots.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Monckton enjoys a right to free speech. What he doesn’t enjoy is a right to demand people debate him. If climate scientists refuse to waste time debating him then that is their right also. They have probably formed the view that there is no point engaging with people who are set on a fraudulent waste of time. Scientists are not ‘forcing’ their views on anyone by doing this.
We are free to draw our own conclusions fomr the lack of ‘debate’. My conclusion is that it is a sideshow not worth anyone’s time. Others may have a different conclusion; that’sfine.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:40 pm
“Tom, yet another example of the CE syndrome, whereby the presentation of contrary evidence does not result in the subject altering his false narrative..”
You should know, being a practitioner of CE syndrome in claiming that the Israeli’s are committing genocide, despite the fact that no credible evidence for this claim can be produced.
Hypocrisy and double standards from Luc. What a surprise.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
“Intelligent design is not intelligent science it is faith”
Naturalism, the basis for modern “science” is faith.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Lee
As a norrow-minded bigot, I not only laugh at ‘intelligent design’, but also at a whole host of other ludicrous ideas.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Falafulu Fisi
I see your point. In fact, I find the uncertainty principle and its implications hard to swallow, because it is so counter-intuitive. History indicates that one scientific paradigm is inevitably superseded by the next, so one could assume that QM will go the same way. About AGW, there is less uncertainty IMO.
Douglas Adams said it best:
“There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another that states that this has already happened.”
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
“As a norrow-minded bigot”
Thanks for the honesty.
“not only laugh at ‘intelligent design’, but also at a whole host of other ludicrous ideas.”
Oh. Wow. You really got me with that knock down argument.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
I don’t know anything about Lord Monckton but I think people are pretty sceptical about global warming. In our little town we just had our first snowfall in five years. It snowed much of the day and my sons built snowmen on the trampoline. The maximum temperature that day was 4°C which is the coldest maximum temperature I have ever experienced.
So if the earth is warming it doesn’t seem to be warming here!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Scott, you are correct Don has not issued a challenge to Nick Smith. However, I will suggest it to him. I am pretty sure John Boscawen has but do not quote me. What do you think the odds are of Nick accepting a challenge to a one to one debate?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
Chuck Bird
I doubt a challenge will be issued, because there is no political capital in being seen as an overt AGW skeptic. Also, Don and Nick are potential allies.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
# mikenmild (1,534) Says:
August 4th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Monckton enjoys a right to free speech. What he doesn’t enjoy is a right to demand people debate him. If climate scientists refuse to waste time debating him then that is their right also. They have probably formed the view that there is no point engaging with people who are set on a fraudulent waste of time. Scientists are not ‘forcing’ their views on anyone by doing this.
We are free to draw our own conclusions fomr the lack of ‘debate’. My conclusion is that it is a sideshow not worth anyone’s time. Others may have a different conclusion; that’sfine.
Surely the scientists are only being asked to do what Christians do every day and that is to defend their beliefs against people who don’t believe them.
If scientists insist on being believed and holding out their hands for research grants then we the taxpayers have a right to require that that they justify their claims to people outside of the scientific community. By refusing to enter into debate their claims lose credibility and so should their ability to gouge money out of a skeptical public.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Ryan, I’m introducing a new term that is very similar but will apply only to debates about AGW, Peak Oil and so forth:
Malthusianed
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Hypocrisy from you DPF, coming just days after you suggested that Key’s stance on not debating all the party leaders was a good one, and yet now you say “You win people over by debating…Why should anyone listen to people unwilling to debate?” . Telling words indeed. And yes I’m aware he’s open to having a debate with Goff, but that’s still neglecting roughly 20% of the country’s parliamentary representatives.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
tom hunter
“Malthusianed”
Easier to say the thread has reached Peak Oil.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
“Easier to say the thread has reached Peak Oil.”
