It is a brave or stupid person that attempts to debate Christopher Monckton publicly on global warming and climate change. Monckton has an encyclopaedic knowledge of his subject and routinely trashes “qualified scientists” who usually fail to be able to cite and discuss the facts from memory.
Check out this brief “debate” on Australia’s Sunrise show. The interviewer is Koch, a warmist presenter. Even so we see Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) scientists offer himself up to the sacrificial alter that is Monckton and shown to be sadly lacking.
See at around the 2:30 mark on the video where climatologist Ben McNeil after stating that the “science is over; it’s not debateable” becomes speechless opening and closing his mouth repeatedly like a stranded goldfish, but nothing comes out. Perhaps there is nothing inside to come out? After Ben fails to present ANY actual facts conclusively linking greenhouse gas to global warming and even shooting himself in the foot by quoting a 150 year temperature rise that could have nothing to do with industrial activity going back that far (and don’t forget he is a “professional” scientist, Monckton is not, although he is published), Monckton rattles off detailed and fairly complex maths on climatology. Ben, had he been at all prepared and widely read would have known about these facts as I do, and been in a position to discuss them rationally. At near collapse with his self inflicted virtual reality imploding about him, and failing to put forward any actual arguments, Ben childishly reverts to squealing,
“to somehow discredit what we ahh do in our lives, in our professional lives is outrageous!”
Now that’s a withering argument supporting catestrohphic anthropogenic global warming if I ever heard one. Basically Ben is saying, I can’t be wrong and I can’t be questioned! The fact is thousands of scientists, including some of the greatest scientific experts currently living like physicist Professor Emeritus Freeman Dyson do question your “evidence” Ben. Are you saying that Dyson, who is acknowledged as possibly the greatest currently living scientist on the planet, is outrageous because he doesn’t agree with you Ben? That is not an argument Ben. Enough said.
Monckton remains cool and collected throughout whilst calmly demolishing the weak Ben McNeil, professional climatologist, for the audience in the limited time available.
Just after half way through the debate, Ben throws in the towel and turns back to Koch who tries to come to his rescue. Monckton once again scores with telling points.
Just a tip for CAGW scientists who want to step into the ring with Monckton; although you are paid to know your facts by us, the taxpayers of Australia, when you go toe to toe with Lord Monckton you are going to have to stop writing those fanciful papers about global extinction and other global catastrophies and actually know your facts or you are not going to last through the first round.
Ding Ding, Next!
On Monckton's last point where he states of the millions of lives that could be lost through diverting funds from relif and medical aide to a non existant CAGW issue, I iwll be posting two articles by Bill Gates this week, the second of which deals with this very issue. A lot of people in government jobs like scientists seem to have no idea that resources are limited and that diverting even more resources to CAGW will indeed have effects elsewhere. To simplify for CAGW scientists, imagine resources are cookies in a cookie jar. The more you take out the less you have left. Get it?
This blog is a about Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) which is global warming caused by the activities of man. The core issues are:
- Is the climate warming, - Is the warming outside of historic norms - Is it caused by anthropogenic CO2 - Will it result in global disaster as the IPCC insists
Only the first has been satisfactorily answered in part and the qualification is that the data upon which the IPCC claims are based has not been made available for full scrutiny as yet. The average terrestrial land temperature experienced slight warming this century. In some regions such as Antarctica it has cooled. The earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age since 1650 (see Akasofu 2007 & 2009) which is one reason this warming trend is expected. It appears that this is not outside of historic norms (see Medieval Warm Period) and that the IPCC and some scientists have attempted to downplay the Medieval Warm Period and the effects of the Little Ice Age. The later two issues are not settled despite UN and government spin towards the contrary. For some excellent background from a real climatologist not implicated in the recent CRU revelations see the links to Dr Roy Spencer's blog below who discusses these issues as a professional.
Australia Joins China and Iran in Net Censorship - Nanny State Cometh
Pearls of Wisdom & Otherwise
Glenn Reynolds (USA - Instapundit.com): "I'll believe its a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis."
Nick himself (Counting Cats in Zanzibar blog): "Is it just me or has the spam-trade been entirely taken-over by performance poets on Arts-Council grants?"
Dr. Kiminori Itoh (Phd UN IPCC Scientist Award-winning environmental physical chemist): "When people know what the truth is the will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr. Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor of climatology, Lead author on many IPCC reports, in an interview with Discover Magazine 1989): "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Former US Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management- a London-based business that sells carbon credits, in an interview with Grist Magazine 9 May 2006 re his book An Inconvenient Truth) "Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are..."
New readers may be interested to peruse two of my earlier posts concerning the Fear of Global Cooling which was popular in the late 1970's. I have posted a copy of a Newsweek article together with comments here and here.