But is it yet fracked?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
questlove – oh good, now you’re defending the fallacy. Yea, or you could just respond to him on the merits of his case on climate. You don’t get a free pass to beat him up on climate because he’s plainly wrong on other things.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
yesjg
You seem to be confusing science with religion. Scientists do not have to ‘convert’ people to their cause. We have no ‘right’ to force scientists to convince us of anything.
I can go with the religious analogy to some extent. It’s as if a minor cult leader wanted to debate religious matters with the Archbishop of Canterbury and cult adherents took the archbishop’s refusal to do so as a sign of weakness.
ben
Yes you do. Adherence to ‘intelligent design’ is a very clear indicator not to take anything a person says seriously.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Adherence to ‘intelligent design’ is a very clear indicator not to take anything a person says seriously.
funny that Nasa disagree with you. Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal eh.
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
This is the coldest winter in decades. If global warming had to do witha peak cold before warming we would have been past
that point 20 yrs ago.
And lets not forget ‘an inconvenient truth’ has been kicked out of every British school
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
The NZ catastrophic climate change industry are the ones lacking credibility. If they had sound arguments supported by empirical evidence, rather than models, they would wipe the floor with Mockton and convince the denialist public that the sky isn’t about to fall on our heads.
A pity there isn’t another Lord still around:
“An alleged scientific discovery has no merit unless it can be explained to a barmaid.”
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.”
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
It’s abundantly clear that Dr Monckton is not an idiot. Rather, he is a man who knows how to make a buck, and while he’s on to a good thing he’s going to milk it for all it’s worth. It’s a little disingenuous, but you can’t blame him really – I can imagine him relaxing afterwards with a nice glass of something musing at how easy it all is.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
this guy
Vote:http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
August 4th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
I note Spencer’s awards came before his conversion to ID. His current beliefs can’t help his scientific credibility.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
leftyliberal,
It’s abundantly clear that people in the catastrophic climate change industry are not an idiots. Rather, it is an industry that knows how to make a buck, and while it’s on to a good thing it’s going to milk it for all it’s worth. It’s a little disingenuous, but you can’t blame them really – I can imagine the carbon millionaires relaxing afterwards with a nice glass of something musing at how easy it all is.
Or swap climate change industry for the subprime industry. No massive conspiracy there either but plenty of scientists, mathematicians and economists lining up to say how robust CDO’s were and a few lone voices treated like lepers till it came crashing down. The outcome for the carbon industy is the same – some winners and a lot of losers.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
“His current beliefs can’t help his scientific credibility”
Neither can they take them away otherwise you are saying Nasa are stupid.
“It’s abundantly clear that Dr Jones/Briffa/Hansen/Trenberth etc are not idiots. Rather, they are men who know how to make a buck, and while they on to a good thing they are going to milk it for all it’s worth”
Pawned
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
@All_on_Red: Absolutely – if you’ve been involved with applying for scientific grants then you’ll know just how true that is. As with everything, things go in and out of fashion. While it’s in fashion you best jump on the gravy train. The only bummer is you don’t actually get to keep any of that gravy – it’s there to pay for the tools of the research, and usually has to be stretched to even cover that.
Noone wanting to make a buck would be an academic!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
mikenmild – I’m sorry but you’re flat out wrong. People with weird views on other things in fact are capable saying sensible things. And even if you’re going to stay committed to a fallacy recognised and given its name 2000 years ago (sure, maybe we’ve all be wrong all this time), its not as if Spencer is the only scientist who holds those views on climate. There are many others and I rather suspect few of them believe in ID, so you ad hominem trick doesn’t work on them. Unsurprisingly, a fallacy buys you nothing. Try again.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
@ben: Indeed, well put. It appears to be no problem at all for each of us to believe completely in two quite contradictory things, and fail to see the contradiction even when it’s been made clear.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
What? Conman Al Gore has been found out? He is one of Key & Smith’s heroes.
Vote:Let’s continue worshipping at the altar of Gaia and paying the ETS tax, these three crooks say.
August 4th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
RE Holland etc.
The idea of a global sea level rise is a nonsense. There is no single measure because what happens to sea level on your nearby beach is strictly dependent on the location.
For example the North of the British Isles is experiencing falling sea levels because the land is bouncing back from the depression caused by the weight of ice during the great Ice Age. However the isles are rotating somewhat around an East West axis so at the South of England the sea level is rising faster than the “global average”. Actually most of the European Plate is bouncing back from the Ice Age which is why the Dutch are not panicking.
In New Zealand the tectonic plate is grinding up and over the Pacific Plate and so sea level is falling along much of the East Coast and particularly around Whakatane and down to Napier.
Similarly, the Pacific island rise and fall depending on what part of the Ring of Fire they are sitting on. The sea level is not rising in Tuvalu because of global warming. However the sea is invading much of the island because of poor land management and the mining of coral reefs.
The earth is dynamic while most of these theories assume it is static.
And if my memory serves me correctly Einstein was not a mathematician so what would he know about physics?
Monckton is not a climate scientist but he is an expert on the sensitivity of chaotic systems.
He came to maths through his classic studies and like many mathematicians he absorbed it without effort. Maths and music are similar in that prodigies are born and learn there craft without apparent effort.
Vote:USed to drive me bonkers when I was doing my BE Int.
August 4th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Here’s the best summary of Monckton:
Vote:http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/12/hamilton-viscount-monckton-of-benchleys-over-egged-cv/
August 4th, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Wow, a cv written by an organisation who hates him
Heres what he actually says
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma6cnPLcrtA
Care to dispute what he says, AND provide links to Peer Reviewed research papers to support what you say and prove him wrong?
Vote:Maybe YOU should debate him?
Want to?
Thought not.
August 4th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
I’ve seen him in action. He’s a skilled debater. And he’s more of a mathematician than I am.
He wouldn’t want to debate me, although I’m willing if you’ll arrange it.
I’ll leave debunking him to climate scientists with time on their hands for a bit of amusement:
Vote:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
August 4th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Real Climate? Yeah sure the “scientists” who censor and delete.
Vote:And then theres William Connelly. The man who got dumped from Wiki because he altered info and told lies.
Hilarious.
You need to find new sources.You are being treated as a fool. (much like today)
August 4th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
All_on_Red
Believing charlatans like Monckton seems to me to be rather more foolish. Just check out his whole range of loopy views and then ask yourself if he really is likely to be on the money about climate change.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
So you cant debate his words so you just try to smear him. I bet you wish you could pass laws to stop him saying anything.
Labour/ Green voter are you?
Like most adults I read, listen to what people say and then make up my own mind. Monckton might be eccentric or even has said things he regrets but the words he speaks on Climate science are backed up by pretty solid science. Science which is finally passing through Peer Review and proving CAGW to be wrong.
Vote:But hey, why dont you explain to us all the theory of why CO2 is supposed to produce 4 degrees of warming?
Show us all the substance of your beliefs.
Perhaps we should start with a simple question.
How much has the earth warmed in the past 100 years?
(pictures Mikenmild frantically googling to see what his masters say)
August 4th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
# mikenmild (1,546) Says:
August 4th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
All_on_Red
Believing charlatans like Monckton seems to me to be rather more foolish. Just check out his whole range of loopy views and then ask yourself if he really is likely to be on the money about climate change.
That’s a big assertion calling Monckton a charlatan would you care to produce the evidence for your claim. I presume that you have some and it is not just hearsay? Lets see it listed out so that those of us who are not convinced can judge it. Facts only please not waffle.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Geez mikenmild, by that leap of logic Al Gore negates any credibility to AGW theory.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
And in news just out:
Vote:“69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/69_say_it_s_likely_scientists_have_falsified_global_warming_research
August 4th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Milkymilo, Gruff, Loopy Luc et al. Really you should forget trying to argue here and move over to the ultimate AGW blog, NOT TOPIC, run by a truffle farmer and the ex-school teacher “I’m not a scientist BUT …..”
You would have a great time with the circle jerk team there. That’s where the AGW believers whine to a sympathetic echo chamber and where they have taken on a religious fervour. Like with all the warmists/alarmists, that’s not science. The most fanatical proponents of it are now described as ‘true believers’ where they seek out heretics and try to shout them down.
You alarmists are a tight knit, easily led, easily conned yet galactically stupid brigade and on blogs like above you can talk your bullshit theories amongst yourselves.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Axeman says: “You alarmists are a tight knit, easily led, easily conned yet galactically stupid brigade and on blogs like above you can talk your bullshit theories amongst yourselves.”
Brilliant idea!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
Pity the world when the nut job conspiracy theory expounding sky jockey delusional Luddite goggle misters woo speaking sheep no more than the scientists
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 6:43 pm
The so-called ‘scientists’ over here are afraid to debate Mockton because, unlike a lot of the general public, he has rebuttals and answers and can point out facts and figures. They are very afraid….
Funny how it’s different when the shoe is on the Progressive foot, eg, a lot of Atheists reckon it is settled as far as there being no God, but they can’t WAIT to argue and debate with Christians about it.
I see that some on this board are using the Alinsky Rule #12 as well –
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Fletch, he might be have a lot of claptrap right on the tip of his tongue, but as Mark Twain once said, a lie can travel around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on. Monckton’s made his arguments already. His facts and figures? They’re basically all bogus and selective.
But the reason I wade back into here is to respond to Andrei, you mention Soon and Beliunas. Interesting, I actually read and reviewed their paper and summarized on my blog, back when I was still a climate skeptic. You know what? Their logic is pretty sketchy.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Have you noticed how the Green Party never debates global warming but simply tries to insist that it’s true and that therefore they must take control of our lives.
Why would that be? If the science is sound surely they could wipe the floor with any opponent and demonstrate to everyone the truth of their claim.
Yet they duck and dive and make excuses. Maybe the dog ate it?
And take Luc who posts here in favour of the theory. He lies and lies and lies and misrepresents the evidence.
Why on earth would he do that if he had a sound case?
He knows he lying. We know he’s lying. He knows that we know he’s lying. Yet for some reason he repeatedly wastes his time posting his obvious lies here. What sort of psychology is it that drives such behaviour?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
A debate would be great fun. We can continue it here, but I’d be keen to debate in person alongside Griff, Luc etc. Get the Kiwiblog community together, eh?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
Right of way is Way of Right (963) Says:
August 4th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
I am so glad I never went to University, preferring instead to learn to think independantly!
I quite like freedom!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
@wat dabney: “Have you noticed how the Green Party never debates global warming but simply tries to insist that it’s true and that therefore they must take control of our lives.”
1. The green’s brought James Hansen to NZ to give several public lectures.
2. The greens are typically more libertarian than many other parties on many topics (personal marijuana being just one example).
No need to make things up about the Greens to discredit them
@Fletch: Actually, they make it quite clear why they won’t debate him: there is no credible evidence in the scientific literature that supports his position, and thus the debate would not be of any value. It’s really that simple.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
lefty,
“1. The green’s brought James Hansen to NZ to give several public lectures.”
So, no debate then. Just regurgitation of the old lies.
“This one from 1986 on temperature increase in America: Hansen said the average U.S. temperature had risen from one to two degrees since 1958 and is predicted to increase an additional 3 or 4 degrees sometime between 2010 and 2020.”
That, and other absurd predictions, at:
http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/
There hasn’t been any warming for a decade. Do you really believe the climate will be some 3 degrees hotter in 9 years’ time?
Proper scientists are predicting cooling due to a decline in solar activity. Why do the alarmists ignore genuine science? (we know the answer to that: Hansen has made hundreds of thousands of dollars from his activities, and it is the path to power and control for the Greens.)
“2. The greens are typically more libertarian than many other parties on many topics (personal marijuana being just one example).”
They are not libertarian, they are authoritarian.
The libertarian position is that the state simply does not have the right to control what you put in your own body. The Greens, by contrast, would allow it not because they recognise that right but simply because they have no objection in this particular case.
There is all the difference in the world between those two positions.
The same principal applies to smoking: the libertarian recognises your right to do whatever you want to your own body. But the Greens in this case advocate coercion to control you, just as they advocate coercion to prevent you seeing tobacco advertising, and as they advocate coercion on so many other topics which infringe your rights and liberties.
So just because the Greens don’t want to control one particular behaviour does not make them libertarian. They are doing it from indifference not from recognition of your rights.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
wat
Wow, that’s some global conspiracy that Hansen’s cooked up. Will there be a movie version coming out soon?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:40 pm
And there you have in one easy lesson what debating with deniers is really like.
Falafulu Fisi above asked why skeptics are called deniers by people like me. It’s simple. Skeptics, as I once was, can be persuaded by evidence, and evidence alone.
Deniers can be informed of their misapprehensions with mindnumbing repetition and will still advance their favourie piece of junk science, or conspiracy theory, or personal attack – Luc fucks monkeys, right?
So often, on this site and others, the same discredited arguments are recycled ad infinitum, and it matters not a jot that not one national or international science academy rejects both the science, or the need to act decisively (I better watch out here, Mobil might buy one!).
Wat, the basis of my psychology is also simple: it’s based on caring for people, all the people, including light and dark and Muslims and Jews and Americans and Inuits and, most of all, my two year old daughter and her niece and nephew (work that one out
)
Sheesh! Can’t you buggers play politely when I’m not around?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
As long as you care for the people who say you fuck monkeys as equally as you care for the Jews and your kids Luc you are a very good man. We all love you!
Really we do! 
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
“ALL TRUTH PASSES THROUGH THREE STAGES. FIRST, IT IS RIDICULED. SECOND, IT IS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED. THIRD, IT IS ACCEPTED AS BEING SELF-EVIDENT.” ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788 – 1860)
You could say that about the “denier’s” position, couldn’t you. The alarmists are still in ridicule stage. What a bunch of fools. Next they’ll get all violent. Excellent, it’s all coming together.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
Yes, public lectures, completely free and open to the public, for the purpose of encouraging public debate. You could have gone and asked Dr Hansen about his ’86 quote for instance.
I’m interested in a case where the green’s would not allow you to put something in your own body. Restricting your right to see advertising is rather horrific, after all – perhaps you have some better examples?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
“ALL TRUTH PASSES THROUGH THREE STAGES. FIRST, IT IS RIDICULED. SECOND, IT IS VIOLENTLY OPPOSED. THIRD, IT IS ACCEPTED AS BEING SELF-EVIDENT.” ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788 – 1860)
Works just as well for any party in denial.
“In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves.”
Buddha
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
So on the one hand, we have thousands of climate scientists, with their measurements, their evidence, their peer reviews, and their thousands of pages of reports.
On the other hand, we have the liar Lord Monckton, who lied about being a member of the House of Lords, who lied about what scientific papers say (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examples-Monckton-contradicting-scientific-sources.html), and who has been caught lying so many times that it’s just getting boring.
Does anyone think that a debate would be anything other than a colossal waste of time?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
That was my point Chris. You see, it’s not about the science, it’s about the politics, for it’s in the politics that it takes effect. And what pray tell is your opinion of the politics, not just with our own little ETS and what it may or may not achieve but all round the entire world in many many arenas. It beats me why some people don’t seem to have any sense of smell at all.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Reid, I’d rather it weren’t a political issue. My foolish hope is that the AGW controversy can be declared a non-partisan issue, investigated thoroughly by a non-partisan expert committee, and the recommendations acted upon whatever they may be, even if this happens without popular mandate. Yes, very undemocratic.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Scott
Like the IPCC?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Mike
No, I think the Americans would have to take the lead, and act unilaterally. Go 100% nuclear and end their reliance on imported oil.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
Oh, I agree there. I can’t see any prospect of an international agreement providing any effective solutions.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
And again
wat dabney (633) Says:
August 4th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
I’m not picking on you wat, but I see nothing wrong with Hansen’s comments back then. Bear in mind that he was talking degrees F, so we need to convert that to degrees C, and I think that for clarity the reporter needed to insert the word “by” between “increase” and “an additional…”
The problem you guys have with Hansen is that he is so careful with his predictions that you need to tweak them to make them seem inaccurate.
Temperatures are rising at an average of 0.2C per decade, so work it out for yourself. Of course, this is where denialism rears its ugly head as next, no doubt, you will say you don’t believe the even the raw data of our most credible science institutions that confirms what Hansen predicted.
Even now, yet another new record is being created in the SW US with drought unprecedented in length of time and area extent.
And you guys all pick on Nick Smith, but JK’s the Boss. Has anyone asked him recently if he still thinks climate change is a hoax?
He sure seemed to go quiet once he sat on the throne and was informed of the reality of the situation!
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:03 pm
Excellent thread. Comparing this to conversations 3 years ago, I’d say the weight of opposition to alarmist AGW nonsense is building. As an aside, I recommend a rummage through The Green Agenda. Good times.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Oh dear Luc, I don’t think you are even kidding yourself.
Everyone here has seen your feeble fabrications repeatedly exposed so many times, it really is quite an interesting psychological phenomenon to see you try and pretend otherwise. To close your eyes and ears to the cascade of contrary evidence shows true faith. To go on supporting Hansen and his prediction of 3 degrees warming over the next 9 years, especially in the light of the totally unpredicated zero warming over the last 10 years, marks you out as a true fundamentalist.
But please don’t be surprised when absolutely no one takes you seriously. That’s the price of behaving like a child I’m afraid.
lefty,
Why does the Green Party secretly and quietly censor climate debate on its blog, such that contradictory scientific evidence is blocked?
Why would they do that if they have a legitimate case?
Incidentally, that is also the modus operandi of the notorious realclimate website; which allows credulous and approving posts to be published but blocks those which legitimately contradict the theory.
Again, why would they do that?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
Oh, I agree there. I can’t see any prospect of an international agreement providing any effective solutions.
So you think force is the answer mm?
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Mike
“I can’t see any prospect of an international agreement providing any effective solutions”
Not without leverage, no. So we’ll have to stick to plan A (the commie takeover and persecution of the libertarians)
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:17 pm
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline”
“Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ”
In any other context such behaviour would be criminal.
Can you imagine a pharmaceutical company cherry-picking data, conspiring to suppress contradictory evidence and actually fabricating charts to show what they want to show? And yet when these “scientists” do it, rather than being considered gross misconduct (let alone criminality) they are held up by the Greens as sources of unquestionable truth.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
If it was about the science then I would accept it, but it isn’t.
Vote:Why do they want to redistribute wealth, as that isn’t about the science.
There is climate change and that is natural, however they have to link it to man as then they have a cause beli to rally around and scare people with in creating a crisis.
The reality is the earth isn’t warming as they have said and say and neither are the oceans rising and hasn’t for years, CO2 isn’t a pollutant and they didn’t just fudge the figures they falsified them, hid them and possibly deleted them.
That is notwithstanding that they have cut people off from funding and tenure both to isolate them, marginalise their view/opinion/reports and ultimately to shut them up.
August 4th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Professor Murry Salby, chair of climate at Macquarie University, has unleashed on global warming alarmism in a lecture this week to the Sydney Institute. Salby has worked at leading research institutions, including the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, Princeton University, and the University of Colorado, and is the author of Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics, and Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate, due out in 2011…He said he had an “involuntary gag reflex” whenever someone said the “science was settled”.“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/new_research_warmth_produces_these_carbon_dioxide_concentrations
So on the one hand we have the Green Party attempting to shut-down debate (whilst at the same time looking to benefit greatly from the promotion of the alarmism in terms of the power and control they seek over everyone else), and then there’s a top climate scientist saying he gets a gag reflex when people try to claim that the science is settled.
Vote:August 4th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021789/Green-taxes-hit-tipping-point-damage-jobs-investment.html
Vote:August 5th, 2011 at 10:47 am
Debate with a nutter like Monckton?
Next thing you know, 9/11 conspiracy theorists will want to debate with the Minister of Defence.
Or anti-vaccine campaigner/fruitcake Jane Burgermeister wanting to debate with our Minister of Health.
Or flat-earthers with the National Geographic Board.
I’m more interested in John Key fronting up and debating with ALL Party leaders – not just what suits his precious sensibilities. Methinks Dear Leader is becoming a tad too big for his boots.
Vote:August 5th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Francis_X – You mightn’t like Lord Monckton’s selection of facts, his delivery of them, his debating style or his clothing sense… but none of that makes him a nutter. Unless calling him a nutter allows you to comfortably suspend your enquiring mind.
Vote:August 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
kk
Monckton is probably not a nutter, just a pathological liar. He has claimed to be a member of the House of Lords, winner of a Nobel Prize, to have persuaded Thatcher use germ warfare in the Falklands War and to have invented a cure for Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.
Vote:August 5th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
mm – claims… or straw men from those who think he’s a nutter?
Vote:August 6th, 2011 at 1:34 am
I’m sorry but in New Zealand and like minded countries around half the population give or take doesn’t believe the climate change bullshit.
Vote:Are you seriously comparing that to situation where John Key is refusing to debate Hone Harawira or Peter Dunne who command a fraction of 1% of popular support?
August 6th, 2011 at 3:45 am
Wat
So tiresome
If they are indeed blocked, wat, how do you know that?
By the way, I see lots of denialist posts on that site.
Maybe you don’t actually visit, but just excite yourself over hearsay?
Vote:August 7th, 2011 at 12:20 am
Luc Hansen says “If they are indeed blocked, wat, how do you know that?”
RealClimate has been analysed for deleted comments.
Here’s a look at comment deletion at RealClimate compared with WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/22/further-down-the-bore-hole/
Overall on RealClimate there were 78,639 missing comment IDs, out of a total of 210,595, or 37.3%.
Vote:While in WUWT the deletion rate is less than 1%.
August 7th, 2011 at 10:55 am
Lord Montrose, you prove the lack of substance in the deniers case by this kind of time wasting, red herring attacks. One of the comments posted on that thread says it all, really:
Just as DPF controls Kiwiblog and can (and does) apply entirely random policies, the same goes for WUWT and RC.
Personally, reading through RC on occasion, I am sometimes amazed at the patience they display and can only imagine the absolute drivel they must get inundated with from the mad hatters who inhabit the world of conspiracies and denial.
Vote:August 7th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Monckton came across like a condescending agenda driven prat on The Nation.
Vote:August 8th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Luc Hansen, as usual for climate alarmists, you ignore the evidence.
The evidence is that 37.3% of comments on RealClimate are deleted without trace. We know this because on both RC and WUWT the comment ID number simply goes up sequentially.
On RC, 78,369 comments have been deleted while on WUWT which has a very much greater level of comments, less than 1% have been deleted. We know that from the comment IDs.
I don’t accept that the deleted comments are mostly spam. Why doesn’t WUWT get at least the same level of spam? They don’t.
There is plenty of evidence that people’s reasonable comments on RC have been deleted because those people have done screen image copies of them waiting in moderation on RC, and posted those elsewhere.
If comments on WUWT are moderated, usually because of abusive language, the name of the commenter and date is almost always shown on WUWT. Why doesn’t RC adopt the same method, then everyone would see the extreme level of moderation at RC.
So it’s a waste of time going to RealClimate since there is no real dabate going on there.
Vote: