It is so on

There was such a debate in Toronto recently and it was a travesty. Monckton was not challenged much and the other participants were weak.

I am sure you will do a better job. I contacted the Station (an Educational channel and it has promised to take the matter up with the producers.

Well I don't know Tim and I'm probably missing something in this story, but the fact that the then leader of Jones' own political party, Malcolm Turnbull, found him offensively worthless to try to talk sense to might encourage you to carefully consider your approach to this wunnerful offer. In general the only outcome of bringing on the clowns must be a circus - which is OK as long as you "enjoy!".

And speaking of Australia, greed triumphs again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8501777.stm

"An Australian firm has signed a $60bn (AUS$69bn; £38bn) deal to supply coal to Chinese power stations."

This deal all by itself will dump about 500 million tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere. And remember, to avoid the EU's definition of dangerous climate change, we can't dump more than another 500 gigatonnes -- so this deal all by itself uses up a tenth of a percent of humanity's future allowable use of fossil fuels.

Whatever comes out of post-Copenhagen, there needs to be some kind of export tax on deals of this sort, especially if the importing country is not part of the carbon control protocol.

Good luck Tim,

Now, you need to make sure this won't be a stitch-up. Will you both (or neither) get access to the questions before the debate? What procedures are in place to ensure both participants have equal preparation for the questions and that nothing "leaks" beforehand? How can the questions from the floor be stooge-proofed?

What are the 'rules'? Are graphical pieces allowed? The same rules of presentation should apply to both participants.

Debates like this can too easily be a fixed fight. And the moderator is hardly a clean slate!

My suggestions:

(i) NO interruption of either participant be allowed. Penalty is that the offending participant cedes a minute of their allotted time per interruption.
(ii) Hecklers ejected without warning. If that means the entire audience goes, so be it.
(iii) Questions be revealed to both participants, in secret, 24 hours in advance. If a participant leaks a question or discusses it with anybody else ahead of the debate, their punishment is to be asked an impromptu question and not the prepared question.
(iv) If the AV facilities permit, the display of graphs to be allowed, provided both participants agree in advance on the graphs to be presented.

Seriously, you're getting into a shark-tank. Be very careful. And if you get any nonsense calls or emails beforehand, show them to the police.

Well, good luck, but I'm afraid you'll be trashed ...

You'll be honest, the potty peer will lie through his teeth, and it sounds as thought the four moderator Qs will be pre-chosen.

Good luck though. Those who speak truth against lies need it.

Is the debate going to be recorded? I'd love to attend but there's half a globe between me and the venue.

I'd be tempted to show up with a bucket of DDT (recently purchased in Africa for anti-malarial spraying) a tablespoon, and a recording from the clip discussed here. But that'd be theatrics, and of course Monckton wouldn't ever resort to those. His miracle drug cures those, too.

Have fun, but I seriously doubt there is any way you can win this so-called debate.

If you want to be effective, focus on things that might sway the audience.

Do the Gish Gallop on him, but do it somewhat honestly:

Make his claims re: HIV and his cure for the common cold front and center.

Most listeners/attendees will know how to judge the climate science, but they'll (well, some) understand that if he really had a cure for the common cold, and understood AIDS better than the medical establishment, there'd be real-world evidence of it.

Will it be filmed? I'd like to see a video. Though I'm sure you'll provide a nice summary. I haven't a clue what the right approach is in these circumstances as Monckton is impossible to pin down on anything. I have some copies of email exchanges I've had with him if you're interested.

"Do the Gish Gallop on him, but do it somewhat honestly:
Make his claims re: HIV and his cure for the common cold front and center."

Disagree: don't stoop to the evil side's tactics. Mentioning HIV or his cure should not be brought up, unless you need a quick quip. Gish Gallop is totally lame when they do it, so why would you? Why wouldn't the audience think it lame if you did it?

You know your stuff tim, just be honest, patient, and point out where monckton is wrong/ill-informed/lying, and you'll be fine.

People aren't stupid - if the debate is biased, that will be clear to all but the one-eyed.

Im concerned as to how a 2 hour debate will cater for the time needed to dissect Moncktons claims. The Lord has a knack for persuading scientifically illiterate spectators of his point without going into much detail. I hope it goes well for you Tim.

Mercurius says:

>Will you both (or neither) get access to the questions before the debate? What procedures are in place to ensure both participants have equal preparation for the questions and that nothing "leaks" beforehand?

I accepted unconditionally, but suggested that we be allowed to put questions to each other.

Congratulations Tim. Of course I've got concerns about debating these guys and would have preferred a disinterested moderator, but no doubt you understand the risks better than anyone else. As some guy said, evil prospers where good men are silent. I salute you.

i have quite some confidence in Tim :)

what i had wished for in a couple of recent debates i saw, was this:

somebody being able to counter an obvious lie (like the 10 years cooling one, for example) by pulling out a graph (only the trend lines would need to be visible to the audience) or at least the numbers for all 4 major datasets.

we be allowed to put questions to each other.

Here's a better idea: put a list of questions to Monckton before the debate, and insist that he answer them in writing as a precondition of you participating in it.

You can't go wrong.

I'd be interested to know what Monckton has to say about the fact that not one climate or science institution supports his views. Why is it that he cant take on the Royal society, MET or the CRU in his own country? They are the scientists & its Monckton that is saying they have the science wrong. He tried once with the with APS & they applied a disclaimer to his paper basically saying they didnt back it. Why is he trying to convince the general public about science they have no idea about & that he has been proven wrong about?

Hope its not a sham like the Brisbane one with Graham Readfearn where not only was Monckton allowed more time & was freely allowed to attack the scientists & institutions, but when Monckton & Plimer were criticized there were howls of protest. Monckton brings up climategate & also has a huge "The great lie" on a ppt slide on the same page as "IPCC". With the moderator constantly saying "lets focus on the science & not attack the man Graham"...? wtf?! Even when Monckton asked the crowd did they think he (Monckton) or the IPCC were right the partisan crowd dutifully raised their hands to support Monckton, only for him to say they were wrong. That crowd was REALLY in touch with the ( politics) science it seems.
Was the moderator certifiably stupid, or just some paid suck up? They also seemed to have Barry's mic down pretty low. Makes me pessimistic about Alan Jones being a mod when he is a known hard core skeptic.

Good on you. BTW, how is your mathematics? Maybe some weak spots are the equations he has chosen to flick up and then quickly take down in his previous talks in Australia and elsewhere. I'm thinking that if you can ping him with something truly fundamental, you might be able to rattle him. It has got to be something that can be explained in "non equationeese" otherwise the audience won't get it. They now recognise him as a "mathematician" if they listen to the Parrot or read the Australian - or most appallingly - watch the ABC 7:30 Report. If he stuffs up on something obviously relevant right in front of the audience...

Another area where he might be weak, but which helps to fill a gap in the layperson's grasp of the debate, is the paleoclimate where large CO2 excursions have occurred, temperature has dramatically changed, and major extinctions have resulted. I'm thinking of the Permian extinctions approx 255 Ma. and some more recent ones - and importantly the fact that oceans became warm and anoxic. The usual denial usage of paleoclimate is to announce dramatically how CO2 was 4x 8x 12x current levels and the temperatures weren't that different to now. It's bollocks as they don't give the whole story, just enough so that the audience gets sucked in.
Continuing on in that vein, something else that audiences are unlikely to really be aware of is just how dramatic the tectonic movement of continents is when looked at on geologic timescales. During the Permian period IIRC, much of the "proto" North America wrapped the tropics. Really changes the perspective of those who inadvertantly compare paleo-climate against today's climate without accounting for continental drift on such a vast scale. Recent scientific discoveries show how the temperature changes are fundamentally linked to CO2 (and in some instances methane and other GHGs as well) - perhaps a couple of quotes from these papers could help to blunt the adversary's impact.

Anyway, everyone has to do their bit now, if there is to be any chance of stopping the retreat of public opinion away from AGW, and get the focus back onto scientific claims that are solidly backed with evidence.

Phil, this is funny, but i know exactly how Monckton will answer to the questions you suggest above:

he will accuse the Met office of having gotten this winter warning wrong. and he will bitch about bonuses being paid anyway.

As another commenter asked, will there be video (or at least a podcast) of the debate? The rest of Australia needs to see or hear this. The Barry Brook - Monckton debate disappeared without a trace, it would have been interesting to hear that one.

Our Lord is very fond of the "authoritative cite". Be prepared to swiftly point out why Pinker et al 2005 is no support to him. Of course Douglass and Knox,Lindzen and Choi,and Spencer and Braswell will come up, so quick knockdowns are needed. The hypocrisy of citing peer-reviewed science while declaring science is corrupt /broken may well emerge.

Damn Damn Damn... I wish I could go, but will be stuck in the Philippines.

Good luck Tim. Like others above, I'm concerned about the playing field and the leanings of the ref.

If I were you, I'd be asking him why he was content to redraw, exaggerate, misrepresent and misattribute a graph of Central Greenland temperatures in a document and in presentations where he felt free to accuse real scientists of fraudulently misrepresenting the data. Yup, go straight for the Curry...

When you say "Moderator will close the debate", I see a problem.

What's the bet that the Moderator will call for a winner of the debate by acclamation of the audience? Then the stacked audience of Monckton-lovers (angry retired men with nothing productive to do on a Friday afternoon) will cheer and clap. Cue Saturday's Telegraph headline "Monckton wins debate with UNSW Scientist"...

...It's a trap, Tim! Gotta think of a way to spring it back on them...

I like Dr Andrew Gliksons rebuttal from the Australian National University, to Moncktons arguments that he seems to use quite regularly on his speaking tours.

[Responses to Monckton](http://www.scribd.com/doc/25813090/Responses-to-Monckton-of-Brenchley-1…).

It is highly detailed & contains many references.

Sod, if Monckton has an issue with MET,CRU,NASA,NOAA etc, then why does he use select graphs from them to support his OWN case? If he considers MET or any other institution of getting something wrong, therefore not a reliable source of information, then logically he cannot use them himself to back his own assertions, yet he does. He seems to be of the opinion that the data is there for interpretation from these institutions, but ONLY the scientists he gives the nod to are capable of interpreting it correctly.

Risky venture. Graham Readfern quit his job at the Courier Mail after his bout with the Lord.

DVR.

> I'd be tempted to show up with a bucket of DDT (recently purchased in Africa for anti-malarial spraying) a tablespoon,

Argh! That's my idea! :)

> and a recording from the clip discussed here. But that'd be theatrics, and of course Monckton wouldn't ever resort to those. His miracle drug cures those, too.

Theatrics aren't against the rules, and most importantly, they aren't against the US Constitution.[1] What's more, they're a great way to reinforce points in the minds of real audiences, so I say go full steam ahead with theatrics. And I say, don't just talk about stuff, but show stuff, do stuff. :)

(By the way, what will be the security measures in place during the debate? We definitely can't risk having secret Muslims in the audience blowing up the place. If I were a debater, I might be tempted to fashion my own Secret Muslim Detector Rodâ¢...)

[1] I know, the debate will take place in Australia, but it doesn't matter

Ian @19:

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.htm…

The video of the Brisbane show between Brooks and Readfearn v Plimer and Monckton was on the Spurious Tale greenblog when Graham Readfearn went.

Weird that Rupert Murdoch's other enviro blogger, Keith Johnson of the Wall Street Journal, also just finished up as well!

How's Rupert going with his promise to be carbon neutral by 2010? Non-Core, maybe?

Gordo, [on past performance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/open_thread_37.php#comment-2172…) your post above only reinforces my suspicion that on a scale of 0 to 10 your reading comprehension comes in around minus 5 million.

Shameless as ever and lower that a rat's knackers, you read Graham Redfearn taking a break as quitting after being exposed to Monckton - the sly implication being he quit because he (allegedly) lost the debate.

Graham, says he just needed a change. I'll take him at his word.

The last open thread was a while ago, but I think this will interest many. Phil Jones is interviewed in The Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece

Tim I fear you're on a hiding to nothing. Alan Jones as moderator???? On January 29th the Adelaide University's Professor Barry Brook and Ian Readfearn from the Courier Mail debated Mockton and Plimer at the Hilton in Brisbane. The verdict the following morning in the Courier Mail was "Sceptic warmly received" Courier Mail journalist Ian McMahon went on "Lord Christopher Monckton imperious and articulate won yesterday's debate in straight sets" and " Hundreds went to the sell out $130-a-head Brisbane Institute Lunch where scepticism was applauded." It must have been a traumatic experience for Barry Brook, the silence on his blog is deafening. Good luck Tim. Don't be too nice, you're playing against a stacked deck.

If you want to be effective, focus on things that might sway the audience.

Do the Gish Gallop on him, but do it somewhat honestly:

Make his claims re: HIV and his cure for the common cold front and center.

Assuming an "honest" Gish Gallop translates as "rapidly present fact after fact whilst dismissing every junk claim that Monckton makes with barely an acknowledgement", I'm with dhogaza on this. The reason that science isn't settled by public debate is that if you honestly and rationally present your case in a public arena, you'll get slaughtered by whatever two-bit rhetoric whore is willing to spew shite at the audience.

Tim has shown in past posts that he is more than capable of dismantling Monckton's attempts at factual arguments and showing them for the hollow rubbish they are. He should not be worried about accusations of playing the man rather than the ball, as in a fair debate he generally does the latter. On occasions like this, though, I'd say make his past claims open to public ridicule. It's the best way to stop people swallowing his crap unthinkingly. HIV and the common cold are good topics to emphasise for this. DDT probably less so, if only because the narrative Monckton can present on this will twig with the ideology of a certain type of audience - the type Tim is likely to be presented with.

Only other thing I can add is that it is almost a given that Monckton will tell some absolute whopping lies during the debate. I don't think he can help it. Be prepared to emphasise when he has lied as much as you can. If the two of you are seen to dispute a factual point, chances are people will go home and check the facts. Make sure they see where he is wrong.

Best of luck, Tim! You know your stuff and you know Monckton. Combined, that gives you a fair chance of getting the odds back in your favour, biased environment or not.

I get the feeling that the reason Graham left so abruptly, quitting his job at the courier mail, was because after the debate, he probably tried to publish an account of the story for the front pages, only to have someone up the food chain give the nod to Bruce McMahon to declare resounding victory on Moncktons ( the conservatives) behalf & effectively gag any comment or account Graham might have had on the debate. Bruce McMahon obviously followed the partisan line more that news.ltd, fox news & other entities of newscorp use in denying AGW.

Lesson learned Graham, when you work for news.ltd you must report the mantra : "we report, you believe". None of this fair & balanced crap.People dont know whats good for them. At news.ltd, we tell them.

@31 corrrection, the Courier Mail journalist was Bruce McMahon not Ian McMahon, apologies.

Gotta agree with [Richard McGuire](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2255511). This is risky. The whole set-up is heavily rigged in favour of Monckton's townhall rabble-rousing showman style. But too late now.

Monckton is a professional propagandist, and quite good at it. A real-time case in front of an audience is very different from a written dissection. You need to be very well prepared with succinct and devastating rebuttals to all of his common claims - and should study carefully any other Monckton debates you have access to.

And I share others' concern that the moderator has a lot of power, and is unlikely to use it equitably.

The situation reminds me of evolutionists who by and large don't debate Creationists any more...not because evolution doesn't stack up, but because debates aren't about who has the better argument but rather who is the better rhetorician.

Agree with those who say that what will matter (if anything does) is the journalistic verdict after the fact.

Tim, you need a high profile friend who will scream and shout at the top of his voice that you won, irrespective of the events in the room.

Good luck, Tim. I might humbly suggest that you preface each rebuttal to a claim with the phrase "That's not true."

Studying the Denialists' Deck of Cards (which I posted a link to on another thread, but I don't think it showed up) might also be useful. Monckton is no doubt using many of those tactics.

You cannot rebut Monckton's errors in a debate. Well, you can, but to the audience it will merely sound like you are presenting an alternative and less persuasive sounding view.

It's a performance at which he's very practiced - it's nothing to do with science or debate. Pure charismatic charlatanism - beats science every time. I suggest you don't turn up (without notice.) Leave 'em feeling jilted. You'll earn some notoriety amongst a certain demographic which could lead you anywhere!

Excellent! I hope!!

Tim,

No one knows better than you the tricks Monckton will employ, but maybe listening to the debate where Monckton trounces Littlemore would be good preparation. Here it is:

1. http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_03_49-…
2. http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_17_21-…
3. http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_26_33-…
4. http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_33_29-…

Show no mercy! Take him *down*!!

I'll temporarily play devil's advocate and help the inactivists write their post-debate press release even before it's happened:

> All too often in discussions on climate change, we find that global warming believers tend to be emotional and shrill, while global warming skeptics are calm, reasoned, and logical.

> And indeed, the global warming debate between leading skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton and global warming believer Tim Lambert went similarly. Lambert, with his typical brownshirt approach, tried to take down Monckton with insults, ad hominem, and every dirty trick in the book. Monckton, to his great credit, remained calm and composed in the face of these attacks, demolishing Lambert's dogma point by point with reasoned, carefully thought-out, factual argument.

> Thus it is no surprise that the audience reacted favourably to Monckton's fact-based arguments, and overwhelming pronounced their approval of Monckton. It is time, therefore, that leaders such as Kevin Rudd renounce their Marxist 'Emissions Trading' policies which will only bring poverty and misery to people the world over, especially those who need to buy gasoline.

Remember, you heard it here first.

always keep in mind his primary thesis and motivation.
climate change is scientific fraud perpetrated by the un and pet scientists to achieve one world government.
this is what he believes, and his arguments are geared to discredit the ipcc process, and the proposed solutions.

Monkton believes this because it fits with how he sees the world. it comes from a combination of deep intellectual arrogance, and a a fear and disregard of environmentalism, and a professional abhorrence of the UN.

His beliefs and arguments have developed as a reaction to the awareness of climate change throughout the world, and accordingly each layer is built upon the next, each 'fact' he uncovers, and each coverup he sheds light on further stenghtens his belief in his own intelectual heft, and the significance of his message.

he is not a charlatan, he truly believes what he presents, and he believes he is doing the right thing in saving us from this sinister one world government.

dont think you are debating someone who is simply wrong, you are debating someone who is incapable of believing you, and, infact, knows you are involved in a conspiracy.

Those links again fixed:

* [part 1](http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_03_49-…)
* [part 2](http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_17_21-…)
* [part 3](http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_26_33-…)
* [part 4](http://libertynewscentral.podomatic.com/player/web/2008-08-17T14_33_29-…)

Also, the Munchkin's recent debate with Rupert Posner:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsGsbnCNpTk
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmXfhg93a5g
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFfxCtjza3Q

Tim, I'd suggest studying President Obama's technique with the House Republicans last week:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/29/transcript-of-president-o_n_44…

Stay calm, be disarming, know your audience as much as possible. Tell personal stories about who you are, where you're coming from, how you have learned, how anybody else can learn the truth... Try not to be reactive...

This should be fun. I confidently predict the upperclass twit of the decade will be trying the usual character assassination directed at the IPCC, CRU and the like. The thing that I find most amusing about that is that the deniers don't seem to realise that resorting to those tactics just goes to show that they lost the scientific argument long ago.

Good luck, don't let the stupid get to you and don't pass up on a chance to invoke Goodwin's law, should it present itself.

Write down all the points of the Gish Gallop, explain to the audience what a Gish Gallop is and then debunk the Gallop point by point. Emphasise the demagogic methods that Monckton employs. Tell people to look it up when Monckton lies. Ask Monckton what he thinks of his current actions if AGW turns out to be problematic after all. Point to the irony that while the denialists are celebrating their PR victory global temperature anomaly records are being broken big time (show UAH graph, explain that this is the denialist dataset) and that 2010 could well be a record year, notwithstanding low sunspot activity and a negative PDO.

Sorry, I fantasize a lot about what I would say during a debate with a pathological liar such as Monckton.

The whole point of the Gish Gallop is that it cannot be debunked point by point. The time is simply not available.

People cannot be convinced in a quickfire verbal presentation other than by personality; body language; etc.

Nixon forgot to shave. Tim looks the type to forget that also!

Why would someone bother to debate Monckton if they thought he didn't have the smallest clue?

Is what the most fair-minded in the audience will be wondering.

Stay home, wash your hair - and maybe get in a shave.

If he goes on about scientists only saying AGW is real is to get grant money etc, just ask him quite directly how much he is making out of each of the "debates" like the one you are engaging in with him, and then point out how little you are getting from it.

As for the audience being largely populated with natural Monckton supporters, you could get half a dozen mates or so to organise a "survey" and and ask each person *before* they get inside a few simple yes/no questions, the last or second last being "Do you believe human emissions are causing any global warming (Y/N)?" Then at least you will know what percentage of the audience are in complete denial, a fact that might be important to mention afterwards if the applause based vote goes against you.

BTW, are they going to bring in a second delusionist - at short notice - to bolster the deniers' side?

Suggestions:

1. in your synopsis, give some time to the vast, overwhelming consensus - 97% of published climate scientists, every national science academy of every industrialised country. There is no *credible* debate about the core science - there hasn't been for many years. The basic science - humans have increased atmospheric CO2 by ~40% in the past 150 years and CO2 is a greenhouse - these facts are *irrefutable*. Ask the audience to consider if it is likely that all the planet's climate scientists are wrong or lying - and that a few unqualified contrarians are right!

2. Munchkin will use much of his allotted time to suggest dishonesty and ulterior motives to those who accept ACC. Point this out to the audience and that this says nothing about the *science*. Point out that Munchkin has no qualifications.

3. Munchkin uses the '*big lie quickly followed by small lies, small truths or irrelevancies*' - don't let the big lie go unchallenged!

4. note that the 'sceptics' have no consistency in their arguments: there is no warming, warming is natural, it's cooling, it's the sun, it's volcanoes, etc.

5. make a big point about ocean acidification - this alone is reason to stop pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere

6. maintain a theme throughout - Munchkin has no qualifications, his statements have no basis in reality and are not supported by the planet's experts who are in near-total agreement because the science is totally compelling.

Easy!

/teaching Geronimo to hunt!

Assemble his conspiracy theories one after the other. This will not make him look like a rational person.

Wow, that's really terrific Tim. Good luck with that.

I'm sure you know your stuff. But here's are some tips I got from a guy who debates crackpots on US TV:
*bring emotional stories to lead parts of the answers with. I know we sciency types prefer data, but emotion really does grab the audience. Use that anecdote to transition to the data.
*have some mocking one liners ready to go. Some of this stuff is just best mocked.
*contact the organizations who work on your side on this. They have often studied these cranks carefully for such encounters. They know the arguments they will toss, and have rebuttal guidance composed. Reach out to these organizations, they are dying to help.

I watched Monckton's debate in Toronto (online) as well. I'm not as worried about losing the debate to him, though I've never heard Tim speak before. The Toronto debate had George Monbiot, Elizabeth May, Bjorn Lomborg, and Monckton. The debate didn't go well, especially for Elizabeth May, who threw a tantrum in the middle of the debate. Lomborg was more charismatic than Monckton, and more compelling.

Monbiot did a good job too, had a nice little save to minimize the damage from May's meltdown. But in the end, it was a disaster because May couldn't keep her composure.

I would have ranked Monckton's performance #3 of the 4 debaters.

Good luck Tim! I like the recent trend of having face-offs/debates between prominent deniers and realists. I won't be able to see it live but you have got to post the debate here when it's finished...and devote some virtual space to fact checking the LVMOBs inanities. Can't wait!

Tim, you will do well because you believe in your position and know your science. I suggest you do your best to remain open and direct. Best wishes, Tom

Tim, is it open to the public?

Have fun!

Will slides be sued?

Monckton has a slide in his most recent presentations that shows the last few years of sea ice and their seasonal variation (so you can't see the trend, obv.) The caption says "Arctic sea ice: steady for a decade." It might be nice to have a graph of arctic sea ice and esp. the last ten years to show the deceit.

What's your strategy on the DDT claim? You might try some stunt that denialists always try. If he mentions the DDT ban, state that this is a myth and offer $10,000 dollars to the charity of his choice if he can produce the international treaty or decree that banned DDT for malarial use.

Know thy enemy.

Monckton and his kind win their debates by telling their audiences exactly what they want to hear. They reaffirm the idea that nothing is wrong and we can carry on as we have in the past. To do that he will shovel out as much bs as he possibly can and as fast as he can. He will be like a machine gun firing out a sense of relief to all those in attendance. That sense of relief will smooth over the more bizarre of his claims.
You can't possibly refute every single 'proof' that he regurgitates. There is simply not enough time and he knows that.

In my opinion, to neutralize him, you have to plant seeds of doubt into that sense of relief.
The seeds have to be something that is undeniably true.
Things that those in the audience have saw with their own eyes or have personally experienced.
Personal experience cancels out bs.

If you have to go down to his level and wrestle in the mud, try to get some of that mud on the audience.

Point out just how crazy the basic conspiracy theory really is by exposing it:

Thousands of nerds, worldwide, have banded together (not likely) to avoid actually figuring things out (not likely) and perpetuating a known lie (not likely) in the dim hopes of using the Underpants Gnome-like economic strategy (not likely) of using a fake environmental cause to weasel grant money out of their various governments (not likely to happen); grant money they'd get anyways, just like every other science; grant money that doesn't exactly go straight into the hookers and blow fund.

That conspiracy theory is nothing less than the projection of stupidity and greed.

Hi Tim
yes, I agree with David COG. Point out that Mockton has a degree in classics, no PhD, no peer-reviewed publications and no training in any climate science. Then ask rhetorically how likely is it that he knows more about climate science than all the climate scientists. You could ask: if you were ill who would you go to for a diagnosis....your consultant or your hairdresser? The same goes for Monckton re climate change.

However, I think you have to be cautious. He will lie and you are on a hiding to nothing. There's a very good reason why biologists won't debate with creationists; it gives them credibility. My feeling is that this could be a mistake. Good luck anyway.

Alan Jones as moderator - this is a leg pull right?
Moderators are supposed to be capable of displaying neutrality in relation to the subject of a debate and towards the speakers involved.
There will be tears before bedtime on Friday!

Tim, best of luck!

Frame Monckton for what he is (an unqualified liar and fraud) at the outset...point out his lack of qualifications or experience or credibility. Point to his affiliations with Heartland Institute and the FF industry, that his ludicous claims (he claims to be working on a cure for HIV/AIDS). That he calls young Jews concerned about AGW "Hitler Youth". Point out that Monckton's sole purpose in this "debate" is to confuse the public (a confused public will not demand action on AGW), detract from the very worrying symptoms that the planet is showing as we warm, and to obfuscate-- it really is that simple.
If he lies, call him on it, and do not be afraid to use the "L" word, if you know for sure that he is lying. You are debating a court jester.....

Anyhow, that is one tactic. Usually I would recommend just sticking to the facts and science, but I'm afraid that other have tried that on him and he lied his way out of it.

If you go first preempt some of his arguments...he has some favorites, so shut that door down first.

At the end of the day people need to leave that room knowing that a) the planet is still indeed warming, that there is abundant evidence for this, and b) the science is still solid but that we are on the receiving end of a coordinated attack by those in denial, c) there is an urgent need to reduce our GHG emissions.

Good luck Tim, beware of the Jabberwock. Hopefully afterwards we can say this of the encounter....

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy."

Tim, above all else, don't get wound up when you hear the garbage and lies coming out of Monckton's mouth. I've only seen a couple of these "debates", and the scientists typically become too reactive, and because they haven't always a prepared response, start to look too a wee bit desperate. You have to remember the average Joe doesn't know what Monckton is saying is complete nonsense, as long as he looks and sounds composed, and is able to quote figures (even fictitious ones), to them he must be correct.

He'll likely misrepresent even the basics, so it would pay to know the instrumental record off the top of your head, decadal rates etc., The ability to rattle off numbers and percentages would be a massive advantage. It's no good saying to the audience, "you can check the NASA, NOAA etc , etc website", because you'll look unprepared. Calmly reel off the figure and then reference the reputable source. Monckton, may use the "it's so cold in the Northern Hemisphere, so much for global warming" meme to tap his audience, so I'd have a not too technical response to that too.

Have a knowledgeable friend/colleague act the part of Monckton (gleaned from previous debates/talks by him) and rehearse. That would be my suggestion.

Good luck, because I suspect the moderator(???) and audience will be loaded against you (fruitcakes normally make up the bulk of the audience with these "debates").

I wouldn't make a point of his lack of qualifications at all- that'll be the talking point he'll walk into the debate with a zinger at the ready for. Plus it doesn't really play well with audiences anymore, given how little trust the public has in experts of any stripe in this day and age.

Instead, I would go through DavidOCG's suggestion #1 and strengthen it, by pointing out as well just what it says about the state of the 'debate' that one side is so often represented to the world by a non-scientist who claims he has discovered a cure to HIV and the common cold. That, I think, is really the reductio ad absurdum for denialist credibility, albeit one amongst many.

Most important though is this: playing defense is a losing proposition in a public debate. This is why creationists and denialists have an advantage- the debates tend to focus on misrepresentations of the mainstream theory and its incompleteness at the fringe of what is known. The debate is a good opportunity to contrast what mainstream science are accused of with the deviousness and manifest perfidy of the skeptics, much of which has been so well chronicled in this blog.

Other suggestions, and I'm full of them, is to deemphasize and change the subject from the hockey stick. It is frankly an ancillary line of evidence and belongs back in its place. The focus should be on the most outrageous canards and deceitful misrepresentations, and Plimer's 'work' is the ideal target here.

It's interesting to try and think of ways to provide information to the general public who really have virtually no scientific training and have been trained to look for certain types of information by the media.

The first approach perhaps might be to look at the claim that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will have this very small effect because "it's logarithmic and I can shout loudly" which I believe is Monckton's approach. Perhaps going back to basics: it's utterly accepted that having 250ppm CO2 in the atmosphere leads to an increase in world temperature from -18C to 12C (running on no figures and no sleep here, so apologies for inaccuracies). That's basic physics. So, if you double CO2, what happens to temperature? Are they willing to trust Monckton's maths or their own common sense about the likely result? I think reducing Monckton's maths to "he's telling you it's all going to be okay because he's got an equation; what does your common sense say about doubling a gas that increases temperature by xC at xppm" might work for some. Appeals to the audience's common sense always go down well.

The other thing that is sometimes helpful in terms of the scale of the problem is "how many nuclear bombs is that equivalent to". The global atmosphere/ocean has heated up by so many degree over a decade - let's go with 0.2C in a decade. It sounds miniscule. What the lay person doesn't understand is the scale. The scale everyone's been taught by the media to think in is "how many nuclear bombs is that". So if you get questions etc along the lines of "even if it is warming, it's such a tiny amount" it may be a good one-liner to have to say "okay, globe is 0.2C hotter this decade. Considering the size of the atmosphere, that means we've increased the energy of the globe by x nuclear bombs. How comfortable are you with constantly adding that many nuclear bombs to the atmosphere?"

That's all I can think to suggest to try and cut through some of the mindsets of people who aren't entrenched denialists. I tend to think it's scale that lay people don't understand. And inertia. And how very damn hard it is to increase global temperature and how very successful we are being at it.

A

For the record Tim, I regard this as a poor idea. Wrestling with a pig and all that ... This is not text where people's claims can be pored over and in any event, the audience will be coming to hear their cultural predispositions affirmed. But since you are in the "debate" ...

You need to make it about culture. What kind of world do we want to hand onto our grandchildren? The science says that pollution as usual will lead to a ruined world. That must be your key point.

Regrettably Mr Monckton, your fantasies can't change the basic physics of the planet. Eternity is not a puzzle like the one you lost your shirt backing ...

Eternity is plain to see for those who care to look, and the eternity your brand of head in the sand nonsense will produce is one in which our grandkids lurrch from one disaster to another. If we do not act, when this day comes it will be for us to hope we die before our grandkids know what failures we have been ...

Confronting older people with personal responsibility and hanging the scioence on that sounds a better way of putting him on the defensive. He will call you an alarmist, but you can say that's what everyone who sounds the alarm to rouse the sleeping is ...

Two points: Monckton has been using his mangling of climate sensitivity a lot, so be ready to counter that - I think AmandaS above is right; use ice age transitions to illustrate. Mention the Eemian: 2-3C warmer than now, sea level +6m, CO2 only 300ppm. We're at 387ppm...

In the Posner debate, Monckton flatly stated that ocean acidification couldn't happen. This is such a bare-faced lie that it would be useful to call him on it. He may be able to quote Lindzen and Choi (etc), but I doubt he can do that for ocean chemistry...

Here's a thought - the audience is predominantly Australian (I presume) and we're expecting a high proportion of denialists, right?

Cite Ian Plimer.

I'm serious - specifically, the 29 January debate where Monckton and Plimer collectively argued Not The IPCC.

Plimer's book (presumably read by the skeptical audience) and position was, in essence, the climate's changed before - an argument for high climate sensitivity. Monckton's thesis, of course, is that climate sensitivity is low.

They can't both be right. If Plimer's right, Monckton's Lying For Jesus Not The IPCC. If Monckton's right, why didn't he challenge Plimer on Jan 29 (did he not recognize the contradictory position, or did he assume his audience wasn't smart enough to notice?)?

This should put the audience in a position where Monckton's in conflict with their beliefs. That is NOT a position a debater wants to be in.

OK, other quick tips:

Don't mistake this for a "debate". It's a performance. So, perform:

(a) Wear your best suit, shave, wash hair, etc.
(b) You have only two faces: a big smile (and your eyes have to be smiling too, not just your mouth), and relaxed poker face. No brow-furrowing, no wincing, no squinting, no frowning, no leg-tapping, no ear-pulling, no hair-ruffling, no fiddling, no fidgeting, no desk-tapping, no sighing, no huffing, no eye-rolling... Think of one single body-language gesture you can use and make it your trademark. Relax your shoulders, let them drop down. Open your chest out, breath deeply and normally. Wear clothes that don't show perspiration.
(c) If you get agitated, distract yourself by "making notes" on the paper in front of you. Write in calm, decisive strokes that look unruffled to the audience. You can write what you're feeling on the page, instead of having it register on your face in the form of frowns, squints, winces, sighs, etc...
(d) If possible, don't pay any attention to your opponent (other than listening). Upstage them by occupying your non-speaking time in shuffling papers, writing notes, staring vacantly at some far corner of the room or the ceiling. Act as though the speaker is by far the least interesting and noteworthy thing in the room. The curtains are far more interesting. Try to attract the audience attention from your opponent in passive-aggressive ways so instead of focusing on the speaker, they're looking at you thinking "what is he *doing*?"
(e) Two hours is a long time to remain focused in front of an audience, and your opponent has more practice than you. Pace yourself. It's a marathon, not a sprint. People will remember how you finish at the end, not how you begin or run the middle. You need a big, high-energy finish.
(f) The beginning is the time to build personal rapport with the audience: anecdotes, smiles, an approach and a philosophy that proves your skeptic credentials. Remember, SKEPTIC is a word that rightfully belongs to scientists, you need to take it back from these shysters.
Maybe start with that: "I am a skeptic. Let me explain why..." and then tell the audience some stories from your professional career to illustrate how a skeptic really thinks and acts. Let your explanation show that you are the real skeptic in the room, and the other guy is just a mischief-making clown.

>*The focus should be on the most outrageous canards and deceitful misrepresentations, and Plimer's 'work' is the ideal target here.*

Tim, like Monckton, is not a climate scientist, but like Monckton, Tim knows a fair bit of how denialaists poor on the deceitful misrepresentations.

I agree that this should be the focus, perhaps building exemplifying a pattern of examples. The technical science is great but is too complex for 15-20 minutes and too open to Gish Gallop when dealing with disingenuous types.

Does Monckton have kids?

Good luck in the debate. I'd be prepared for an argument regarding the impact of CO2 emission reductions. This is probably the strongest argument he can advance, frankly. The IPCC report doesn't appear to be very strong in specifics on this matter, from what I've seen.

And he's right to some extent. Even if annual emissions were to stay constant, the CO2 concentration would continue to increase, because the half-life of CO2 in the atmosphere is measured in decades, not years. It would be a good idea to run some numbers to see what sort of an impact you can expect from different levels of emission reductions.

Good luck Tim. Of course, you are debating in front of a crowd which has already decided it's all a scam - cheerfully bear this in mind.

But above all, stay right away from anything to do with Monckton's credentials and credibility. The crowd already know he can be trusted and is qualified. Any side-tracking on this issue just leaves them walking out with the "all he did was insult the great Lord Monckton, a highly respected scientist" impression.

And be prepared to debunk Jone's questions if they deserve it. We can only guess from whom or where Jones might source his questions.

Christopher Monckton of course is probably reading all this and deciding what to do, and quite pleased with all the kerfufflle. Can we just call him Chris?

Tim,

"Plucky Lord Monckton vanquishes the evil Dr Tim Lambert, place agent for the world government conspiracy".

Tim, very, very brave of you. I think you will lose but you should do it. I think reason and climate science are on the back foot right now and will have to take hits, agonising as that may be until we can reassert the roles of reason and evidence. It is a bit like a war when an army deliberately takes casualties in order to establish a superior fighting base.

I'm not trying to dishearten you Tim. You have been given lots of good advice here and I don't know what you are like at debating. The only advice I would offer is the audience is the important thing, not Monckton. As well, Monckton is most probably better qualified at this sort of thing, after all he does it all the time and he has the advantage of a degree in classics unlike you Tim. I've worked with people with classics from Oxbridge and it gives them a terrific advantage in thinking things through and framing an argument. Look how well Monckton uses this tool to tell lies.

BTW is this going to be available online either live or on Y-tube. I'm in Canada at the moment and am kicking myself I won't be there.

Best of luck.

Tim,
IMHO, the best approach to is to keep right away from their comfort zone and stress the areas the deniers don't approach. i.e. stress the satellite radar data for sea-level, satellite gravity for ice cap melting, satellite imagery for Arctic ice extent (currently almost record Feb low!). And stress CSIRO role in the first. The silly old B's in the audience still hold CSIRO as a holy cow. Remember it was geophysical data that eventually overcame all the BS from geologists in identifying plate tectonics. Air temperatures, dendrochronolgy, CRU, MMann, etc are all unnecessary to demonstrating the globe is warming. And best of luck.

Tim,

Some of us think it's impossible for a "debate" like this to be of any value, but if anyone knows how to counter the tricks used by the liars/propagandists, it's you.

I hope there's a video or transcript available.

Yeah, this is why these sorts of debates are not real great. We see it all the time with creationists.

You're debating in front of an audience (including the moderator!) who are there to hear the great Christopher Monckton debunk the evil leftist worldwide global warming scam, not to hear the humble Tim Lambert inform them of what the science actually says in reality and that they're going to have to pay more for their electricity.

But it should be interesting.

Todd is incorrect about the debate in Toronto. Monckton was not there; it was Monbiot and May vs. Lomborg and Nigel Lawson. Lawson was the least effective of the speakers. I thought May did alright; she was sniping at Lomborg, but he deserves to be sniped at. The moderator was not all that good.

http://www.desmogblog.com/munk-debates-good-theatre-bad-policy

I've taken the liberty of transcribing the start of Monckton's debate with Brook/Readfearn and posting it here (all errors in language are mine):

>Ladies and Gentlemen, it is a delight to be here and after this magnificent introduction I can't wait to hear, what I am going to say. First of all I am very grateful to be here in Australia rather than in Scotland because here you introduce me as the VI-count, in Scotland this comes out as the "vacant" Monckton. How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb? Answer: None, because it's to early to tell, whether it needs changing.

>Now what I want to do, as I've only got 10 minutes here, is to concentrate on what I think is the one, central, argument on which the entire climate debate depends. And while I'm on the subject of the word "debate" I would like to hear your appreciation for Prof. Brook and Mr. Readfearn, for agreeing to debate with us, at all. Could you give them a round of applause? And the reason why I say that, is that in the experience of those of us, who are not convinced by the UN climate panel and its supporters, it is very rare, that they are willing to debate with us. Too often we are told "The debate is over", "the science is settled", "nobody is allowed to question anything". So I am very grateful to both of them, for doing us the courtesy of coming and joining us here, to explore in a friendly, disciplined and democratic spirit the question of climate change.

>And I am going to try and boil it down, as every policy maker non-expert of a field must to one question, which seems to hold the key to the entire debate. And that question is known to climate scientists as the climate sensitivity question. That is the question: How much warming will you get, if you increase - as we are increasing - the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Now, we are going to make, on this side of the house, a number of important and necessary concessions, so we can move this debate forward. We are going to concede, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which possess or mimic a dipole moment, cause warming if you add them to the atmosphere. We concede also, that human kind _is_ adding CO2 to the atmosphere at about the rate that the NOAA figures mention. So we are not trying to pretend, that we are not the cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, we are not going to try to pretend that that CO2 will cause no warming. What we are going to contend is that on the measured evidence the amount of warming it causes is around 1/6 to 1/7 of what the UN thinks it is. Now that is a rather startling claim and so I going to try and give you some actual evidence for it. Now you might have heard of the climategate emails .... (Trenberth's "travesty" quote comes next)

Chapeau, a very, very clever start. First of all he shows the audience that he does not take himself too serious, but drives home his message hidden in a joke ("whether it needs changing"). He gratiously asks his audience to thank Brook and Readfearn for joining a "democratic" debate (Since when has science anything to do with democracy? However, if you bring this up this already scuttles any later mention of "consensus"). At the same time he makes it clear, how unfair scientists are treating the "poor skeptics". After that he is shifting the Overton window by taking credit for gratiously __conceding__, that basicly the Earth is round and that the sun is hot - _"Look, we are fighting with our hands tied to the back"_. I think, I've still missed some of the poisened barbs hidden in just these few opening sentences of Monckton.

Tim, you are up against a __master__ in rhetorics. See to it, that you start off with a volley of similar caliber.

Best wishes

Many commenters here think Tim needs a lot of help. A subconscious recognition of Tim's weakness ? Where's Fran the psychoanalyst - perhaps she can shed some light here.

Your champion is not what all you hoped he would be ? Then where are the climate scientists ?

As pointed out by other commentators, you'll be speaking to a crowd who've already decided that climate science is just a front created by those pesky elites in order to impose their ideaology on the common folk. Funny that the message is coming straight from the mouth of aristocracy.

Reclaim the title 'Skeptic'. Skeptic is an honourable term that has to be earned. You become a skeptic through years of rigourous training, practice and research in the skeptical scientific method.

These charlatans have no right to declare themselves 'skeptics', when all they've done is grumble from their armchairs instead of expending serious effort and inquiry.

Tim, you've probably got all the advice and best wishes you need already. So here's one more...

Regarding the 'conspiracy theory' meme, the 'conspiracy' must not only involve ALL climate scientists, 25+ scientific bodies, and a 130 governments, but also pine bark beetles, butterflies, moths, and a myriad other creatures.

Clearly, if it's a conspiracy, someone must have been telling the critters to move north just to pretend that the climate is changing, or to mate more than once a season just to fool us into thinking it gets warmer. Who talked to them? Al Gore? Elvis Presley from North Korea perhaps?

The key thing to keep in mind Tim are the audiences.

1. Monckton -- you want to annoy him enough to want to talk at you rather than pitch at the audience. If you can bait him as a schyster and get him to defend himself he will waste time that could be used spreading his nonsense.

2. The live audience: You aren't going to change any minds. hardly anyone will go who hasn't made up their mind and most of those who do will be incorrigible morons and also unhinged. They are there to fawn at Monckton. You want to make Monckton the bad guy so that ...

3. the main audience, the press, can't say Monckton got a rousing reception, which they will clearly want to do.

Monckton will probably expect this, so it won't be easy but if you are to put him off, you have to sledge him and make him abandon Plan A -- lying about the science. And you have to get the audience thinking about why they should trust this man with their grandkids' future.

There will be a group of LaRouchians in the audience - they seem attracted to this sort of thing like flies to shit.

Study LaRouchery and be prepared to mock it mercilessly - this should help drive a wedge between the two different flavours of crackpots who will compose 90% of the audience and seperate Monckton out in the process.

If props are allowed, find a bottle of english wine, and take it along. That'll goggle 'em, if produced with good timing.

I think Plimer has done us a favour - his book is a useful round-up of denialist crackpottery - study it and be sure you have all the rebuttals on hand for each of them.
"The Sun is made of iron" *has* to be mentioned.

Don't be the first to introduce any scientific topic or claim: stick with questioning credentials/Nobel Prize buffoonery in your answers and only address a science issue after Monckton has already brought it up by making a mis-statement about it which you can then correct...if he goes back to that point, he'll sound like a dog returning to his own vomit. If he doesn't, you've had the last word.

Be swift to point out that you are not a climate scientist/mathematician/physicist AND you don't lie about it in your CV, unlike what most Denialists do.

Here's Monckton's climate sensitivity estimate. I doze off trying to figure out what he's doing. Can anyone else summarize the methodology?

An apparent error:

Since the Earth/troposphere system is a blackbody with respect to the infrared radiation that Eqn. (20) shows we are chiefly concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if ε = 1, giving the blackbody form of Eqn. (19)

The presence of greenhouse gases is essentially what causes the Earth not to have an emissivity of 1. In fact, if Earth had an emissivity of 1 (and considering its bond albedo of 0.29) its temperature would be approximately 255 K, not 288 K. That's over 30 C difference.

The effective emissivity of Earth is 0.612 (see this Wikipedia article.)

Speculating, Monckton's confusion might have to do with the black-body spectrum of Earth (mostly infrared) which apparently is very similar to an idealized black-body spectrum, but not at the top of the atmosphere. After greenhouse gases get done with the idealized black-body spectrum, it will obviously look nothing like one.

Am I right?

'Nother old teacher trick: if the audience get roudy and heckle and try to talk over you, stop talking, stand very still and wait for silence. Calmly, serenely, just stand and wait. Yes you'll lose valuable time, but teach the room that you won't talk if they're talking. If you have to raise your voice, it's a bad look. Show the Moderator that you expect him to do his job - keeping the floor quiet. If the Moderator isn't up to that task, you can just let the floor degenerate into bedlam: just stand, silently, above it all and maintain your dignity. Then you can say afterwards that the audience wouldn't let you have your say and that the denialists are trying to stifle debate...

Hey Tim: I wish I didn't live in Canada, but I am sure that you are going to do well.

Just a thought, could you work in somewhere that you will do the heavy lifting science on your blog and direct people here and then do a series of posts of why Monckton was wrong based on well documented science.

Often science does not come across in these types of debates, so don't worry too much about providing too much detail. Call him on what he says, say the proof is on your blog and invite Monckton to do a post on your blog as well.

Best,
John

It might be a bad idea to try and compete with his strength which is his stage performance.

You could instead avoid and neutralize that strength of his by acting in contrast to him - ie calm and serious.

Convey to the audience your disappointment that Monckton is taking such a serious subject so lightly with his jokes and stage act (and perhaps even his use of ignorant arguments as if this is some kind of cheap game). Point out to the audience that this isn't your typical run of the mill political issue, but an issue that concerns our future climate and economy, whichever side of the issue you sit on.

This may be enough to make Monckton's usual jester performance backfire completely and set him on the backfoot as he struggles to figure out how to act seriously. It might even make denialists in the audience go home feeling uneasy. They turned up for the equivalent of an entertaining political sports match only to have the seriousness of the issue invoked.

I don't even know how Monckton would handle this approach. Would he try to use more jokes to dispel your criticism? In my opinion he would just end up looking like a clown if he did that, and you could just shake your head and look **disappointed** in him. How would that look to the audience?

I notice that the format of the debate makes it possible that the "relevant" moderator questions will be pre-written and that Monckton will be given the questions he will be asked prior to the debate so he can prepare his answers. If so he would have his jokes and performance already planned. Would be funny if you scuppered that by forcing him to go all serious.

On the otherhand you could just play it how you want in my opinion. I don't think a non-TV broadcast debate will have much effect on anything. Morano will spin it how Morano spins it.

Joseph (88) - here's my handy list of 125 errors in Monckton's approach:

http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

The main reason he gets such a low sensitivity is E58 where he uses the dubious measurements of (lack of) warming in the tropical mid-troposphere to argue for a global reduction by a factor of 3 in *forcing*, which makes absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever.

...and what Fran says....

What I would do is ask Monckton if he can imagine being wrong about AGW. If he says he can't, it may well be a strike against him with the audience. Ditto if he's evasive.

If he says he can, you've opened the door to discussing what the proper global response would be to "hypothetical" warming. You can also point out that his overconfident rhetoric is inappropriate, given the possibility that the scientists he's denouncing as liars and dupes are actually correct.

Reclaim the title 'Skeptic'. Skeptic is an honourable term that has to be earned. You become a skeptic through years of rigourous training, practice and research in the skeptical scientific method.

These charlatans have no right to declare themselves 'skeptics', when all they've done is grumble from their armchairs instead of expending serious effort and inquiry.

Seconded. Great point!

>*How many climate [deniers] does it take to change a light bulb?*

* None, who needs a light bulb with your head in the sand!

* None, if deniers put it off and down-play the risks, then the children can pay for it instead!

* Who cares, life is fragile, the climate risks are high and denier's views should not warent much time.

The main reason he gets such a low sensitivity is E58 where he uses the dubious measurements of (lack of) warming in the tropical mid-troposphere to argue for a global reduction by a factor of 3 in forcing, which makes absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever.

@Arthur Smith: Thanks for that. He rests his case almost entirely on Lindzen (2007), and the factor of 3 reduction is basically pulled out of his ass.

I'm with the others here Tim. This is not a science debate - it has to be a performance on your part that doesn't come across as arrogant, but has a good solid scientific basis.

Perform, perform, perform.

You could perhaps lead in by referring to Monckton as "This charismatic charlatan ..."

Point out that Mockton has a degree in classics, no PhD, no peer-reviewed publications and no training in any climate science. Then ask rhetorically how likely is it that he knows more about climate science than all the climate scientists.

Maybe not so good an idea. Monckton, without doubt a polished debater, will throw the same basic charge straight back at Lambert.

'And what is your track record of peer reviewed publication in climate science, Mr Lambert?'

I suspect Monckton's weakness is that he is only good when he is on a roll and the audience is with him. Get him flustered and making mistakes, get the audience to seriously doubt at least one or two of his central claims, disrupt the flow of his performance (and it is a performance, above all else), and you might get somewhere.

The question being debated is:

DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND ?

My short answer is: Only some of humankind.
To which we can add: It is our actions now that determine how many or how few humans are endangered. Avoiding meaningful action is the choice to endanger as many humans as possible by AGW.
To which we can add: And AGW is going to endanger a lot of important (to humankind) species of plants and animals.
And further: Recent retirees in Australia are among the longest lived Aussies: the bald facts are that they may yet live to see the damage inflicted upon their sons and daughters, today's Generation X, and their children.

Finally, for those who thing we can seriously expand agriculture into Northern Australia, see this news article on a recent report into that.

Tim>

Might I suggest that, at the end of your summary, you clearly direct folk to google "Tim Lambert Deltoid" so that they can follow, at their leisure and in great detail, the analyses of Monckton's many errors of fact.

I am sure that you will have a long post here addressing Monckton's nonsense (Moncktsense?), and it would be handy to have a tag at the end of any electronic recording (and even in the minds of the audience) that leaves the listener with a quick reference to the fine print.

Interesting that all the shadow boxers here are willing send heaps of advice to Tim, but no one has actually said they will show up and give him some vocal support or applause ?
Fair weather friends, or is the climate getting too catastrophic for the camp followers ?

You paying for my airline ticket, Keith? I haven't heard you say you're going to support Monckton, so does that mean you think Monckton is a loser even before the debate? If I don't tell you I'm going to the movies next weekend, does that mean I'm not going?

Thank to bluegrue's transcript, [Monckton states](http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.htm…):

>*We are going to concede, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which possess or mimic a dipole moment, cause warming if you add them to the atmosphere. We concede also, that human kind is adding CO2 to the atmosphere at about the rate that the NOAA figures mention. So we are not trying to pretend, that we are not the cause of the CO2 in the atmosphere increasing, we are not going to try to pretend that that CO2 will cause no warming.*

Quite an embarresment for Plimer to have Monckton conceed some Plimers most argured points like that! I assume Plimer was sitting right next to him. Plimer must have been overwhelm by Monckton's musk and taken the submissive fawning beta-male position. (Wasn't it after spending time with Monckton that Plimer started attacking the "bad breading" of his critics?)

It means Monckton is left with:

>*What we are going to contend is that on the measured evidence the amount of warming it causes is around 1/6 to 1/7 of what the UN thinks it is. Now that is a rather startling claim and so I going to try and give you some actual evidence for it.*

Leading back to Monckton's letter to to APS:

>*With these assumptions, κ is shown to be less, and perhaps considerably less, than the value implicit in IPCC (2007).*

What assumptions were they again? If Monckton hasn't refined his claims in the last 2 years, then I think [someone has](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php) called him on this before:

>*If you assume that there is no delay in warming (which is wrong) and McKitrick is right (which is also wrong), then you get a low value of sensitivity. If you also assume that the IPCC values for ÎF2x and f are correct, then their value of κ must be too high -- Monckton comes up with a number 20% less. But in the previous section Monckton argued that the IPCC value of ÎF2x was too high by a factor of three. If instead you use Monckton's number, the IPCC value of κ is too low.*

But imagaine debating those details?

What an interesting site I stumbled on here. Never heard of it before, nor, I am afraid to say, have I heard of Mr Lambert before. No shame in that.

So many disciples of the True Faith all gathered in one band. Fascinating stuff. Like a blog exclusively for the Na'vi.

Anyway, Tim, my humble advice:

Before going through with this, I suggest you have a word with Graham Readfearn, erstwhile environmental journalist at the Courier Mail. He is still trying to extract his Colorado loafers from his mouth I suspect. Mind you, given he resigned - or perhaps was shown the door - a few days later, he has plenty of time.

Oh, and as someone said at comment 102, some of the fair weather barrackers ought to trot along to give you some moral support. That's assuming they can get leave passes from the ward. It will make great TV, assuming it is filmed. Personally, I am just keen to see what you lot actually look like!

My prediction? Monckton will make you regret your decision.

I am sure that the posters on this site are well-meaning but the idea that with the right approach that you can "win" a debate about science (moderated by Alan Jones) if it is to be judged by an audience of One Nation supporters is dubious.

Monckton's Larouchian claims of a secret plan for world government, his claims that the environmental movement are reds in disguise just shows that he knows his demographic - the nutty and the paranoid.

Debating Monckton gives him the credibility that he desperately craves. This is the man that even Barnaby Joyce describes "on the fringe".

Nevertheless Tim I admire your courage. Perhaps you can invite Lord Wingnut to debate you in front of an audience of climate scientists.

Brian D had some good advice that I'd like to second.

By way of example: when debating creationists the biologist mistakes it for a science debate and gets hammered on sophistry. The philosopher, on the other hand, realises that creationists have *different* beliefs from each other! When it is pointed out that the youn Earth creationists are in direct conflict with metaphorical 6 dayers and literal 6 dayers who concede a world of sorts existed before God cleaned it up, and yet they all demand that Genesis is taken literally, the obvious conclusion is that at most one creationist cult can be correct - and most probably none at all. Kind of deflates the balloon when the audience realises that your opponent(s) are in as much conflict with each other as they are with you.

In the case of Monk's Monck, for each of his favourite debating points/factoid, have another famous denier's opposing debating point, and if you want real effect, add a third denier's factoid in conflict with the first two! Gentle humour mocking their conflicted views is a lot safer than mocking the Monck with a supportive audience.

If you want some serious professional guidance on how to cleverly hold your own, why not give Rod Quantock a call? He did a very funny and serious presentation on AGW not so long back. Alternative the wideo is almost certainly here!

Good luck Tim.

PS: Maybe Rod Quantock should debate Monck sometime?

"Proud Skeptic" validates my beliefs. Namely that the world is full of people latching on to anyone that validates their uninformed attitude. Not unlike the cancer sufferer that would rather hear good news from a faith healer. Yeah, you feel better in the short term, but......

I think my parents typify the cross section we are talking about. To quote my mother, "Why should I care about climate change? I'll be dead before anything happens". Sadly it's a generational change that's required to combat the problem. Something we just don't have time for....

"DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND ? "

Why wouldn't this be a shoe-in for Tim?

- storms, cyclones, extreme weather
- rising seas, flooding, island refugees
- drought, crop failure, famine
- increase in AIDS and other contagious diseases
- glacial retreat, disrupted river flow

and more.

I've been reading all about global warming in the popular press for quite a few years now, and these are the impacts. Aren't they?

+1 for Donald Oats' comment - it's largely not about who's right on facts and logic. It's about the appearance of authoritativeness and about emotional appeal.

On authoritativeness, you're up against it. I'd bet that most of the true Monckton believers are authoritarian followers (in the sense defined by Altemeyer). If so they will believe whatever he says regardless of evidence or logic, and the task is to show them that their leader is a bulldust artist (not easy in a debate - for the real hardcore authoritarian followers nothing will change their allegiance and it may take years for most).

The "Cracks In The Wall" series by Sara Robinson at Orcinus discusses some methods to help plan the seeds that might lead to authoritarians abandoning their allegiance, but most of these require considerable time.

I think Donald's approach is much more viable in a debate - and there are plenty of examples...

I think you'll find that you cannot win this debate. The science doesn't really matter, one way or the other.

What Lord Monckton and others from the "sceptic" camp offer is much more palatable to people, because it doesn't involve spending gazillions on dubious outcomes.

But, even assuming that you are right and that there is human caused global warming, a simple fact that China, India and other big polluters will do nothing (we know that after Copenhagen) should be sufficient to close this debate (at least for next 10 years) in Australia.

You know, Lord Monckton is quite correct when he says that we'll just export our jobs. And you will find yourself arguing essentially against our own jobs - I do not envy you.

RyanStarr, I reckon the question is loaded - it frames the issue a particular way.

It sets up the assertion that "climate has "always changed"; even if humans are contributing now it's no worse than the (distant) past, so our contribution isn't *causing* harm - and besides which humanity will certainly survive (in some fashion)."

That, and as the sober serious scientists are fond of pointing out, we don't have data that would allow us to attribute any *specific* event to (A)GW. And there are the aspersions floating around that the process of assessing the likely impact is corrupt.

It's true there are good reasons why these arguments are dodgy or miss the point, but there's some work to do when half the audience already "knows" that our activities aren't impacting the climate and even if they are the dinosaurs seemed to have thrived when it was hotter and even if that's not true they don't see why they should be the ones to change...or something.

This will be a turkey shoot. I almost feel sorry for you Tim. (No, not really).

Still, you can always come back here, lick your wounds, and explain how you would have won if only it was a fair contest. You know, if you hadn't taken a knife to a gunfight!

I am apprehensive about this Tim. I know this clown needs contradicting, but you are giving him credibility ("see, there IS a debate still, and Christopher is right up there with the scientists as a serious debater"). There is no way to win a debate with these people in this kind of format (and that would be without Jones as "moderator" - talk about an oxymoron). He will simply fire off outrageous statements without pausing for breath. While you are starting to give a long complicated answer to the first one five more will come your way. He just doesn't care about your answers (and nor does Jones), has absolutely no interest in them, his aim is to create the impression of many "unanswered (and therefore obviously unanswerable) questions". This isn't an academic discussion at a seminar. This is no holds barred denialism. I wish you well, but I think there will be tears before bedtime.

If you are interested in theatre, I'd be tempted to bring in the latest IPCC reports from all three working groups. I'd use sticky notes to mark the bits that have been corrected or withdrawn or amended, and if necessary I'd cut them out on stage and "pile" them up to one side. When I'm done with that I'd pile up the remainder of the reports and compare them. Alternatively I'd spend a couple of minutes handwriting in the corrections (ideally with a projector so people could watch.) It would be a nice visual demonstration of how little impact has been made. And you can go on to visually separate the science report from the impact reports...

If you're really game, you can bring in copies of all of Monckton's papers sticky-noted at each error or problem...and then point out you don't have enough time in the debate to correct them all.

You'd probably receive a nice little rant about how thousands of scientists have conspired to produce that big big pile and it's rubbish...which lets you point out how implausible that scenario is, how if the science is so blatantly wrong how any moderately sized multi-national could spend $10-20 million of its own money to thoroughly debunk it and get it published; how skeptical papers are indeed getting published despite protestations to the contrary and aspersions about conspiracy, and:

"Q: What do you call skeptical climate change research that stands up to scrutiny?"

"A: Climate science."

Needs better phrasing for a denialist audience, but the point is that any position of the denialist that proves out becomes part of accepted science. If you're game you might point to the McIntyre hockey stick criticism which was valid and accepted as good science - but had a tiny impact, something most blind followers of his self-promotion won't know.

You could mock the rate of progress of the efforts to "debunk/correct" the IPCC report, noting that the big companies that take a skeptical view and stand to profit from it don't seem to be investing much in the simple effort to easily debunk the IPCC rubbish - they must have terrible business leaders, or they must not believe the line they are pushing...

Keith, love [your work](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2256661) mate!

In fact, you've convinced me that global warming is not a serious risk, and that the science is bunk. Keep spreading the good news!

Back in the real world: Donald appears to have identified that topic, "*DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND?*.

This topic reminded me of the [Schmidt et al. vs Lindzen et al. debate](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151), which Lindzen et al won by addressing the question of the topic "'Global Warming Is Not a Crisis". I think from memory they did so in a Lomborg styled argument with Lindzen trying to create doubt about aspects of science where he could? Schmidt et al seemed to argue the science instead of the implication of the science, and they lost.

What did I take from that: debates to a large extent are about imagination, inspiration, and emotion. But also answering the question.

So to address the question, unless Tim thinks feedbacks are worse than Lovelock, then the aswer to the question might be unclear. The answer either way will be more speculative than debating the climate sesistivity. Few people argue that ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGErs MANKIND. There maybe a large polulation contraction but shifting from 6.7 billion population to 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 billion might not make a highly adaptable species an endagered species. Andrew Glickson cites a study that found large mammals evolved only after CO2 dropped below something like 450 ppm. I think the literature on this question might be thin.

Seems like a loaded question.

But considering the big picture, how many people will have their mind changed by a debate? I'd only change my mind if I heard new information, or if I checked out the claims post debate and found significant falsehoods. Perhaps the material will be new to many people and some may check it post debate?

Any debater resorting to post-it notes or to shuffling piles of paper under the microphone is instantly disqualified. Rightly!

Mr Jayman
The audio of the full Brisbane debate is available courtesy the Courier Mail
I have just listened and didn't find the timing unbalanced--nor did i\I think the participants equal in ability.

It is about 1hr 20mins long
http://mediaO1.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.html?id=1418

I can't help but echo others that I'm not sure this is such a good idea. Monckton doesn't deserve the attention and the moderator, even more than the opponent, will be out to get you; Alan Jones has been pressing people's buttons for years, has openly taken sides and will not be bound by any pre-agreed format, especially if you look like you are making inroads. Even more than the Nobel Prize winning member of the House of Lords, Jones really can't tolerate people telling him he's wrong. Since this was originally intended as Monckton lecturing to the loyal disbelievers - with Jones' endorsement - the audience will surely be against you. Anyone actually prepared to pay to hear Monckton is not going to be open minded, no matter that taking Monckton seriously indicates an excess of gullibility.
Be honest, be forthright, don't get goaded into saying stuff you regret. The strength of the case for taking climate change seriously derives from honest science that can stand scrutiny.

80, Thanks Holly for the correction. Not sure why I confused Monckton and Lawson. I agree that Lawson wasn't very good, and I do think May knows her stuff way better. I was evaluating more from the perspective of persuasiveness of those who do not have a lot of background on the topic.

Anyway, good luck with the debate, Tim.

This had better be posted to YouTube!

No excuses...

Richard, Comment 107 said:

"Proud Skeptic" validates my beliefs. Namely that the world is full of people latching on to anyone that validates their uninformed attitude. Not unlike the cancer sufferer that would rather hear good news from a faith healer. ......
Sadly it's a generational change that's required to combat the problem. ...."

You need to re-read your post carefully, Richard, then look closely into the mirror. The world is, indeed, full of people latching on to anything that validates their uninformed attitude. The high point of that came with the release of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", a movie produced not by a scientist, but a former politician for goodness sake. Although the movie has been discredited - not least for its hyperbole and use of the infamous Manne Hockey Stick graph, but after studious analysis by the High Court in England. Nevertheless, the movie allowed legions of people to latch on to an unproven theory that validates their own mindset about mankind being like a rapacious host on this planet. It gave validation to Deep Green philosophy.

That unshakeable mindset continues, in spite of the wealth of contradictory evidence and despite the revelations over the past few months about the processes of the IPCC, the leaders of which have lied, concealed evidence, manipulated data, discarded contrary evidence and colluded to justify their own raison d'etre. Similarly, revelations about Pachauri. If the actions of Pachauri, Jones and Manne, for example, aren't those of carpetbaggers, then I will stand corrected.

Anyone who has a deep seated conviction to "The Science" and who has not paused for reflection in light of these revelations, simply isn't trying Richard. Either that or to paraphrase your own message, they prefer to keep believing in the faith healer even when shown he is a fraud.

It is not, as you say, a generational issue ;rather it is one between those willing to question if the emperor has clothes and those too busy happy hand clapping. Cheering for the faith healer, even when he is shown to be acting fraudulently, is more a question of faith than understanding. Like all faith, it has the potential to do enormous damage.

Who is debating with Monckton? El Gordo or David Duff?

@119, "The strength of the case for taking climate change seriously derives from honest science that can stand scrutiny."

People of the world have already spoken and they do NOT take climate change threat seriously for whatever reason, science or no science notwithstanding. Otherwise, they would have committed to something in Copenhagen.

See, the case for action on climate change action has been made at the highest of places. It has been rejected. Tim is fighting an uphill battle here, one he cannot possibly win. Alan Jones doesn't matter. Lord Monckton doesn't matter either. They are just a manifestation of reality.

I think you're kind of crazy for accepting this, but at the same time I admire your bravery.

Please post a transcript or video if possible.

>*People of the world have already spoken and they do NOT take climate change threat seriously for whatever reason*

I must have missed that poll.

I noticed the US voting for Obama, the Auzzies voting for Rudd, British opposition and government taking it seriously; but didn't see where we had to say if take climate change seriously.

>*People of the world have already spoken and they do NOT take climate change threat seriously for whatever reason*

I'll believe that when a politcal leader camgaings clearly promising inaction and wins.

"People of the world have already spoken and they do NOT take climate change threat seriously for whatever reason, science or no science notwithstanding. Otherwise, they would have committed to something in Copenhagen."

This is of course totally unrelated to the big oil/coal sliming of science and scientist.

The shit-spewing machine created by the tobacco industry is still functioning to perfection.
This just goes to show that we should have executed the tobacco executives for their mass-murder-by-propaganda. I donât think that the big oil/coal murderers will get off quite so easily. You are wise to be Anonymous; it will prevent a crimes-against-humanity charge.

It does make one wonder though; does you family know what a lovely future you have planned for them?

"They are just a manifestation of reality." so is lethal injection.

@127, Your post is a clear indication as to why sceptics call people like yourself religious zealots.

@125, Yeah, you must have missed it. Here is the link: http://en.cop15.dk/. :-)

>*@127, Your post is a clear indication as to why sceptics call people like yourself religious zealots.*

WT?

What is this dope smoking? And is he refering to real skepctics or the fake ones who are ideological zealots. Oh well, if dopes can't argue their case its no big loss.

Proud Skeptic wrote:

Although the movie has been discredited ... after studious analysis by the High Court in England.

Ah, yes.

Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

Yep, so totally discredited that its central thesis was upheld, and it could be ... shown in schools around the country, "as long as updated guidelines were followed".

Utterly and completely discredited.

Well, except that central thesis and most of the rest.

That's a problem with many denialists - not very good at maths ;-)

I'll leave the bogus claims about the hockey stick as an exercise for the reader.

Whups, posted this in the wrong thread. Monckton lies:

7:32 âNow we have as scientific phrase, we scientists, for thisâ¦â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idTHcot8tLc

Call him on it. Monckton is NOT a scientist. Not by education, nor profession.

Also, Monckton is still trotting out the graph discussed here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliber…

It might be useful to produce a copy of the real deal, contrast it with Monckton's 'creative' version, and let the audience decide...

Tim,

I admire your courage, however like quite a few others on here, I think that this is an exercise in futility. In a stacked venue with a hostile moderator, all it does is add legitimacy to Monckton's ravings.

Just read the transcript of Jones' interview with Malcolm Turnbull:

http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=3901

Can't see Jones giving you a fair go.

Firstly may I commend you Tim for offering to debate Lord Monckton. It's called putting your money where your mouth is and for that I congratulate you.

Having observed the Brisbane debate first hand just standing up with a series of charts, as Professor Brook did, will have no affect on Monckton's audience.

May I suggest you must point out where and why you believe Lord Monckton to be wrong and to do it in a humorous relaxed fashion, just like he does, and don't do a Graham Readfern and attack him, the audience will boo you as they did Graham in Brisbane.

my 0.2C

Good luck mate.

>*and to do it in a humorous relaxed fashion*

Cos that reflects the evidence? The medium is the message, and global warming as a threat to our current civilisation is humorous idea?

Maybe you were concerned that Tim might be be somber? And that might allow his demenour to communicate a large fraction of the message.

Someone above commented that I hadn't mentioned the Monckton debate. This was because I was waiting for the ABC Big Ideas video to be posted. It now has been. [See here for details](http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/02/08/monckton-vs-brook-debate-the-vide…).

Monckton is NOT a scientist. Not by education, nor profession.

Nor, most importantly, by temperament.

This is an object lesson in how to admit defeat and then spin it before you've even lost.

* Monckton's too good a showman
* Jones is biased
* The audience is biased
* Given the conditions, you shouldn't do it, but good onya anyway for being brave enough to take a public disembowelling for The Cause...

Not exactly the way to prop up your man....

Agree with Janama,tone is more important than substance with Monckton's patsies.

What it is, Rick, is an object lesson in how little the truth matters to the stupid and the venal.

Another thing I've noticed when watching the Qld debate: just because Monckton has shifted ground on the more contentious claims he made for years until recently, it doesn't follow that Tim should only contend with his current claims. A quick historical on his prior claims and the blinding certainty with which Monckton promoted them from the pulpit (sorry, lectern :-P ) might shake the odd viewer into realising Monckton is not concerned about getting the science right but is concerned about doing the hard sell on his various audiences.

Just remember the words on the sacred book: "Don't Panic".

"Proud Sceptic" @ 105: some of the fair weather barrackers ought to trot along to give you some moral support...Personally, I am just keen to see what you lot actually look like!'

Well, I'll be easy to spot. I'll be the one with a short-back and sides haircut wearing my usual business attire of a suit and tie. Were you expecting something else?

Amazing how quickly things have changed. I don't remember alarmists being concerned about a 'fair debate' as recently as 2 months ago.

A sure sign the tide has turned.

If arrogance and bluster were significant factors in the debate then you might have a chance.
As it's going to be down to intellect, then I'm afraid you're stuffed.
Never mind. You might be able to poke fun at his eyes. Should be good for a laugh.

@145 Kent Brockman: I don't remember alarmists being concerned about a 'fair debate' as recently as 2 months ago.

Poor Kent! He can't remember anything more than two months ago! No wonder he's impressed by Monckton. Monckton doesn't have the same story straight more than two months in a row, but by then Kent's already forgotten what His Lordship told him.

John #123

David Duff clearly has a better sense of humor.

Proud Skeptic, you also forgot to mention that when Monckton & co were losing the case against Gores film, they attempted to persuade the judge to allow either Swindle or Moncktons own film "Apocalypse? No!".........neither films succeeded.

If Gores film was full of so many errors & required ammendments, but was still allowed to be shown, then how bad must have swindle & Moncktons film have been? Haha.

You'd be ideal to moderate this cartoon debate,eh,Kent Brockman?

@Donald

> A quick historical on his prior claims

FWIW, I think this is a bad idea. The obvious response is that Monckton is open minded, reasonable and amenable to changing his opinion when new evidence comes in - unlike those filthy warmists who are dogmatic and can't do anything but attack the man!

Or something like that anyway...

Speaking as a scientist, I have major concerns when debating denialists. The main problem is that many of them lie through their teeth and appear confident in doing so, whereas scientists who debate them, as is their professional nature, generally appear cautious and reserved in the way that they present their data. So who will the public believe? The confident liar or the cautious truth-broker? If the audience were largely made up of scientists who could separate the wheat from the chaff, this would be no problem, but audiences made up of members of the public from all walks of life and from all professional backgrounds are likely to side with the speaker who gives little doubt as to what he or she believes. This is because they will not be intellectually equipped to understand all of the nuances of the argument, and willopt for the speaker who gives little doubt as to the "truth".

Therein lies the rub. Many of the most strident denialists speak as through there is no doubt that global warming has nothing to do with human activity, whereas the debater on the other side will be arguing in terms of probabilities.

The other side of the coin is that when scientists refuse to debate deniers, then the denial camp argues that the scientists are "running scared". This has been a much used ploy, even though I have debated Bjorn Lomborg and I certainly had no fear of him of of his "facts". If truth be told, he appears to be avoiding me since our one encounter in 2002. This might be because his chapter on biodiversity is in my opinion and those of most of my peers in ecology an abomination because he hashes up many of the concepts he discusses in it. I held nothing back in our debate around this chapter and he certainly looked ruffled when I was speaking.

The fact is that deniers are often in a win-win situation, as I explained above. However, do I wish Tim every success in his encounter with Monckton. I look forward to hearing about the outcome.

John #123

David Duff clearly has a better sense of humor.

Compared to your attempts at "taking the piss" that isn't saying a lot. You believe in the same conspiracy theories Monckton does, never admit you're wrong and change tack so often that I'd have to pick you. Consider yourself in prestigious company. If you're lucky you might be fawned over by the easily impressed Coenhite.

Not to mention Jeff. the serious disadvantage scientists have of needing to avoid lying or generally uttering reckless or downright bogus claims. That's a serious tactical disadvantage when debating agnotologists.

A scientist can and will be held accountable for such malfeasant conduct by other scientists and would be finished but the filth merchants, who have no reputations to defend can act as they please, feeding the chickens, as Joh Bjelke-Peterson used to call it.

That the pseudo science political fringe have managed to shape AGW as a 'debate' at all is such a sad reflection on the media and public information systems that many rely on.
I think it's a mistake to try and engage the public in this way, the issues are too complex to try and get them accross convincingly in a kangaroo court of soundbites.
Good luck anyway.

Jeff, the confidence you mention the denialists have, sounds like the [Dunning-Kruger Effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

â The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. â

I think Lomborg is almost more dangerous than Monckton. He is sort of young, hip, enigmatic & it makes it harder for the unintiated to see through his Frank Lutz like pr psychology & his bait & switch techniques of "shouldnt we be spending our money on disease, poverty etc etc?".

Kare Fogs website on [Bjorn Lomborg](http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/). does a great deconstruction of Lomborgs dishonesty.

107 Donald,

But that is precisely the problem. It is a signature of denidiots that they hold incompatible beliefs without even feeling cognitive dissonance. Given that they've been doing this for some years, why imagine that they can suddenly be made aware of this? This is the point of my [HTBAGWS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/eli_rabbets_guide_to_climate_t…) (which needs updating but still works IMO).

Unfortunately, I tend to think these "debates" are almost always set-ups.

For what it's worth, here's my advice:

Maybe if you can make him so mad, that he'll make a mistake ...

Darwin apparently pointed this dynamic out - "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."

Hope you were watching Media Watch tonight Tim. Worth checking out the transcripts if you missed it.

Tim, as fascinating (and possibly even useful) as all the advice offered here is, surely if you can't represent your own views as yourself but instead have to resort to being somebody/something you are not usually, then should you be attending at all ?

Wouldn't anything less be just "playing a game" with the aim to win at any cost ?

Ask yourself, is the opportunity cost really worth the price and prize ?

The phrase "on a hiding to nothing" springs to mind ... but whatever rocks your boat, eh ?

regarDS

120 ToddF,

Your confusion is not altogether surprising. They are both right-wingers who worked with Margaret Thatcher. They are related by marriage: Rosa Monckton, Lord Munchkin's sister, is married to Dominic Lawson, Nigel Lawson's son. Plus, of course, Lawson gets his "science" from Munchkin.

Lawson was on BBC's 'Question Time' recently, spouting his denialist nonsense.

Who let the dogs out?

Someone on the Denialist side is obviously taking an interest in Tim's stoush with Monckton, and is rallying the foaming lunatics to storm from the assylum.

Note how not a one of them presents any science to bolster their 'case'.

Hope you were watching Media Watch tonight Tim. Worth checking out the transcripts if you missed it.

Second that.

152 Jeff,

Yes, indeed. A similar thing happens in court cases. Witnesses who appear confident and certain in their testimony have a much greater influence on the jury than those who are less so, even when the former are later shown to be wrong.

I like this - not a hard core climate scientist but a great blogger who knows the ins and outs of the denialosphere. My opening line would be:
"He's a classic's trained journalist who makes puzzles and I'm a computer science lecturer - what in god's name are you listening to us for! I hear tomorrow there is a debate about nuclear power between the cleaning lady and the postman."

Man I'd love to debate MOnckton!

Thanks for the tip Gummo, the link is here:

>Lord Monckton: *The Barrier Reef Authority has established that sea temperatures in the region of the reef have not changed at all over the last 30 years.*

>Jon Faine: Rupert?

>Rupert Posner: That's simply not true, I mean...

>Lord Monckton: *I have the figures from the Barrier Reef Authority. I have their chart. I've got it in my slides. I'll be showing it at the ball room of the Sofitel Hotel at 5.30 in Melbourne today.*

â ABC Radio 774, Mornings with Jon Faine, 1st February, 2010

>Well, we weren't at his Lordship's lecture, so we don't know what figures were on his slide.

>The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority says it doesn't measure sea temperatures itself, and doesn't know where his figures come from.

>But its chief scientist says that what's important is the trend over the past century or so.

>The peer reviewed science we rely on indicates that there has been an increase in ocean temperatures in the last 130 years and this significantly impacts on the health of corals in the Great Barrier Reef.

I see a problem with the title:
"DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND?" is about impacts. And dangerous impacts are mostly predictions - and therefore without proof, whatever the facts that lead to this predictions say. He can nail you there. When all 4 questions are about impacts, you are on defense, and thats not good.
Try to go "back to the roots", the facts here and now, thats where deniers are weak by definition.

Tim, it has been said already but it was by far the best suggestion here - point out the cognitive dissonance of denialism. Monckton is arguing for a very low climate sensitivity. Plimer's forays into paleoclimate fall apart with a low climate sensitivity.

If you can, keep track of Monckton's cites and point out where they contradict each other. Say he cites paper A for this and paper B for that, and you realise that if A is true then B can't be true... well it's probably too much to hope for that he'll throw you something so obvious, but you never know!

Stu is Monckton not arguing that there is very low forcing rather than low sesitivity?

Best of luck Tim, it won't hurt you to study how Monboit trounced Ian Plimer six weeks ago.

Good luck - I do fear it's stacked

And I do hope you've asked at least what Monckton's getting in a fee.

question is really horrible.

wild speculation and making up complete nonsense is a Monckton speciality.

Tim,

Start out with the Himalayas disappearing by 2035, oh wait that's a lie. How about the rainforest disappearing, oh yeah that's a lie also. How about the polar icecap disappearing, sorry again that is a lie. Huge storms, hurricanes and massive deserts, sorry again lie, lie, lie.

Different approach, show him the computer model that shows what happened over the past ten years to convince his that it can predict the next fifty. Oh I forgot that doesn't exist.

Wow, it's going to be really hard for you to win this debate, with a bunch of bore hole studies when the station data has been manipulated and the IPCC report was written by the WWF.

Good Luck

Bruce, you are uninformed.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature…

i guess you can t stand the heat, can you?

Bruce Barrett, either you are an ignoramus or else you are trying to be witty.

You wrote, :How about the rainforest disappearing, oh yeah that's a lie also. WRONG. THE PLANET HAS LOST MORE THAN 50% OF TROPICAL WET FORESTS OVER THE PAST CENTURY.THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE, BY EXTENDING THE LENGTH OF DRY SEASONS, MAY GREATLY EXACERBATE THE RATE OF FOREST LOSS DUE TO SUCH PROCESSES AS CLEARCUTTING AND DESTRUCTION OF MICROHABITATS BY FIRE.

How about the polar icecap disappearing, sorry again that is a lie. WRONG. POLAR CAPS ARE DECREASING SIGNIFICANTLY, EXPECIALLY IN THE ARCTIC. BY 2050 THE ARCTIC MAY BE FREE OF ICE IN SUMMER.

Huge storms, hurricanes and massive deserts, sorry again lie, lie, lie. WRONG. DESERTS ARE RAPIDLY EXPANDING IN SCALE ACROSS THE GLOBE DUE TOI A COMBINATION OF REGIONAL CHANGES IN CLIMATE AND OVER-INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ON DRY LANDS. FURTHER EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THE STRENGTH OF STORMS AND HEAT WAVES, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE ALSO INCREASING.

As Bernard said, who opened the gates to the lunatic asylum? Suddenly this thead is being contaminated by comments from complete and utter idiots.

jakerman, I guess "The Barrier Reef Authority" turns out to be McLean, purportedly using NOAA data:

prominently featured on [marohasy](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/sea-surface-temperatures-along…)

Call him out on his supposed membership of the House of Lords, as he stated in his letter to some U.S. Senators a few years back if the opportunity arises.

Monckton is very good at what he does, which is to charnmingly lie (although he may even believe his stuff by now). Get him on credibility early on - there is more than enough ammo on his website to sink him - the Lords stuff, the Aids and cold claims, and certainly the Falklands and Nobel fantasies. The Mike Carlton article you linked to had the right idea. Hit below the belt, and ask anyone in the audience to have their phones on skepticalscience.com, etc. They can check out what he says in real time, which makes a Gish Gallop more difficult. It will also make him more nervous.

The problem with debating people like Monckton is that they are shameless - so don't think of it as a debate between scientists, which is about facts. Treat it like a court case, with an attack dog lawyer wiping out the witness - its not about the facts, its about the verdict.

Good luck, and we all salute you.

PS - thanks for the Mike Carlton article - I'll now treasure the phrase 'bash him up in the dunnies'. T

To argue the topic DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND I'd probably focus on sea-level rise.

IPCC 4AR WGI Chapter 5 has the data. As they indicate, sea level is clearly rising, but the mechanisms are not well understood. Some ad-hoc observations...

If you look at sea level rise this century, the increase is pretty steady. Yet, the increase in sea-surface temperatures shows some non-trivial fluctuations. What this suggests to me is that changes in sea level occur very slowly. The equilibrium sea level might already be something horrible, and observed sea level is simply slowly inching toward that level.

In the Vostok data you can see that the last glacial maximum started to end just about 17,000 years ago, and interglacial stability was reached about 11,000 years ago. (This is in rough agreement with borehole data from Huang et al. 2008.) Yet, if you look at post-glacial sea levels, they really started to rise in a major way 15,000 years ago, and some stability was reached about 8,000 years ago. (Note also that the Younger Dryas event is not noticeable in the sea-level data.) Barring major dating errors, I think we're looking at a lag of about 2,000 years.

Notice that sea levels in the last glacial maximum were about 130 meters below current ones, when the temperature was perhaps -6 C relative to today. I'm sure it matters that there was a lot more ice back then, but still, that's a scary figure. For comparison, the rise we're looking at in the last 100 years is perhaps 0.2 meters.

gah... gah...

"NASA deliberately crashes CO2-sensing satellite on take-off to avoid revealing that climate change is a complete hoax"

I would also focus on the phenological effects of climate warming on interactions between species in food webs (the studies by colleagues such as Chistiaan Both and Marcel isser with the Pied Flycatcher, Great Tit and winter moth in journals like Nature and elsewhere are appropriate). Eric Post has done some similar work with caribou populations and the phenology of their grazing patterns in Greenland. If such scenarios are being played out in nature over broader scales, then these kinds of effects may greatly simplify ecological communities by unravelling the links within them. Once ecological communities begin to break down, then there will certainly be a knock-on effect on their stability, with concomitant effects on vital ecological services that emerge from them. You might add that humans are simplifying nature in a wide array of ways, and that climate change is occurring against this background. Species and populations are being challenged to adapt in ways they have not experienced perhaps in many millions of years to a suite of human-induced stresses.

You might also add that there are volumes of data showing that species are expanding their distributions polewards or esle to higher elevations, flowering times and breeding cycles are occurring earlier etc., clear biological indicators that it is warming.

One thing is for sure: Monckton probably won't know anything about this. He is not a population ecologist and will focus on areas in which he feels comfortable; ecology is not one of them.

Good luck Tim. I am away at a conference until later this week but you know that there are very many of us behind you!

My two cents on strategy: Start by acknowledging that science is of necessity an error prone enterprise. The Origin of Species had errors, Newton had errors, the most spectacularly successful research programs in history had errors. Of course the IPCC has some errors. Then compare the magnitude of the IPCC's errors, for example on glacial melting, with the magnitude of Monckton's. Which has more fundamental errors?

Also, as a rhetorical gesture it might be worth throwing out there that you wish Monckton and all the deniers were, in fact, correct that the earth is not warming.

Sigh.

I could just wish Tim would have handy, and announce at the beginning, that people can refer to, the Skepticalscience list by number of talking points.

That'd prepare the way to begin any reply with three words:

"That's number ___."

Todd #120, you weren't the only one to make that error, John Peate at #1 also did. I watched that debate, which can be viewed here: http://www.munkdebates.com/ and while I was convinced by the pro-global warming side (being prejudiced that way anyway) the audience apparently did find the anti side more convincing. The resolution was "Be it resolved climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response".

I think Lomborg was the more effective arguer, and he kept pounding on the same point over and over again. Elizabeth May may have argued that point at least once, but maybe they needed to do so each time he made it. As Richard Littlemore wrote: "...Yet Lomborg just kept going back to his key message - that we shouldn't be spending money on climate mitigation - we should be directing it all to relieving poverty, treating AIDS and providing clean drinking water to those who have none..."
http://www.desmogblog.com/munk-debates-good-theatre-bad-policy

I wouldn't rely on the Media watch info if I were you, especially with regard to the great barrier reef. Bluegrue has already posted the McLean NOAA data - here's an Alan Jones interview with Prof Peter Ridd of James Cook Uni regards the state of the GBR

http://www.2gb.com/podcasts/alanjones/alanjonesridd040210.mp3

I could just wish Tim would have handy, and announce at the beginning, that people can refer to, the Skepticalscience list by number of talking points.
That'd prepare the way to begin any reply with three words:
"That's number _."

Tim could bring a handout ...

Wow Bruce Barrett, anyone could come up with "facts" like yours after a hard night on the drugs & a few hours exposure to fox news. Anyway Bruce, you better get some sleep, you need to get up in a few hours to listen to the truth on 2UE/3AW/4BC....*sigh*.

awesome, I hope it's webcast, I can see the headlines now: "Peerless Blogger Meets Blog-less Peer!"

Holly stick,

And what is wrong with Lomborg's "key message"?

Let me answer for Holly stick, Dave Andrews: because the costs of climate change will fall disproportionately on those Lomborg purports to want to help. Addressing climate change is a very important part of addressing poverty, providing clean drinking water, etc.

re #184

Hank - why not go one stage further - with people in the audience looking at skepticalscience via their mobile phones, and projecting the website live on a screen (or at least in the foyer), why not distribute bingo cards to the audience?

There's 89 on the site at the moment, so that's a fair number of cards. Of course if someone wants to find out his most regular arguments, then that might cut the total number down a bit, but its still something to get the audience interested, and it will drive Monckton nuts.

Brings back memories of the old Deltoid Climate Change Bingo.

Now we need a prize....

Sod, it is funny how that mid atmosphere reading is now proof of AGW when we have had a decade of non increasing temperatures which is completely contrary to every computer model you and your quack buddies have ever published. Oh yeah, I remember, when the temperature goes down it proves global warming, just like a single month going up proves global warming. Stop being so gullible.

Jeff Harvey, congratulations you are the world's biggest tool. It appears you can read past the first grade, yet you seem to ignore every article that disproves every thing you rebutted. The IPCC is in full meltdown on lying on every one of those points. What cold, dark, empty spot on your soul is filled by this foolish religion?

Hey Bruce - do you have any evidence for your claims regarding the amazon, the ice caps, the glaciers, the storms and deserts? Maybe the glaciers are growing? Perhaps the polar bears have spread back into their old haunts?

Oh, wait, you don't.
Thats why we get fed up with people who make shit up.

#190, #191: Dave Andrew, I agree with Neil's reply. And I doubt that Lomborg is himself working at "relieving poverty, treating AIDS and providing clean drinking water to those who have none"; he is just pretending that is a valid excuse not to act to cut GHG emissions. Like most denialists, he is a canting hypocrite.

Hmmm, not so sure about this Tim - what are you really wanting to achieve? Monckton is a polished performer, as is Jones. No matter how compelling the science, these two will play to the converted and tell them what they want to hear.
Having said that, rip their bloody arms off :)

Good luck, Tim. (You may need it.)

I think pointing out the contradiction between Monckton's low sensitivity and Plimer's high sensitivity is not a good approach for a public debate. IIRC Monckton is arguing for a low sensitivity to CO2 and Plimer for a high sensitivity to the sun. It's not inconceivable that both could be true simultaneously (though there's very little evidence that this is actually the case, certainly not to the extent required). Eg. the Svensmark GCR mechanism could amplify solar forcing well above what you get from variations in TSI. (I'm not saying does, just could.) The idea that different climate forcings can be compared in terms of their effect on the TOA radiative balance is a pretty tricky one to grasp and relies (as I understand it) on models, which won't be convincing to a denial-leaning audience.

Guthrie, are you permanently disabled? I am not trying to drive the world into the stone age. I do not have the burden of proof.

With regards to proof, have you really not paid any attention to the news of the past two months. Pachauri is on the way out, the entire IPCC report is unraveling because it was written based on thesis and heresay rather than any science.

Do none of you actually get it? You can't have it both ways. You can't have temperatures decreasing over the past decade and say that you have AGW. No one has a model that is even remotely accurate. How is that not a problem for any of you? You use studies that demonstrate climate change for very small areas and then extrapolate out global temperatures. You repeatedly put out flawed models and then tell everyone the sky is falling and ask for a hundred billion dollars per year. You lie about glaciers, forests, rainfall, without any moral compunction. The report on who will face water pressures in Africa left out the second portion or the report that said that three times as many people would have better access to water.

You cannot see the forest for the trees. None of you have the raw station data to see which data has been cherry picked. You are simple, gullible lemmings.

193 Bruce Barrett,

Why don't you do some basic research? Then you wouldn't be spouting this ignorant insulting drivel here.

195 Holly Stick,

That is one of the most outrageous ploys of the denialists. When have they ever shown any care for the world's poor and starving? The extent of their hypocrisy is disgusting.

Bruce @193,

"we have had a decade of non increasing temperatures which is completely contrary to every computer model you and your quack buddies have ever published."

Is it? I think you should read this (and for the love of all that's holy, please actually read it.)

There's an analysis of the individual model runs that make up the IPCC ensembles, followed by the conclusion, which is of course contrary to your ill informed comment:

"Over the short 8 year period [2000-2007], the regressions range from -0.23ºC/dec to 0.61ºC/dec. Note that this is over a period with no volcanoes, and so the variation is predominantly internal (some models have solar cycle variability included which will make a small difference). The model with the largest trend has a range of -0.21 to 0.61ºC/dec in 4 different realisations, confirming the role of internal variability. 9 simulations out of 55 have negative trends over the period.

Over the longer period [1995-2014], the distribution becomes tighter, and the range is reduced to -0.04 to 0.42ºC/dec. Note that even for a 20 year period, there is one realisation that has a negative trend. For that model, the 5 different realisations give a range of trends of -0.04 to 0.19ºC/dec."

The longer the period of 'cooling' goes on (currently you get a cooling trend by starting in 2001 but not 2000, using HadCRUT3), the closer it gets to being completely unexpected from any modelling scenario. But bub, we ain't close yet.

TrueSceptic without a K, BASIC LOCALISED RESEARCH DOES NOT PROVE AGW!!!!!

You can not infer climate 50 years from now by looking at mushrooms you duplicitous, brain dead, walking, mouth breathing waste of space. Show me a single article that demonstrates the amount of warming caused by man. It doesn't exit you dipsh*t. You guys have a bunch of little studies, most of them cooked, and you put them in your stew pot and come out with the idiocy to ask for $100 billion a year. If you wanted to be taken seriously, you would actually do a cost benefit analysis to increased warming, and you would wait another ten or twenty years to have a better satellite record and measure ACTUAL changes in warming, glaciers, and sea level rise. So for you lying pieces of crap you have done none of these except facilitate the biggest fraud in history.

IdiotSceptic, please respond to Al Gore's prediction of an ice free North Pole, or Glaciergate, Amazongate, Africagate or any of the other of hundreds of lies in the IPCC report. Please explain why they have deleted the original station data in three locations now. Explain why station data is not available to everyone over the internet. I realize your lying cabal has a lot wrapped up in this scam, but really are you so ignorant to not know what is happening?

Barett, re droughts, read this: Dai et al. (J. Hydromet., 2004)

From their paper:
"Together, the global land areas in either very dry or very wet conditions have increased from â¼20% to 38% since 1972, with surface warming as the primary cause after the mid-1980s. These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying."

Also,
"Surface air temperature increases over land, which increase the water-holding capacity of the air and thus its demand of moisture, have been a primary cause for the widespread drying during the last twoâthree decades."

There was pronounced trend towards drier conditions over most of Africa between 1950 and 2002. And this is only the beginning.

Bruce,
"I am not trying to drive the world into the stone age. "

1/ Are you not being a tad alarmist here?

2/ Are you sure the policies you advocate (unrestricted modification by industry of the Earth's atmosphere) won't drive the world into the stone age?

For bonus points:

3/ Are you an idiot?

Bruce Barrett better put his reading glasses on: The 30 hottest years from 1880 to 2009, from hottest to just hot, are the following GISS data, in the columns of order, year, global temperature anomaly (1951 to 1980 as reference period):
120050.63
220070.57
320090.57
419980.56
520020.56
620030.55
720060.54
820040.49
920010.48
1020080.43
1119970.4
1219900.38
1319950.38
1419910.35
1520000.33
1619990.32
1719880.31
1819960.29
1919810.26
2019830.26
2119870.26
2219940.23
2319440.2
2419890.2
2519800.18
2619730.14
2719930.14
2819770.13
2919860.13
3019920.13

Note that of the first 10 hottest years, only 1998 wasn't from the last decade 2000 to 2009. Nine out of 10 of the hottest years on the instrumental record are from the last decade, Bruce.

It isn't religion to go checking the empirical evidence and assessing the situation on that basis, Bruce.

Stu and MapleLeaf, Since you have both actually tried to answer the question I will play your game.

Do any of the following concern either of you?

1. Himalaya glaciers are not melting. They were reported in the IPCC report to possibly vanish by 2035. This was repeated ad nauseum as part of the major crisis of AGW.

2. The rain forest is not disappearing from global warming. Another poorly cited addition to the IPCC report.

3. The polar ice cap is not disappearing, and has made recent gains.

4. More people in Africa will have water abundance than water shortage from increased warming. Another retraction from the IPCC.

5. There is no way to accurately measure global mean temperature in 1850. Look at how many stations were around in 1850. I have heard Michael Mann himself tell NPR that we have models that filled in the gaps in our historic temperature data. Well so far the models have a perfect 100% failure rate. Every model prior to 2000 predicted major temperature rises over the past decade which have not happened. Did we suddenly stop producing CO2? How can you, with a straight face, tell people to believe the current models when they have been wrong every time?

6. The straight out admission from the hacked e-mails from East Anglia that they are cooking their data? Did you not read the notes from the file where they are "homogenizing station data"?

7. If you don't have accurate historical data, and you don't have the original station data, and your models have been wrong 100% of the time, what is indeed your proof? I understand that there is regional warming, and I understand that you can take core samples that show warming, but that is so outrageously far away from proving AGW it is farcical.

8. Until the warmers actually open up the core data to everyone, stop crying wolf, and have reputable studies of the pluses and minuses of one or two degrees warming you guys will now be taken as the scam artists that you are.

Vince,

Do you even for a second believe that you are going to place a cap on CO2 emissions? How ignorant can you be? China, Brazil, Russia and India will not stop. All you are arguing for is a redistribution of wealth from western nations to third world countries where it will be squandered.

The charade is up, and the faulty science and political recommendations by the IPCC have been discovered as nothing but a money grab. I would explain the repercussions of the Cap and Trade schemes you advocate, but is clear you do not participate in a world where you are accountable for your actions.

Someone above commented that I hadn't mentioned the Monckton debate. This was because I was waiting for the ABC Big Ideas video to be posted. It now has been. See here for details.

The video is very instructive. Monckton is very effective, he is charming, witty, starts with a self depreciating joke, concedes key points to not make himself look like a nutter, and his voice is clear and well modulated (guaranteed to not send anyone to sleep). Barry Brooks speaks calmly, softly and just sticks with the facts, with no rhetoric. Barry has the facts right, but Monckton trounces him with with his presentation. Almost anyone with no serious background in climate change would walk away convinced by Monkton.

This is what generations of anti-creationist debaters have learned at the hard way, mere facts will will not stand in the way of a personable presentation. This is one of the reasons that we don't debate creationists, apart from giving them legitimacy they don't have. In debate format it's the slickest presentation that wins.

So Tim, make sure you have a very polished presentation. Monkton will probably try and push his bogus climate sensitiviy claims, you need to be ready for that and find a rapid way to demolish it that won't send the audience to sleep. He will also try and demonise the IPCC, so you need to have some examples to hand to show how his characterisations are dead wrong. He will pull stunts like the barrier reef temperature data where it will be near impossible to get at the truth within the time frame you have, so you will need a generalist comeback for these events.

And of course, practise you debate talk as much as possible in front of an audience that is prepared to toss you curly questions (even if you are an accomplished speaker, debating denialists real time can send a lot of curly surprises towards you). review the videos of Moncktons debates several times to not just get the arguments he uses at any given debate, but to get the feeling for the atmosphere he uses to cause doubt.

Good luck, you will need it.

Bruce Barrett, you've already brought out some considerable whoppers in post 174. Against better judgement, I'll give you a reasoned answer.

The rainforest ARE disappearing - a very short [Google search](http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/krubal/rainforest/Edit560s6/www/pr…), [more here](http://www.davesite.com/rainforests/review4.shtml) , has already shown what's happening through logging alone. Human activities are being exarcebated by the shifting climate. Are you aware of one of the main causes of rainforest rainfall is? It's the plants themselves, through moisture release by their stomata (breathing holes). As CO2 levels increase, plants need to open stomatas less, reducing water vapor release. I'll leave you to do the math.

Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035? A typo, buried somewhere in the WG2 report, never made any headlines, didn't appear in the IPCC policy or synthesis reports. Hardly scandalous. And yet glaciers worldwide, including most of the Himalayan glaciers, are retreating, disrupting the yearly run-off needed by millions of people for agriculture - including in the States. Oh, did you hear about [Glacier National Park?](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090302-glaciers-melting…) Sadly, they will have to think of a new name in ca. 10 years. Have [another look](http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?img…) at glaciers in Montana.

Bruce Barrett, will you take an honest look at this information? Will you?

Donald,

Here are only some of the things wrong with your analysis.

1. Mann will not release the core data of which stations he took data from.

2. Warming if proven does not prove AGW.

3. CO2 emissions will not stop.

4. Studies have not proven that warming will not be a benefit.

5. They have cooked the data at East Anglia and I suspect they are cooking the data at GISS.

6. By Mann's own admission they have guesstimated the temperatures past 30 years ago. Take a look at the number of ocean based temperature stations 50, 100 and 150 years ago.

7. Why is 1951 to 1980 your reference period?

8. Don't claim empirical evidence where it is not empirical. Too short of a range and unproven quality of the raw data.

Do these concern me...

1) Yes and no. The 2035/2350 typo I'm not bothered about. That they cite grey literature does. I expected higher standards. OTOH, most Himalayan glaciers are melting, though a smaller number are advancing. It's a story repeated across the globe really, that most glaciers are retreating and a smaller number are advancing.

2) It's good news if the forests are more resilient to drought than was previously thought. We should also stop chopping them down, especially under the guise of growing biofuels. That's particularly stupid. I don't know how much might have been destroyed to make, for example, palm oil, but the figure isn't zero.

3) Which ice cap(s) are you referring to?

4) I haven't heard about this. Got a link?

5) Huh, so you didn't read my link (see #201) Please do so and maybe you'll retract your statement that every model predicted warming this decade.

6) No, I haven't seen that. What did they say (please quote verbatim).

7) Confidence intervals widen the further back you go... but still show cooler global temperatures than we have at present. Original station data is available. The more recent (and therefore more reliable) readings do show a robust warming trend (both surface and lower troposphere). You must consider them reliable, right, otherwise you wouldn't claim recent cooling with such confidence? Besides, I'm not claiming to have proved AGW. What counts as proof anyway? That CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases is proved, as is the fact that human activity has increased their concentration in the atmosphere. The magnitude of the effect is unproven.

8) What data do you want that isn't avaiable?

Jason,

Thank you for proving my point. The IPCC stated that the Amazon will decrease 50% by global warming. It is decreasing because of logging just as you mentioned. Another example of blaming the AGW boogeyman for stealing my ice cream.

Are you serious on the Himalayan glaciers? That "fact" was repeated by Pachauri and global decision makers a hundred times. It was more than a typo. They even knew about it in Copenhagen and covered it up. It along with the silly Polar Bears was the lead reason for crisis with AGW. The "fact" has been thoroughly discredited and now disavowed by Pachauri and the circus at IPCC. "Most" of the Himalayan glaicers are not retreating. In fact, "Most" of the Himalayan glaciers are increasing.

Please check your facts before regurgitating the nonsensical drivel that your masters feed you.

What other "Whoppers" did I tell. If this is one of the motherships of AGW warmers, why can't anyone answer my simple questions?

Stu,

1. A typo is not a problem, the fact that they knew it was a lie and used it for propaganda purposed is a problem. Many people are now, finally, dissecting the report and finding that major portions of it are based upon heresay and non-peer reviewed studies. The number 2 guy at IPCC said that it thought it was important for the Himalaya glacier data to be included even though it wasn't fully vetted. That is what the IPCC is doing with the entire report.

2. Hell yes, we should not cut down the rainforest. Instead of wasting money on this fantasy of AGW, let's actually work on a proven problem that we can mitigate.

3. North Pole summer ice extent.

4. http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/07/the-great-ipcc-me…
The better article on rainfall was I believe in The Globe and Mail. I will have to find it.

5. Okay so nearly all of the models predicted temperature rise and were wrong.

6. You just need to do a google on the scandal. The guy who was in charge of homogenizing the data, complained repeatedly in his debugging notes, that data was wrong, incomplete, missing, and that he filled in the data just like they had always done.

7. and 8. Here is the nut of the problem. Do you have the raw station data? East Anglia broke the law in refusing the FOI requests. Mann has done the same thing here in the US. Both Australia and East Anglia have said that the raw data is gone and only the homogenized data is available. What reason can you think of for them not to make available the raw data to anyone who wants it?

Bruce, you have made it abundantly clear that you do not want to hear the real answers or have a genuine debate, but are just on some obsessive vicious ideological crusade.

Why should anybody waste their time on your arrogant ignorant infantile rubbish?

Stu,

It is a well known fact that the nations of the world are not going to stop emitting CO2. If greater levels of CO2 increase warming, (not currently proven), then we would be far better off studying the benefits that might come from warmer temperatures. Curtailing CO2 production in the US only moves economic production to third world countries who are far less efficient per widget produced than the US.

The cry for CO2 reduction is nothing more than a grab for money and power. Copenhagen is conclusive on that point.

WotWot,

Do not enough people in your normal life tell you that you are an idiot, so you need to come onto forums and prove the fact?

What "real answers" did I not listen to? Who has answered any of my questions about proof of AGW, and the reliability of the station data?

I am on a crusade to stop idiots like yourself trying to create a $100 billion dollar a year tax.

I am on a crusade...

That's the problem with deniers, they defend their made up beliefs with religous zeal.

Bruce Barret has stepped in to remind Tim of the Gish Gallop tactic that may be employed in a debate.

Ok Bruce you've made so many false claims, I'll just pick one to exemplify your sophistry. I'll pick Arctic summer sea ice. How do you argue that Arctic sea ice supports your claim that AGW is not a problem requiring urgent mitigation?

#215

Yep and I'm pretty sure that CO2 emissions will go up a lot more before they go down. Obviously there's a lot of opposition to cap and trade. Luckily something else will come along and cap carbon emissions reasonably soon, at least those from transport. That would be a lack of cheaply extractable high quality light crude oil. Investment in alternative energy is hugely important regardless of your views on climate change. Will you want a pickup truck that does 12mpg when gas is $5.50 a gallon? Or £1.50 a litre if you live in the UK? It is my opinion that emissions will fall due to economic pressure, but whether this will be enough to prevent dangerous climate change, I don't know.

>Why is 1951 to 1980 your reference period?

[What difference does it make?](http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-…)

Re #212

Bruce,

You've made the claim, "The IPCC stated that the Amazon will decrease 50% by global warming."

Just interested where you plucked this one. As far as I was aware, the IPCC reports said (sect 13.4.1):

Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).'

That is a fair bit different from what you are claiming. Happy to be proved wrong on that score if you can provide a reference.

Bruce,

Which temperature record is showing a 10 year cooling trend? It's not GISS, HadCrut, UAH, nor RSS, which are all showing postive 10 year trendlines. You say HadCrut cooked the data, but their trend is lower than Roy Spencer's UAH data. Is Spencer cooking the data too? Did someone hack into his code?

The more interesting question is why hasn't the Earth cooled? We just went two years with next to no sunspots. It's the skeptics who are claiming that there are gigantic amplifiers of the Sun, and who are predicting we are on the verge of an ice age. Where is it? Even Spencer is showing a +0.72C anomaly in January, which broke the old January record by 0.13C. It would be 0.1C warmer if not for a declining Sun. If you believe the skeptics who say the warming trend is all the sun, then why hasn't it cooled off 0.7C with the weakest solar minimum in 100 years, to offset the warming that was attributed by these skeptics to the Sun? If the Earth doesn't cool when it goes from a hot solar max to one of the coolest mins, what do you think is going to happen when the Sun picks up again? There's a reason why solar arguments are out the window, and people have gone back to attacking the temperature record. The solar explanation is dead. It's been dead for a while already, and the 2000s confirmed it. You can't have it both ways. You can't blame warming on the sun with astronomically large GCR amplifers, and not expect cooler temperatures when solar output diminishes.

And your assertion that Arctic Sea Ice is increasing is based on 3 data points, which is statistically insignificant, considering the amount of natural weather noise that exists on an annual basis on a regional basis. There is a very clear long term downward trend, and there are plenty of short term ups and downs along the way. There is very little multi-year ice in the Arctic (which means what's left is very unstable), and ice volume hit a record low in 2008. Summer ice is very unlikely to disappear within 5 years. It was only a few years ago when they were suggesting 50-100 years for the ice to disappear. Now we know it could happen much sooner than that. If I were to guess, I would say 10-20 years, but it is far from certain when it will actually occur. There is too much natural noise to make a confident prediction. There is plenty of research being done on the issue, possibly because it is far far worse than anyone expected prior to 2007. We simply don't understand what's going on well enough. The IPCC was conservative in its estimate, which it has a tendency to do. It underestimated sea ice depletion. It underestimated sea level rise, and except for a footnote in the SPM, ignored dynamic modeling.

If you don't believe the Arctic is warming, and don't believe GISS's regional temperature trends for the Arctic, perhaps you would sooner trust skeptics like Spencer on the same data. Why don't you look at his Arctic data. Come back and let us know what the long-term trend is for Arctic temperatures.

Bruce B sums up the denialist approach:

>*It is a well known fact that the nations of the world are not going to stop emitting CO2. If greater levels of CO2 increase warming, (not currently proven), then we would be far better off studying the benefits that might come from warmer temperatures.*

I.e. shut up with the science that highlights problems, I want you tell me why we should keep going.

Such a rationale sound like it would be comforting to, and perhaps used by tobacco company employed scientist to help ease their guilt and aid their denial?

You are a shocker Bruce.

With all due respect Tim I would much rather the AGW camp wheel out David Karoly for something like this. His cool calm collected professional manner and ability to separate science from politics would benefit the AGW cause greatly. (sarc\off)

This is OT, but important, and many of you may not be aware of the storm that is brewing concerning ClimateFraudit's involvement in the bogus FOIs. Not only that but John Mashey has just produced a whopping 115 pg document that is worth perusing (I have not read it yet, it is immensely complex and detailed) if you want to know more about Wegman, M&M and others in the denialist camp:

http://www.desmogblog.com/plagiarism-conspiracies-felonies-breaking-out…

Eli Rabett and DeepClimate also have some pretty damning evidence against the M&M team, and DC in particular has two excellent articles. Well worth a visit to their sites.

Oh, and Bruce Barett, might I suggest you also go and take a look.

Tim, these new revelations and information may be worth a dedicated post by you....just a thought and best of luck on Friday.

Well I must say after becoming a sceptic of AGW about 8 months or so ago, I am actually quite pleased to see Tim so keen to debate Lord Monckton. I find his enthusiasm and confidence quite exciting, as he obviously thinks he can win, and it would be good to see/hear a decent debate, as it's been the lack of serious debate that has made me more sceptical.

I went to Lord Moncktons Adelaide presentation, and yes it's a bit of a show, but it was also informative. However... if it can be proved scientifically that the information is false, of course that will make things different.

What gets me though... and keeps nagging at me, is that when someone is lying, publicly, worldwide... they don't actively seek debate, I would expect them to do a hit and run piece. Make bold statements and clear out of there before they can be challenged, so I don't see him as a liar regardless of many other opinions here.

He obviously believes he is right, or by now he would have gone scurrying under the nearest rock and kept his head down. He's certainly been doing this long enough to be exposed as a fraud, yet to my mind he hasn't yet. That's what makes be believe there is something in his argument, and it's also what makes me worry that someone who could be the vice president of the USA, (so must have had countless debates to get there) flatly refuses to debate or be questioned on a subject he allegedly knows so much about... or at least knows enough about to make a movie.

So anyway, although I am quite firmly a sceptic, I don't necessarily believe that makes me right, and it doesn't mean that I want to be right either. I just want what is right to be exposed in one form or another so we can safely say, well it is now settled, and we are positively doing the right thing. So as much as I really like Lord Monckton, I want the winner of this debate to be the person who can present the most scientific truth without assassinating the character of their opponent.

"East Anglia broke the law in refusing the FOI requests."

No it didn't, Bruce. It complied with the law. It cannot release information obtained from other sources and copyrighted. East Anglia cited the sources. If McIntyre was so obsessed with obtaining the details, as distinct from a general program of harassment, all he had to do was go to those sources and pay the fee. Instead all he did was whinge about conspiracy and obstruction.

The correct term for Alan Jones is not 'moderator'.
Try 'immoderator', and use it if need be.

Bruce; vitriol and random bullshit aren't going to convince anyone. It's bleeding obvious that you don't have the capacity to understand much of what you are reading, and are just regurgetating random talking points that (to you) appear to support your preconceved convictions. You do realise don't you that your words will remain visible here for decades as a testament to your nasty character, gullibility and low IQ.

John 217,

That's rich idiot, I was responding to wotwot with my comment. I am not the douche that is trying to regulate other people with a lack of science.

Stu 219,

It is a shame, earlier you were at least trying to be rational. Please spare me the peak oil argument, which is tired, worn out, and absurd. Spend all of 30 seconds looking at oil finds in the Gulf of Mexico, and Brazil, coal liquefaction, oil sands, tar shale, the latest technological breakthroughs on natural gas. It is one thing to have an illogical love affair with AGW, but quite another to espouse the stupidity of peak oil.

Jimmy 221,

Here is your link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113582…

Todd 222,

You have it all wrong, I am not arguing for sun spots, or even stating categorically that there is no warming. I am arguing against zealotry, "consensus science", fighting windmills when there is no chance in hell that you are going to stop India and China from emitting many times the amount of CO2 as the US, and illogical economic suicide. I am completely in favor of releasing the raw data and letting science decide if there is warming and if any of it is caused by AGW. I would then be in favor of studies identifying how to benefit from such warming if it indeed exists. Nothing in the Warmers community is reason based or approaches rationality as is demonstrated in this community. You also sound like a bunch of kooks, because you sequester your data, lie like a bunch of congressman, and sell your manipulated studies like a bunch of hookers. If just one of you would agree that the entire IPCC is purely political and focus on the actual science I would be amazed.

You sound like a kook because you can't even admit there hasn't been warming while CO2 is skyrocketing. Are you people really unable to see the problem with that?

Lastly, you are off your rocker on Arctic sea ice. You must have gone on vacation for the past month as Al Gore had to eat crow on the same nonsense you are spouting. Please look up what the scientist said when Al Gore stated the same crap you just mentioned. Do none of you actually read the newspaper or are you afraid of a different opinion from the cloistered little group?

223 Jakerman,

Wow! Did you really not read any of my posts or wonder why no one can actually answer any of my simple questions. Does the tripe you are fed actually taste that good? What science do you know of that proves AGW? Where the hell is the single study? Apparently you are the only one that has it, because it is not referenced in the IPCC or replicated in any model currently known.

225 Mapleleaf,

Once again I am not defending those that fight you that have their own political agenda, I am arguing for sanity and reason, which is bereft at this site and those that you reference.

226 Don Wigan,

Nice Lie! The Brits have already said that they broke the law. Google it. Where do you come up with this nonsense? Good argument on withholding the raw data that everyone should have access to.

228 Craig Allen,

Pathetic. I use vitriol because it is the only thing that shakes you about of your slack jawed, mindless, lemming like acceptance of faulty science.

As opposed to your idiotic post, why don't you post what I wrote that is random bullshit. Was it about the temperature stations, the Himalayas, African agriculture, East Anglia, etc?

You are exactly the kind of brain dead freak show that allows the degeneration of rational thought. When I attack, I give questions to be answered and links to my answers. Your post is the post of an ignoramus who can't let the facts, and critical thought get in the way of your strongly held opinion.

222 Todd F,

Let me give you a better answer on your first paragraph.

I am skeptical anyone provides homogenized data, will not release the raw data, or destroys the raw data. Aren't you?

Almost all of the models prior to 2000 showed a large temperature gain in the 00s. It did not happen. CO2 has increased substantially. China is building one new coal plant per month, and will equal the current worldwide CO2 emissions by itself by 2030. As you know CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere and the AGW belief is that increases in it allows water vapor to hold more heat causing a feedback loop. How do you explain that this has not happened. I cannot figure out how this crowd isn't concerned that the models and theories have not held up. Why can't you be a little bit reflective and admit that no one fully understands all of the forcings. That is what makes you all sound like idiots. This attitude that you know everything and everyone else is wrong, that the science is settled, all while you can't get a single model to predict past climate is asinine.

Can't even one of you admit that it was wrong of East Anglia to manipulate the data, or Mann to manipulate the hockey stick, or wrong of the IPCC to intentionally lie about their findings? If not you are a pathetic group, whose comeuppance is fast approaching and hopefully includes firings and jail time for the perpetrators of this giant scam starting Jones and Mann.

Karoly won't be showing his face at the meeting, after his false claim that the drought in the Murray/Darling basin was caused by AGW.

Bruce B. says:

I am on a crusade...

Yes, we know. A ideological zealot to the core.

â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢â¢

What gets me though... and keeps nagging at me, is that when someone is lying, publicly, worldwide... they don't actively seek debate,...

They do if they have a vastly over inflated view of their ability to keep the facade up and the adoring crowd strung along.

Besides, I suspect Monckton actually believes his own PR. A legend in his own mind, as they say.

"As you know CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere and the AGW belief is that increases in it allows water vapor to hold more heat causing a feedback loop. How do you explain that this has not happened."

Wow... conclusive proof that Bruce doesn't know what he's talking about. Suggestion: try learning what the theory is before you set about arguing against it. 'Allows water vapour to hold more heat' - what does that even mean?

Bruce Barrett,

Arctic Sea ice: [I'm presuming you can read a graph]

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…

As you can see, it is anomalously low, and has been for a number of years.

Here is the long-term trend:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

As you can see, it is an unmistakable and significant downward trend.

Therefore, using the general principle that "The IPCC document contained a couple of mistakes, therefore all of it is wrong" we can conclude quite conclusively that everything you have posted here is wrong.

Perhaps you got your name right.

el gordo @ 232

Bollocks ... but that is off topic.

Bruce Barret claims that he is only interested in the science but the link he gives is to an article by British journalist Christopher Booker. Booker who is well known for his climate change denialist views also claims that:

1. Darwinists "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptionsâ.
2. White asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent" risk to human health. (White asbestos while not as dangerous as the blue and brown varieties is still considered to be a human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.)
3. Scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other peopleâs smoke causes cancer simply does not exist".

It was nice of Bruce to provide us with a link to someone with such a firm grip on science.

Perhaps we could organise a get together with Lord Monckton. The Lord could guzzle some DDT, Booker could pamper himself with some white asbestos and maybe Bruce would be good enough to provide the second hand smoke â he is certainly blowing enough of it out of his backside.

Shorter Stu:

I still don't get the difference between IPCC WG1, 2, and 3.

To help out:

IPCC WG1 - what's the relevant peer-reviewed literature say? As announced beforehand.

IPCC WG2 - what are the likely consequences? (more broad sources cited). As announced beforehand.

IPCC WG3 - what are the economic impacts of mitigation and adaptation vs. doing nothing or little? (more broad sources cited) As announced beforehand.

It was in WG2 that the incorrect Himalayan glacier estimate, sourced to the WWF who sourced it to an Indian source, was listed. It was not a key part of the report.

Actually, that's a shorter version of the Stu/Bruce colloquy.

But Stu, the use of non-peer-reviewed material in the 2nd and 3rd Working groups shouldn't bother people, because the nature of those groups is very different from the Physical Science Basis working group.

Everything else on the Stu/Maple side is spot on, but that's a detail that still seems to get confused.

Bruce what's worse than someone who claims the Arctic sea-ice helps his denialist position? Someone who claims the Arctic sea-ices helps his denialist potion but runs away and [tries to change topic](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2259430) when [asked for evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2259082).

So Bruce, Ive called you on jut one single point and you won't even defend that? Not even one point? But in your Gish Gallop you made so many points. Here I was thinking you could defend all of them.

Oh well, I guess you were just talking and are not credible.

@ Bruce:

Todd (222): âSummer ice is very unlikely to disappear within 5 years.â

Bruce (230): âTodd 222 ⦠you are off your rocker on Arctic sea ice. You must have gone on vacation for the past month as Al Gore had to eat crow on the same nonsense you are spouting. Please look up what the scientist said when Al Gore stated the same crap you just mentioned.â

A link would have been helpful, but I assume [this](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article695…) is what youâre talking about:

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: âThese figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.â

Which was erroneous, because arctic summer ice is very unlikely to disappear within 5 to 7 years. Which is what Todd said (unless you want to split hairs about the âto 7â bit). He is also quite correct that the long term trend â which is what you want to be looking at, for these kind of data - for arctic ice extent has been downward for quite some time.

Vince 235,

If you can read you will see that the summer low extent has recovered halfway to the 2002 low extent. Is this another case of more ice proves increased global warming? The basic argument for AGW is that it will keep getting hotter, remember?

Next, you are kidding yourself that there are only a few inconsistent errors in the IPCC report. Not only are there lots of errors, the sourcing is juvenile, and they are repeating the lies even when the know the source is wrong.

237 MikeH,

Did I say anywhere that I believed everything that Booker writes. Do a little leg work and see if my points are not backed up by admissions from IPCC itself. Pathetic misdirection that reinforces the point that warmers are immune to facts. The IPCC admits "errors" with respect to Himalayas, Africa, Amazon, etc.

238 Marion,

It is not the location of the error, it is repeating the error ad nauseum when you know it isn't true. They were saying that over a billion people would be short of water by 2035. Please tell me that you understand that that is a major lie?

240 Jakerman,

Sorry Jakerman, but even if Arctic sea ice had continued to decrease it is merely a data point that by itself proves nothing of AGW. The fact that it has substantially recovered over the past two years further lessens its import in the discussion. Additionally, I am not and cannot disprove AGW, anymore than you or any other warmer has been able to prove with manipulated data on both the ground and satellite measurements.

241 @ Bruce

That is indeed what I was talking about. What I was disagreeing with Todd about is his personal feeling that the ice would disappear within 10 to 20 years, which is just as foolish as what big Al Gore said. There is no reliable longterm data or projections on losing ice in the Arctic, merely a "consensus" that it could disappear in 30 years. It also shows the poor science of taking a short term trend, i.e. ice loss from 2002 to 2007 and projecting it out into the future. With regards to Spencer's satellite data, I suspect you all know the myriad of concerns relating to it and the simple fact that he will not release his model on how he comes up with his temperature readings. Once more I am astonished on how those professing the end of the world as we know it believe that they are gatekeepers to the information.

To everyone:
As this has gone on through the day and night, I am only getting responses as to my anti-social behavior rather than anyone trying to answer my questions relating to acurate temperature measurements and the increasing lack of credibility of the IPCC. I can only assume at this late hour that this means that no one disputes my concerns with the religion of AGW. I believe AGW is possible but clearly not even close to being proven. Therefore, the political nonsense has to stop until the science catches up.

Stu 211,

Sorry about how long it took me to get the answer to your question number 6. Just google Harry Read Me, and you will be directed to the actual document, where he repeatedly states that they fill in missing data, guess where necessary, and laments the general poor quality of the data.

At least he was looking at data, where you can't get it from East Anglia or Mann. Mann as we all know has been eliminating northern climate stations for years with reckless abandon.

These are excerpts from the Harry Read Me, relating to the quality of the CRU raw data. If you question the context, simply go to the original document.

- âBut what are all those monthly files? DONâT KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And thatâs useless â¦â (Page 17)

- âItâs botch after botch after botch.â (18)

- âThe biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hourâs edits to the program, when the network died ⦠no explanation from anyone, I hope itâs not a return to last yearâs troubles ⦠This surely is the worst project Iâve ever attempted. Eeeek.â (31)

- âOh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.â (37)

- â⦠this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!â (45)

- âAm I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!â (47)

- âAs far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.â (57)

- âCOBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didnât open until 1993!â (71)

- âWhat the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah â there is no âsupposed,â I can make it up. So I have : â )â (98)

- âYou canât imagine what this has cost me â to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a âMasterâ database of dubious provenance â¦â (98)

- âSo with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option â to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations ⦠In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad â¦â (98-9)

- âOH Fâ THIS. Itâs Sunday evening, Iâve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, Iâm hitting yet another problem thatâs based on the hopeless state of our databases.â (241).

- âThis whole project is SUCH A MESS â¦â (266)

Hey buddy, just fake it til you make it.

Bruce, the raw data from NASA's GISS has been available since Moses did whatever he did on the mountain. Sceptics are yet to show that it doesn't indicate warming, which leads me to conclude that they are extremely slow.

Most other raw data of all descriptions has also been publicly available elsewhere, the main exception being some propietry UK Met Office data which is treated exactly the same as any of their other data (the easy solution for you, is to do what they do, and go round to all the other Met organisations around the world who actually measure it, and ask for it yourself).

Nothing in the Warmers community is reason based.....

I proudly wear the badge of "warmer", because the temperature data collected by every single organisation in the world shows that it is warming (irrespective of any other argument as to why, by how much, etc, etc), and even your sceptical science buddies like Plimer, Linzden, etc, agree.

I also proudly wear the badges of "round earther", and "heliocentrist", for similar reasons, as kooky, irrational, and presumptive as they are.

What's your excuse?

Hey Bruce, do you actually know what "project" he was talking about? The one in "such a mess"?

Do you actually understand what the harryreadme file was talking about? What it was referring to specifically?

Nup. Thought not. That much is obvious.

The less truth you have on your side, the more you have to resort to attacking the person, not the issue.

So, it's instructive to see the personal attacks made on Monckton here... "two-bit rhetoric whore", "charismatic charlatanism", "upperclass twit", "pathological liar", "court jester", "no qualifications", "potty peer will lie through his teeth", "an unqualified liar and fraud", "professional propagandist", "mischief-making clown", "Lord Wingnut", "egotistic charlatans and fraud", "court jester", "will simply fire off outrageous statements without pausing for breath."

If only you people had the self-awareness to see yourselves as other do......

Has any commenter on deltoid ever done the gish gallop as much as bruce here? Or is this the standard all future gallops must be compared to?

245 Mike,

Please post a link to the raw NASA GISS data sets, and the adjustments they made to homogenize the data. I think you need to retract your statement. I don't know of anywhere, where they have the raw data, modifications, and homogenized numbers for CRU, GISS or GHCN. Additionally neither satellite measurement UAH or RSS publish how they manipulate the raw data.

If they actually released that data, why would there be repeated requests denied under the FOI? I think you are taking their "homogenized data" and confusing it with raw data, when there are dramatic changes between the two.

Mike 246,

Seriously are you dense?

Marion 247,

I have an open offer to you or anyone else to answer my questions. Your inability to do so, and your comment only proves your ignorance and gullibility.

@ Bruce (244):

Re the statements expressed in this comment eg "This whole project is SUCH A MESS â¦â, I can assure you I express similar sentiments every year when I do my tax return, and it does not imply that I am attempting to rip off the tax office.

Marion,

Please show me where I have bullshitted, lied, misdirected, or mischaracterized anything about IPCC, the temperature record, or anything else.

Please take a moment and evaluate how many stations they used to measure mean global temperature in 1950. Also evaluate how they homogenized the data. Then return and write an apology to me for your ignorance. On NPR science friday, the great Michael Mann, when asked how do you measure current and historical ground surface temperatures, actually admitted it is an inexact science and requires a lot of manipulation of the data.

If you would all just admit the poor quality of the historical record we could all move on to actual science.

John 250,

I assume you posted tongue in cheek, as it is clearly far more than that statement. How would you homogenize the data if you had a station you couldn't geographically place? If you moved the station 50 km away? If the instrument broke and was replaced by a newer unit two years later?

Do you realize how much they filled in from the raw to the homogenized data? Why are they afraid of releasing all of the data, raw, homogenized, and the adjustments they made?

It appears Bruce cannot defend his claim that Arctic sea ice trends support his denialist position. So after raising that topic he now tries to down play it instead:

>*Sorry Jakerman, but even if Arctic sea ice had continued to decrease it is merely a data point that by itself proves nothing of AGW.*

But he even gets that wrong its not "merely a data point" its many data points on mutiple metrics including sea ice extents over several decades; age of sea ice; and sea ice volume, all pointing the same way, that is, towards the faster than expected loss rates and hence faster than predicted warming feedbacks.

With Bruce failing on some many of his claims I wonder if **any** of Bruce's claims are valid and genuinely contradict AGW?

Holy shit Jakerman, get a clue.

Has the volume increased or decreased over the past two years? It has INCREASED. Are there any scientists who are expecting it to disappear over the next five to ten years? HELL NO! Is there a long term analysis of Arctic sea ice extent? NO. What is your freaking delusion? Who believes that Arctic sea ice extent proves AGW?

Bruce, to date, you have offered only rhetoric to support your assertions. Others have posted links backing their statements which countered your arguments.

Starting posting some links for all these facts you believe you have. So far all you have is smear. Even a trained monkey could execute that manoeuvre.

So far you have posted a couple of links....to opinion pages. That rocks mate! Infotainment vs science, yeah I can see your angle...nice. What does brangelina have to say about CRU? Yep Marion, Bruce definately wins this months gish gallop award. He has set a new benchmark for the gullible & misinformed to aspire to.

Phil,

What the hell is wrong with you zombie like mfs? Are you really disputing that the IPCC references the WWF, or has lied about the Himalayas, or that the CRU wouldn't release data with an FOI request, or that sea ice extent has made a comeback in the past two years?

The people that visit this site are dumber than rocks. I ask a question and you say Gish Gallop, I say IPCC lies you say Gish Gallop, I say that the CRU cooked their numbers and you say Gish Gallop.

Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop, Gish Gallop.

Please inform me, just once again, where in these posts did someone answer my question, or point me to a reference that disproved my points.

Just try that you stupid trained monkey.

Bruce,

NASA GISS use data from the USHCN (you can read this on their website, here).

The direct link to this raw data is here.

There, that wasn't so hard now was it? It took me....oh....aroundabout 60 seconds to find it and copy the link. I am eagerly awaiting your personal analysis of the data. I won't hold my breath, eh?

No I'm not dense Bruce. It might pay to do a bit more research about what the whole harryreadme email was about. How about starting with the guy who actually wrote it? And the actual project he was working on (you appear to have no idea what it actually was)? A "non-dense" person would do this, rather than taking little "cut & pastes" out of it and making grandiose assumptions.

...sea ice extent has made a comeback in the past two years?

You can look this stuff up you know!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Apolgies, those links got a little botched.

[NASA GISS data description](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

[USHCN raw data](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/)

The question still remains: do you feel silly not being able to find it?

Bruce Barrett:

temperatures decreasing over the past decade

Bullsh!t Bruce, temperatures and trends for the past decade.

Mike 257,

Your links are broken. Both the GISS and CRU use data from the GHCN, and then provide their own secret sauce.

It is clear that you are referencing homogenized data and there is no audit trail to tell you what they have adjusted.

Here are two links for you;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Look at how few stations gave us a mean global temperature for years, then how many were added, and now how many have been cut.

Also http://www.surfacestations.org/ which shows you the individual unrealiability of stations in the US which are much better than 95% of the globe.

You don't really believe that the historic record is that accurate do you?

As I noted previously much of the homogenized data is made up, as is shown in the read me file.

@ Bruce (252):

I was responding to the list of quotes you provided. I think if you have issues with aspects of data handling, it's really best to address that directly - talk about the way the data have been processed and why it's wrong, or show evidence that the data has been falsely manipulated, etc. A list of quotes expressing dissatisfaction with data organisation and querying some data indicates little more than dissatisfaction with data organisation and the fact some some data have been queried.

There may be other statements in the document you cited that show data haven't been handled correctly, but those are the ones you should be posting.

Hugh 258,

SeptemberâMarch September Average Extent
(millions of square kilometers) March Average Extent
(millions of square kilometers)
1979â2000 mean 7.0 15.7
1999â2000 6.2 15.3
2000â2001 6.3 15.6
2001â2002 6.8 15.4
2002â2003 6.0 15.5
2003â2004 6.1 15.1
2004â2005 6.0 14.7
2005â2006 5.6 14.4
2006â2007 5.9 14.6
2007â2008 4.3 15.2
2008â2009 4.7 15.2

No change in March extent for the last ten years. Decrease in the September extent with recovery last year. Only thirty years of history. Now how does this prove manmade global warming?

Mike he is franticaly looking up the rebuttal on WUWT & who magazine online .

Bruce again, others post links of evidence. Evidence that you asked for, got & which disproves your points & they have asked you to extend the courtesy of providing some evidence of your claims. Instead you scream like a banshee. Provide something to back up your claims besides opinion. You are just sounding more shrill with every post screaming at people to look at the corruption, but offering no science that actually refutes it. You are not offering any science, just smear.

Lets start talking about the tobbaco lobbyists who now work as climate skeptic front groups or the dodgy exxon memos, or the republican pr techniques of Frank Lutz of obfuscation to delay action & hold up science. Or the FOI's that are spammed by McIntyres bloggers, not in the interest of science, but in the interest of politics & holding up of science. FOI, the evolved child of the subpoena's that the tobacco lobbies used to grind scientists into the ground under a weight of legal action, even up until 2002. FOI's, much more inconspicuous than subpoenas & just as damaging. Or lets talk about Anthony Watts trying to bring down NOAA & failing, then trying to block the release of information telling people of his loss. What are you guys trying to hide?

As you say, your on a crusade.

Mike 257,

Good job Mike. You still didn't provide what I asked for. Where is the information that shows how Hadcrut and GISS are calculated? Did you even click on the link to check the number of ground stations 100 years ago? Right on the GISS website it tells you that the data was poor, or don't you believe them also. What people are trying to access is how the IPCC came up with temperature readings that differ from known station raw data. Nowhere on the FTP site does it provide that. Of course since you have other people think for you that is not a problem.

260 Chris,

That is funny linking to a ten year trend line. Go to a site that posts a longer trend line and you can see the trend is down since 1998. Don't you get it? It is supposed to be a lot warmer. Where is the missing heat?

Do you want me to ammend my statement and state the temperature is lower than 1998? Your link does nothing to prove AGW, and barely proves warming considering it posts satellite temperatures at 14,000 feet and a rigged GISTemp recording. Why will UAH nor GISS release how they end up with their homogenized data? Why is that such a freakin hard question for you.

Bruce Barret starts:

>*Holy shit Jakerman, get a clue.*

You can just tell quality is going to follow after that intro.

>*Has the volume increased or decreased over the past two years? It has INCREASED.*

1) No reference Bruce? Why is that?

2) How do you think a two year trend helps your case?

3) Here is a reference:

>*Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover.*

And what did this most comprehensive survey find?

>*Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.*

Whoops Bruce, do you look silly now after that loud intro! Let me emphasis a few lines like, **thinned dramatically**, and **rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover**.

Bruce still thinks hes' on solid ground and bravely constructs a strawman:

>*Are there any scientists who are expecting it to disappear over the next five to ten years? HELL NO!*

So Brucie why is that time frame important? Do you stop caring after 2015? What is important is that is trending down rapidly and is associated with positive feedbacks.

Bruce contradicts the premise of his question about a two year trend with this:
>*Is there a long term analysis of Arctic sea ice extent? NO.*

Glad Bruce that you are coming around to realization of the importance of longer term trends instead of two year non-trends. The WMO defines climate in time frames of 30 years. We now have 30 years of satellite measures of sea ice extents. From this we can calculate a [meaningful trend](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_Figure3.png)

So you can tally that up as another error for Bruce.

Bruce then adds:

>*What is your freaking delusion?*

Mmm quite

Finally Bruce forgets that he raised the issue of Sea Ice Extents (back when he argued that it supported his case), hence he finishes with:
>*Who believes that Arctic sea ice extent proves AGW?*

I Don't know Bruce you tell me who?

Phil 264,

Please point out to me my lies regarding CRU, the IPCC, the Himalayas etc.

So far this has been the extent of your "proof" of AGW. Decreased Arctic sea ice extent, warm temperatures from challenged sources showing warmer temperatures but not warmer than 1998, even though the models predicted much higher temperatures.

At best this shows warming which along with cooling the earth has been doing for ever. No proof of AGW because of increased CO2.

Meanwhile I have provided you with easily verifiable information that shows they have cooked the homogenized data, that the IPCC sources incorrect material and lies about it, and proof that regardless of any warming that China and India are not going to stop outputing CO2 and will easily surpass the entire output of the world.

You have not proven that there is AGW, you have not proven that we can do anything about it if it exists, nor have you contemplated the cost to mitigate the downsides and benefit from the upsides.

Good job Mike. You still didn't provide what I asked for.

Oh sorry Bruce! I thought you asked for:

Please post a link to the raw NASA GISS data sets...

To which I responded with a direct link to the [raw NASA GISS data set](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/). I didn't realise that when you asked for the link to the raw NASA GISS data set (ie, the raw data from the USHCN), that you actually meant the "raw NASA GISS data set". So I only posted a link to the raw NASA GISS data set instead. My mistake. Geez I'm bloody stupid sometimes.

Oh bugger, you also wrote:

...and the adjustments they made to homogenize the data.

You mean like the [source code used by GISS to process the raw data](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/)? Because, of course, this was on the same page [I previously linked to above at the GISS](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/), which describes everything about their temperature analysis methods. Dammit! Double stupid me! I had assumed you'd actually read it. Dumb, I know. It has been a long day. I'm sorry.

I see Bruce is still here blowing smoke. I would have thought that by now he would be over at the creationist blogs with his mate Booker.

Monckton must be finding this thread interesting.

And hey, you've got to admit that Bruce - for all his bluster and the occasional fact that doesn't mean anywhere near as much as he thinks it does - is at least providing a valuable practice run for the debate ;-)

And I really like the idea of a skepticalscience handout or bingo card. The only problem is that most authoritarians will dismiss it out of hand as not being authoritative - but then that's a difficult problem to make headway against in a debate.

Ask him what subject he studied at Churchill College. Point out that at least one Churchill College geologist thinks that he is talking out of his backside..

267 Jakerman,

1. I posted the numbers for you.
2. For the same reason quoted by all the warmer scientists when they see no decrease in March ice extent in ten years. That is because you can't extrapolate beyond your data points because things change including an increase in the past two years. Do you really believe that any reputable scientist backs up your opinion that sea ice is going to disappear in the next ten to twenty years. They are giving it at least thirty at the most pessimistic. You know what I call a thirty prediction, a guess. It is certainly not proof.

3. I don't get your point, so the ice has thinned as well as had a lower ice extent. Now it has partially recovered and we will see this year and next year if it increases or decreases. Where have you seen me argue about regional warming and cooling? What is the paper you are citing that proves this is linked to AGW? Don't you find it illogical that none of the models have come true, that we have not had runaway warming as predicted?

So you have a thirty trend, congratulations. That barely covers warming and cooling on the PDO, and is make believe on any geological scale. Surely you aren't suggesting that I don't believe the earth warms and cools. From the very beginning of this ridiculous exchange I have been asking for proof of AGW and responses to the fraud perpetrated by the IPCC, Jones and Mann.

To answer your question, only an illiterate, fool would believe that lower September sea ice extent over a thirty year period proves AGW.

You'll really blow Bruce's mind if you start talking about attribution studies ;-)

Mike 269,

Please read the GISS homepage again. They primarily use the GHCN, as USHCN would not give you a global mean. It tells you the outline of the manipulation they perform but it does not give you the changes and audit trail for what they have done or which stations they use. Have you ever looked at the animation that shows how many northern stations they have shut down or how many they had one hundred years ago. Do yourself a favor and spend the thirty seconds looking at it. You have amazing faith in their ability to divine the historical record because even Mann himself shows that it is not very accurate. Spend some time on the site and look at the overall accuracy and then go look at the accuracy of the individual sites. Why do Jones, Mann and Spencer have to be the high priests that interpret the data for us. Why will they not just share how they homogenized the data?

202 Barrett,

Thanks for confirming what we already thought.

It would be a waste of time attempting to educate someone lacking the most basic mental apparatus.

No change in March extent for the last ten years.

It's still cold in the long dark winter?

Decrease in the September extent with recovery last year.

"Recovery" is clearly open to subjective interpretation. What are you suggesting the extent 'recovered' to exactly? Taking out the cherry-picked [yet 'alarming'] record low of 2007, all I [and those clever people at the UISIC] see is a continuance of the long-term declining trend in summertime extent. I thought that's what we were talking about?

Only thirty years of history.

How is 1870 â 2008 only 30 years? Having said that, however, I would like to thank you for making me go away to download and plot my own âextentâ data. By doing so all you have achieved is to reinforce in me the total folly of taking 10 years of data to try and illustrate variability around a trend. You should try itâ¦itâs all linked from hereâ¦

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/

Now how does this prove manmade global warming?

Every little helps!

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-on…

Does anyone dispute the following?

1. The IPCC has suffered a significant blow to its credibility based upon its sourcing of data on the Himalayas, the Amazon, and African rainfall?

2. That the models prior to 2000 predicted much higher temperatures than have occured?

3. That the station data over the past 160 years has substantial challenges in providing an accurate historical record.

4. That to date no one has provided a study that conclusively proves AGW?

5. That regardless of science there is no chance of keeping CO2 measurements below 450 ppm?

6. That very little science has demonstrated the effects of a warming planet?

If you can't agree to these simple items you are all truly lost. I know you are sad about it, but the world has moved on, and there is zero chance of a new binding Kyoto protocol that any nation will adhere to.

Bruce, you don't understand what the models say, and you don't understand how they prove to a reasonably high probability that AGW is happening. Go educate yourself. The info is out there.

Or maybe you should instead take the easy path and just deem people who won't convert on your command as "lost" and go find someone else to try it on ;-)

Hugh 276,

Wow, you guys really have a thing for Arctic sea ice extent. I was replying to the thirty year satellite measurements that Jakerman referenced. Your link definitively states that they do not have accurate data back to 1870. Get a clue. Where do I suggest that the earth does not go through warming trends? Do you really believe decreased September sea ice provides you with a global mean temperature? Holy hell, what is your guys problem?

You are teasing me with that last link right? We could be here for the next week talking about the inaccuracies in you cute little powerpoint.

You are right about your last statement, every little bit helps. If you could actually add up enough little bits to actually prove AGW that would be impressive. But you haven't, so keep the dream alive.

Lotharsson 278,

Why do you have to make it so hard? Have any of the IPCC reports been accurate on predicting temperature rise? It could cool for the next 100 years and you guys wouldn't get it. It is astonishing that you guys are wrong time after time after time and is doesn't dissuade you from trying to damage the world economy. I can't tell you that AGW doesn't exist and you can't prove to me that it does. What I know is that the IPCC has little to do with science and lots to do with politics and that the science isn't even close to settled as your propaganda machines proclaim.

Why are you guys opposed to seeing all of the data and changes to homogenize the data? Why can't you admit the potential errors in the historical record. Hell, even the GISS website lists what they believe the accuracy is, but you guys can't even take that teeny tiny step. I believe this whole thing is a psychosis for this group.

@ Bruce (279):

"Wow, you guys really have a thing for Arctic sea ice extent."

And quite rightly. "The Arctic has often been viewed as a region where the effects of GHG loading will be manifested early on, especially through loss of sea ice." Stroeve et al. Geophys Res Lett 2007 L09501.

The paper is available [here](http://www.smithpa.demon.co.uk/GRL%20Arctic%20Ice.pdf); it is a useful read.

Bruce -

1) No. The only people who think so are those who never gave any credability to the IPCC in the first place.

2) No. Temperatures are in line with predictions.

3) Challenges which have been successfully overcome. You missed a bit.

4) Depends on your definition of 'proof'. AGW is proven beyond strong reasonable doubt. Unreasonable doubt, no.

5) An all out effort starting now might keep concentrations under 450ppm. Given that emissions are still rising and coal plants still under construction at a high rate, though, I expect to see 450ppm breached prior to 2030, and 500ppm prior to 2050, although the latter is less of a done deal as climate change will be coming home by then.

6) Is not an english sentence.

Bruce #230:
>You sound like a kook because you can't even admit there hasn't been warming while CO2 is skyrocketing.

Let's put numbers to that nonsense.

From January 2000 to December 20009, the most recent complete 10 years, GISTEMP had a [linear trend of about 0.12°C per decade](http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp/from:2000/to:2009.9/trend). During that time CO2 rose from [368.06ppm to 387.22ppm](ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt) (global trend). Assuming an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3°C/doubling CO2 (best IPCC estimate), this corresponds to a warming of 0.22°C between the equilibrium temperatures at the two CO2 levels. This assumes all else being equal, like e.g. TSI. To come up with a contradiction, you need to assume that climate needs less than 20 years to reach a new equilibrium temperature. So given the observed higher inertia of the climate system, I don't see any contradiction.

Let's take an example from day to day life. You sit in your car, chugging along at 30mph. You come to the city limits and press the accelerator to such a degree, that you know it will eventually take you to 50mph. After 10 yards you look at your speedometer, let's say it shows 35mph. Monckton and other denialists want to make you believe, that all you'll ever reach is 40mph, even if you press the accelerator twice as far as you currently do. They do all they can to confuse transient response with change after reaching equilibrium.

Monckton routinely omits the "equilibrium" from "climate sensitivity". Guess why.

The links from above:

Whoops Bruce is either rattled, or making stuff up is just his MO? He is now mis-attributing opinions to me.

>*Do you really believe that any reputable scientist backs up your opinion that sea ice is going to disappear in the next ten to twenty years. They are giving it at least thirty at the most pessimistic. You know what I call a thirty prediction, a guess. It is certainly not proof.*

Wow Bruce how did you get there [from here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2259676)?

Have any of the IPCC reports been accurate on predicting temperature rise?

Head, meet sand ;-)

Ever actually read an IPCC report - or even a summary? Or looked at their predictions? Or understood that they predict a range for future temperatures, depending on various forcings and other things, including (amongst other things) future emissions of various greenhouse gases? Ever checked those historically predicted ranges for the emissions that actually took place against the measured temperatures? Surely you have because you're so confident their predictions are wrong. You ought be able to produce a graph showing how inaccurate those predictions were because all of the evidence you need is real easy to find. I mean, we're so stupid that we're telling you outright lies about easily verifiable facts, so how hard can it be?

Right?

You sound like a kook because you can't even admit there hasn't been warming while CO2 is skyrocketing.

You're sounding like the kook here, because we're talking about climate, not weather. Long term trends (on the order of 30 years), not short term variability. That's why it doesn't matter which year was the warmest recorded; what matters is that they've pretty much all been unusually warm lately - the trend remains up. Go learn the statistical reasons why you need to look at longer term trends.

Besides equilibrium issues as pointed out by bluegrue, ever heard of natural variability? It's that thing that some denialists claim is responsible whenever we have a few warm years in a row, but pretend doesn't exist when it fails to get warmer every single year. Ever pondered what it might mean for short term variations in annual global temperatures? Perhaps you should.

I can't tell you that AGW doesn't exist and you can't prove to me that it does.

Well, you got two points right in that one sentence :-)

1) You could prove to me that AGW doesn't exist, if you had some solid evidence. If the facts change, I change my mind. But telling me doesn't do it. Your ill-sourced and generally unfounded assertions do not change the facts about the core science.

2) Based on extensive discussions with other people with similar discussions styles, I'm pretty damn sure that no evidence or logic we could show you would change your mind. But you never know...

The less truth you have on your side, the more you have to resort to attacking the person, not the issue. "no qualifications"
[accurate, and germane]
"potty peer will lie through his teeth""Lord Wingnut" [accurate, germane, counters Monckton's inaccurate ad authoritem argument]
"an unqualified liar and fraud" [accurate and germane] "professional propagandist"[accurate and germane] "mischief-making clown"[accurate and germane] "will simply fire off outrageous statements without pausing for breath." [accurate and especially germane]

When you are discussing a debate with someone, his previous claims, stance, documented behavior, etc. are all germane to the point, not a distraction as a true ad hominem is.

Moreover, Monckton depends on several fraudulent, lying ad authoritem arguments, himself - given that, accurate ad hominem points are the natural response.

If he says, believe me, I'm in the House of Lords, then it's germane to say, don't believe him, because he's lying about that, so any deference you pay to the House of Lords should not spply to Monckton.

When Monckton says, believe me, for I have won a Nobel Peace Prize, it's to the point to say, don't believe him, because the Nobel committee was not giving the prize to people who merely sent harrassing mail to the IPCC, or they would have said that, instead of the IPCC, and he is lying about that.

When Monckton says, believe me, for I won the Falklands War and am a trusted science adviser, it's natural to say, no one else agrees with Monckton on the record about the first point, and for the second, Monckton's actual record is that of a person with no scientific training and a history of radical medical quackery.

Furthermore, it's hard to counter a Gish Gallup without being somewhat ad hominem. If he tells 100 lies and you only have time to counter 10 of them, you're going to have to do the equivalent of Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus which is an ad hominem.

Sorry Bruce. Double, triple silly stupid me! The GISS use the GHCN raw data more than the USHCN I linked to?

So you mean that the [GHCN raw data](ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2)?

Short synopsis so far:

Bruce: "Mike, the raw data is being withheld."

Mike: "What, you mean this raw data?"

Bruce: "Oh, well yeah, but it doesn't show how it is analysed."

Mike: "You mean the source code freely available here?"

Bruce: "Oh no, I mean the other raw data which is used."

Mike: "Oh, you mean this raw data then?"

And so the story unfolds (and Bruce's arguments unravel)....

Guys and gals! These Bruce Barrett comments make complete sense to me. After all, I can't see anything wrong in, for example, #277 and #279:

Comment by Bruce Barrett blocked. [unkill]â[show comment]

I'd agree they seem to be a bit repetitive. But hey, repetition is good for those whose minds aren't so open that their brains are lying at their ankles, or so I'm told.

Mike: ;-)

Let me try that again with markdown:

Mike: `` ;-)

Tim, please be more effective than Mike Hulme, who has just been on an edition of a BBC Radio phone-in programme, 'You and Yours' http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours .

Worst episode ever!

Up against the blathing nonsense of Philip Stott, Mike Hulme hit a new low of bloodless, boring limp and ineffectual rebutting of climate change denial. When the interviewer finally asked him if climate change would lead to problems for humanity, he said he couldn't really answer....For his information, the answer would be 'Yes'.

This has to be the most bloody bollocking useless piss-poor performance by a scientist in defence of his life's work I've ever heard. Totally crap. It would have been better to have an empty chair, or get some of the excellent callers who did defend the science to be a guest instead. I phoned in, but I didn't get on - but it wouldn't have taken much to point out the difference between climate and weather, or that the Hockey Stick wasn't broken (both topics were mentioned by mad callers).

Mike Hulme is the ultimate example of why we are losing against such tossers as Monckton, Stott et al. The 'offical' face of climate science in the UK is crap. Useless. A waste of space. As much use as a chocolate teapot. The Royal Society should hang their heads in shame, as should the other scientific institutions. The media is to blame as well, but after Hulme's performance, why would they bother talking to a climate scientist ever again?

Tim, listen to the programme via Iplayer, weep, and then learn from it. Definitely how not to do it.

[Rick Bradford #247](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2259579)
>The less truth you have on your side, the more you have to resort to attacking the person, not the issue.

So that's why Monckton is calling his opponents "bet wetters"? It's from his Melbourne Highlights, time marks 1:13 to 1:50 into this video:

>First of all, the mere fact, that warming has occured, does not tell us anything about what caused the warming. I've seen presentation after presentation by the __bed wetters__, saying that _"there has been warming and therefore CO2 is to blame"_. Of course, what could be causing the warming, as you can see here, is Al Gore with his flamethrower on the Greenland icesheet.

Of course this only works, because Monckton is lying about the actual argument and counts on people despising Al Gore. This oh so polite lord knows how to please his audience. Another howler for the audience: Showing a flooded Houses of Parliament in London and asking "... and your problem is?" (2:30-3:00)

Bruce Barrett:

temperatures decreasing over the past decade

Bullsh!t Bruce, temperatures and trends for the past decade.

That is funny linking to a ten year trend line.

I'm not the bullsh!tting comedian who started talking about the past decade. Since you now realize that one decade doesn't tell us anything about climate, perhaps you will stop being a comedian and look at the standard averaging period for climate of thirty years.

I think "Bruce Barrett" is actually a beta test of a brand new climate-change only version of [the twat-o-tron](http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/the-twat-o-tron/). It seems to have passed the Turing Test.

MikeB@ 292 - I seem to remember seeing Mick Hulme before, up against Lomborg and Lindzen on a BBC4 debate. The questioner had obviously done very little research and gave him a rough ride whilst giving Lomborg and Lindzen free reign, but even given that I thought he looked uncomfortable in the public eye.

Barett is spouting BS re Arctic sea ice. The March extent has, in fact, been decreasing by 2.7% per decade (up to and including 2009), sourced NSIDC:

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/N_03_plot.png

ftp://sidads.colorado.edu//DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Mar/N_03_trnd.png

Bruce, you may be deluding yourself that you are holding your own here, but mate, give it up already!

Hey, maybe Chris is Monckton? :) That would be too much of a compliment to either one of them though.....

Bruce Barrett....

Let me explain something to you. Sure it's true that we can't prove AGW, and yes it's true that the models used for predicting future scenarios are inadequate, but that's not the point.

What you don't seem to understand is that the warming trend may lead to further warming and that would be catastrophic.

It is also possible that the warming trend may lead to cooling in certain areas and, as we all know, that would also be catastrophic.

Of course, the overall warming trend may turn to an overall cooling trend which would be equally catastrophic.

Then again, the temperature could level off and stay the same and never change again, and that would be beyond catastrophic.

So if we don't take immediate steps to stop the potential catastrophies, well, it would be catastrophic.

Got it?

@Betula

Ah, repeating your distortions and misrepresentations in this thread now are you?

So...

You just said:

> Of course, the overall warming trend may turn to an overall cooling trend which would be equally catastrophic.

> Then again, the temperature could level off and stay the same and never change again, and that would be beyond catastrophic.

Are you implying that the science is too uncertain to have any confidence whether or not the current warming trend will continue? If so, do you believe that Woods Hole article we were discussing before supports that viewpoint? If not will you finally admit to being in error and/or quote mining to push a specic agenda unsupported by the quoted source?

Has brucie actually said anything that bears any relation to reality in this thread?

I've looked, but I can't find anything...

Seriously, listing 6 garbage talking points followed by:

> If you can't agree to these simple items you are all truly lost.

Sophisticated stuff.

Of course, the overall warming trend may turn to an overall cooling trend which would be equally catastrophic.

One thing for sure, Betula is always in a bullsh!t trend such as the above.

Tim - every time I see the title to this post, I think of Mayor West from "Family Guy": "What's this? A Yelling contest? I say GAME ON" [yells]

:)

Dave @298...

I answered this question on open thread 39, @152.

Tim,

The moderator Alan Jones was quoted on MediaWatch as a climate change sceptic and is a mate of Monckton's.

You should have insisted on a change of moderator.

Your best best is to give Monckton enough rope to hang himself. Remember a rapier is better that a bludgeon when dealing with arrogant bastards.

Bruce Barrett had been debunked and discredited.

His claims about Arctic sea ice have been shown to be wrong, as are his false claims about glaciers, the Amazon, and...er...*everything* else!

Betula writes:

>I answered this question on open thread 39, @152.

And he quite contradicted himself in providing that answer.

Friends, Crazies, Warmers, and Lemmings,

Let's recap the post;

No one has denied that the IPCC is inherently a political organization that uses grey reports, conclusions provided by insurance companies, the WWF and other political pressure groups.

No one has linked to any conclusive science other than a thirty year decrease in Arctic sea ice which has at least temporarily recovered; along with charts based upon disputed ground station homogenized data that shows that temperatures have increased by .12C in the past decade, but have not passed previous highs.

No one has countered the simple reality that CO2 emissions are not going to stop, drop, or slow any time soon.

No one has countered the apocalyptic, cataclismic, catastrophic, warnings that are spoon fed to the press on a monthly basis by the high priests of anthropogenic global warming.

Please read that summary and tell me if it doesn't make you all sound like a bunch of tools? What nation is going to put itself at an enormous economic disadvantage to keep temperatures rising past .12C per decade? This also demonstrates a slowing of warming, which is contrary to all of your alarmist rhetoric.

If there is global warming and IF there is AGW, the only logical thing to do is determine how to adapt and benefit from it. Or you can all just put your collective heads in the sand and tell each other how clever you believe you are.

By the way Lotharsson here are the estimates from the different IPCC reports;

Let's look at earlier IPCC projections to get a sense of how climate change findings have evolved since 1990. Although each report stated its projections in ways that make it somewhat difficult to make direct comparisons, here's the gist of them. In 1990, the FAR found that computer climate models projected that global mean surface temperature could increase by about 1 degree Celsius above the present value by 2025 and 3 degrees Celsius before the end of the next century. The "best estimate" for sea level rise due to melting glaciers and thermal expansion was about 60 centimeters (25 inches) by 2100.

In 1996, the SAR lowered the projected increase in average global temperatures by 2100 of about 1.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 with a best estimate of 2 degrees Celsius ((3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The SAR forecasted that sea-level could rise between 15 to 94 centimeters (6 to 37) inches by 2100 with a best estimate of 50 centimeters (20 inches). In 2001, the TAR widened the projected range of projected temperature increases by 2100 to 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit). On the other hand, the TAR dropped its estimates of sea level rise by 2100 to 9 to 88 centimeters (4 to 35 inches) with a mean estimate of 45 centimeters (18 inches).

So what does the latest report foresee? The Summary offers six scenarios for possible temperature increases by the end of this century. In the low scenario the likely range of temperature increase between 1.1 to 2.9 degrees Celsius (2 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit) with a best estimate of 1.8 Celsius (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit). In the worst case scenario, average temperature rises to between 2.4 Celsius and 6.4 Celsius (4.3 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) with a best estimate of 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit). Except for the worst case scenario, the top temperatures are lower than the maximum projected by the TAR in 2001.

This demonstrates that not only are you an ass but an ignorant ass, willing to damage other people's interest based upon your feelings, and your aggregation of a thousand points of green.

Lets recap just one criticism of Bruce Barrett's Gish Galloping:

When Bruce tries to talk climate science, Bruce gets things wrong, [badly wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/it_is_so_on.php#comment-2259843). Bruce is unreliable. Nuff said?

Bruce Barrett

"... biggest fraud in history ... I am not trying to drive the world into the stone age ... enormous economic disadvantage ... willing to damage other people's interest ... cry for CO2 reduction is nothing more than a grab for money and power ... giant scam ... religion of AGW ... my anti-social behavior ... What is your freaking delusion? ... trying to damage the world economy ... "

Cringeing Chicken Little alarmism Bruce! "Stop burning coal and we'll all be roooned I tellya!" shouts Bruce, the fellow who still rides around on a hay-burnin' pony 'cos the introduction of expensive automobiles 100 years ago totally destroyed the world economy, as we all learn today in school. Not really Bruce.

Calm down a little. Cooler heads than yours are at work and the consensus is that the sky may not in fact fall when you and your pony get dragged squealing into the twenty-first century Bruce.

Bruce, tl;dr.

Bruce, tl;dr.

Crazy Bruce Barrett,

Let's recap what you are;

You have not denied that you are a bullsh!tting comedian. Your comedy has provided us with an excellent demonstration by example of how anyone who talks about just 10 years of weather data as if that's all we need to know climate is just giving a comedy performance. Thank you very much.

Lets recap:

No one has denied that Monckton & Bruce are political activists & propaganda machines.

No one denies that various front groups, pr groups, lobbyists & fossil fuel industries have supplied you with your information that has not stood up to logic let alone peer reviewed science.

No one denies that your "conclusive evidence" is just a goal post moving exercise. No matter where the evidence comes from you will say its unreliable, but yours is ok. No matter who it comes from, you will say its not conclusive enough, but yours is. Its just a pointless delaying tactic most deniers use because they WONT look at the evidence. Or if they think they HAVE the evidence, then why dont they submit a paper or write an email to the scientists in question? Why battle it out on the blogs? Does what happens here change the science? You are just being a propagandist. Maybe they dont want it to end up in the newsletter scrap heap like Moncktons did with a dirty big disclaimer above it saying "this paper is a joke".

> "If there is global warming and IF there is AGW, the only > logical thing to do is determine how to adapt and benefit > from it. Or you can all just put your collective heads in > the sand and tell each other how clever you believe you > > are."

If there is harm to come from smoking & IF it causes CANCER, the only logical thing to do is determine how to adapt & benefit from it..... You realise how stupid the adapt position sounds?

> "willing to damage other people's interest based upon > "your feelings.

Translation: "willing to hurt certain industries profits to protect lives of your fellow human beings & generations to come." Despicable.

What if we create a better world for nothing eh?

Facts = Science

Faith = what we see reading through the thread here.

This has to be the wackiest forum I have seen. I have my popcorn; looking forward to the debate on Friday.

Should be a good crowd; I'll be able to identify the Deltoid cheer squad by the alfoil hats I suspect. What a bunch of beanies......

My prediction? Monckton by a TKO in the 2nd. CentreBet is giving 2 to 1 on.

This demonstrates that not only are you an ass but an ignorant ass, willing to damage other people's interest based upon your feelings, and your aggregation of a thousand points of green.

I love a good non sequitur in the evening. It smells like...victory.

;-)

Bruce, you first claimed the models were no good without any evidence.

I called you on it, and linked to a post comparing forecasts reported in earlier IPCC reports with actual outcomes, noting that forecasts are ranges of outcomes depending on various circumstances.

You now respond with a couple of data points from forecasts (at least you started posting ranges), without showing how they show that the older models were no good.

Miss the point much?

Proud skeptic, is your post @313 built on 'facts' or the the other 'f' word?

Though I wouldn't disagree about this thread having a higher than usual contribution of wackies.

;)

re #295 - Bud - I missed that interview (although I thought it was Bob Watson up against Lindzen and Lomborg, with Watson not exactly shining and the interviewer was dreadful), but Hulme has had a pretty poor track record at getting the message out for a while.

He wrote an article in the Guardian a couple of years back http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.cl… which I thought at first was supporting the views of Fred Singer, et al, it was that wishy washy.

He then wrote a little later that 'Campaigners, media and some scientists seem to be appealing to fear in order to generate a sense of urgency', and this was bad, even if it was the IPCC itself who said such things. The conference where he said that got full coverage in all the media. Thanks Mike.

As a champion for his fellow researchers, he's a total dud. But where are the media friendly UK based climate researchers who can do this kind of stuff instead? Even those who go on 'Home Planet' and say Stott is wrong, do it so quietly and nicely it wants to make you cry. David King is the only bloke (apart from Monbiot and Goldacre)who gets the job done right.

Put it this way, medics wouldn't put up with this sort of crap on the BBC. Instead they'd be really horrible to the Beeb and have their really good spokesman from the BMA on like a shot. They have real media savvy.

Facts are not enough. You have to actually fight for them to be heard. So get someone who can fight.

Here's a story about TVMOB using a fabricated quote: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fabricated-quot…

Bruce is a Poe...

Facts are not enough. You have to actually fight for them to be heard. So get someone who can fight.

+1000

Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate Climategate
HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE HIDE THE DECLINE
And who is the IPCC's esteemed head? A Goat named Pachy who writes steamy Mills and Boon Novel, titilating science!

re #295 - Bud - I missed that interview (although I thought it was Bob Watson up against Lindzen and Lomborg, with Watson not exactly shining and the interviewer was dreadful), but Hulme has had a pretty poor track record at getting the message out for a while.

I actually did watch the interview - and you're right, it was Watson. My bad. Spot on with the rest of your comments as well.

Sparrow, thanks for giving us your insight into the mental tinnitus that drives yer average denier's "understanding".

Bud - I stopped watching it after ten minutes, I just couldn't take the stupid any longer. It burned, and burned bad.

Sparrow, who would call a goat Pachy? I find it very hard to believe that someone would name a goat that. Seriously. No it is funny. Did you self-apply the "Sparrow"? Are you full of chirrup in the mornings? I bet you flit. Are you a flitty sort of guy? Do you peck the hay seeds? Are you little but with a proud puffy chest? My name is Hawk-and-Cat and I want to eat you partly because you're my prey species and partly because you're a tit. Get it? A tit is like a sparrow but double entendre city and it's also setting up... tit for tat Sparrow. See what I did there? Chirrup! Cheep, cheep.

>Just read the [transcript of Jones' interview with Malcolm Turnbull:](http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=3901)

One thing Turnbull said in that was:

"Look Iâm very familiar with it and I can assure you so is Ian Macfarlane, so is Andrew Robb so is Greg Hunt."

With colleagues like Robb and Hunt, who needs enemies.

*And what is wrong with Lomborg's "key message"?*

Pretty well everything. He does not understand basic ecology and hashes up the biodiversity chapter completely. His predictions with respect to poverty and starvation are already defunct. He screwed up the chapters on forest cover and acid rain, presumably because these were fields beyond his competence. And he knows damned well that there will never be a fiscal priority to alleviating water shortages and hunger in the developing world, allowing his to use this theme forever in his talks arguing that we should not give climatye change mitigation priority.

That is probably why he avoids me like the plague now - he did not turn up at two venues where I was an invited speaker and debater, one in which he pulled out at the last minute and the other in which he declined to attend.

Andrews, if you want to debate me on these issues I will gladly oblige. But as much as Lomborg's "facts" are hardly daunting, I suspect that yours will be even thinner.

Brainless Bruce Barrett,

Please tell me your sources of information with respect to tropic forest loss. The fact is that over the past century the world has lost 7 million square km of tropical forests out of an original total of about 14 million sq. km. And this is only via direct deforestation; this tells us nothigng about the deleterious effects of high-grade logging and fire that have already affected some 35% of the forests in the Amazon basin, rendering them more susceptible to future fires, altering microclimates and seriously undermining their resilience. It also tells us nothing about the effects on the riotous biodiversity that inhabits the forest understory in this region.

Tell me Bruce: what is your scientific pedigree, or are you just another idiot illustrating the Dunning-Kruger effect? What do you know about context and trait mediated processes in ecological communities? What do you know about interaction network webs in ecology and response and effect traits in species and genetically distinct populations? What do you know about the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning? What do you know about edge effects and island biogeography theory, focusing on the Terborgh-Soule models of exponential decay in predicting extinction rates? What do you know about the research at Biodepth and Cedar Creek? What do you know about tipping points in non-linear ecological dynamics? About ecosystem services?

Once you answer me all of these questions with "nothing", then you can explain the rest of the contributors to this thread what an armchair expert you are on the way the world works.

Chris O'Neill:

Alan Jones is a moron, or at least plays one on radio:

...supposing this is just the new religion like Y2K... They were wrong on Y2K.

Yeah, Alan, no Y2K disaster happened because enormous effort went into averting the problems. And that proves it was never a problem in the first place to you? Idiot!

Unfortunately Turnbull humours him on that assertion to make a point later, which was a mistake, but at least Turnbull has some principle:

Well Alan the alternative to that is to do nothing about climate change which I think is reckless.

Good luck Tim.

Not sure if you're still reading this far down but I would try and keep it as simple as possible and use analogies where possible and then qualify them.

If you go first I'd suggest attempting to steal his thunder.
Something along the lines of "Lord Monckton" will try to tell you this (eg: it hasn't warmed for a decade) when in fact it's remained warmer than ever even though the sun hasn't been this weak in a century.

Quickly preview his short term graphs and then show them plotted as part of the longer trend and show how insignificant they are.

I'm sure it won't be a level playing field for you.

328 Lotharsson,

It's funny how this lie won't die, given that a *lot* of people work in IT at various levels and know what really happened. At our place, we set up a project to:-

Check our own code. I was one of those searching many Cobol sources for date calculations and comparisons. We found very few problems, as it happened, but it needed to be done.

Ensure that our software suppliers were doing/had done the same.

Ran a date-shifted environment on the mainframe to carry out testing.

320 Sparrow,

It is clear that you are a bird-brain, but "Parrot" would've better matched your post.

TrueSceptic, not only that, but the recent EFTPOS "2016" debacle shows that it was a real problem. Someone had treated BCD as binary and no-one had tested for dates where the difference mattered...

As Monckton is a skilled and eloquent public performer he will undoubtedly make mincemeat of you. Still, I suppose you are brave, however foolish.

In your opening remarks, explain to the audience that having seen Monckton give interviews and having examined his claims, you apologize in advance that you will likely devote most of your speaking time to correcting his errors.

Then get on the horse and ride

You must realize that for me to explain the particulars of the facts and science involved in this matter, to a person of your... umm.. abilities, is rather difficult.

So it would be, for you, a rational choice to accept what I say because I am presented as an authority on the subject matter.

Once you have made that choice, understanding vast amounts of physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, teledildonics, plate tectonics, and the many other areas of science that impact upon this issue becomes extraordinarily easy.

Therefore, I would, for your benefit, suggest and encourage your acceptance with all possible haste.

332 Lotharsson,

I hadn't heard of that one. Can I say "doh!"?

At least our problems were just about comparing 2-digit years, which we rarely did as it was standard practice to use the built-in binary date routines.

BCD <-> binary is as bad as Microsoft not knowing that 2000 was a leap year until rather late in the day!

JH @327...

What part of your comment answers a question or proves someone's statement wrong? In fact, what is the purpose of the comment, other than to give yourself a pat on the back for being able to listen to yourself?

Can I play too?

What do you know about treating phytophthora? Can you tell me how often I should be checked for cholinesterase inhibitors if I frequently use an Organophosphate or Carbamate. What would you use to treat Bronze Birch Borers, Maujet or a Durban bark drench? What do you know about the percentage of C02 produced by a trees root system as compared to what is used during photosynthesis? What do you know about the best time of year to transplant a 12" caliper Red Oak and how big do you think the root ball should be? Roughly, what would it weigh for transport? What would you recommend, if anything, to treat for Verticillium Wilt? What do you know about a phenoxy screen test? Why would you do one? Do you think a Southern Magnolia would fair well in Zone 6? What do you know about treating slime flux on a Black Birch? What do you know about using a Teupen to remove a decayed 90 foot White Pine over a house and a swimming pool? Would you plant a Nellie Stevens Holly in Northern Connecticut? Can you give me a situation where cutting down trees will help reduce C02? How would you treat for Necria canker? Fireblight? Cytospora? Would you treat a Crabapple with Orthene? How high would you install a cable in a 70 foot double leader Maple? What size cable? Would you feed a Spruce with endo or ecto mycorrhizae?

According to your own logic @327, until you answer all of these question, you are brainless, and nothing but an armchair expert on the care and treatment of one of the worlds greatest natural resources.

And like you, I haven't answered any questions or proved anybody wrong.

Can't get over how childish and nasty the people who can't provide answers to Bruce's basic questions are! When ya don't have the facts, attack the person, seems to be the MO on here!

truthseekr

Congrats Tim on your debate with Lord Monkton.

Firstly I think this was incredibly important moment in the debate as you are the first AGW advocate to actually have the guts to get up and actually have a debate. I was very impressed with your performance, but was also impressed that Lord Monkton was not nearly as "mad" as many of your blog visitors made him out to be.

All we have heard from your side for the past three years, is 30,000 peer reviewed scientists can't be wrong, the science is settled, you the public are not qualified to have an opinion, and we Australians have to move ahead of the rest of the world to set a good example.

What the AGW folks actually did was to push the agenda ahead of the speed at which the public was coming with you on the journey. This is the business world is called a bubble. All bubbles burst!

In so doing your AGW folks have alienated every one and have the Government of day, (which took to the election a policy of 40-60% cuts, being first mover, leading by example) are now spooked and now pursuing a policy 5% cuts, and "we do no more and no less than the rest of the world".

Why? Because the AGW side have refused to allow a debate like this previously, and when challenged they have vilified and tried to shut down any contrary view with comments like - idiots, deniers and CC Skeptics.

The debate was great, very interesting, thought provoking and addressed a much wider range of issues than I expected, and most importantly was conducted respectfully, considering Alan Jones' obvious viewpoint.

So thank you Tim, for participating in the debate. Even though I remain a "denier/skeptic" for the first time I saw someone sensible actually involved in something they knew something about and able to argue the toss respectfully, factually, and with true belief and obvious commitment. A far cry from the usual pundits the ABC put up to talk down at us all, and scream at anyone who dares to disagree with them.

If your side had more people like you prepared to put in the hard yards, treat people respectfully, whilst still standing your ground as you have done, then the debate and actions arising might be in a different place, and the government not as spooked as they are in an election year.

Peter says:

What the AGW folks actually did was to push the agenda ahead of the speed at which the public was coming with you on the journey.

Sorry, but the AGW folks, i.e. the scientists, work at the pace the science (and budgets) allows. If anything, it is slowed by the time taken for work to pass through review and the publication process. It's not for scientists to slow down, it's for other folk to keep up.

And if it's the politics angle you are referring to (notwithstanding that politics is the art of the possible), then scientists have been warning the public of the situation for 20 to 30 years at least, and in some cases much longer.

And if it's the media aspect to which you refer, well ...

The only people to benefit from tardiness are those that wish to do nothing or who wish to delay, for whatever personal or corporate reasons completely divorced from what the science says.

Lotharsson:

Alan Jones is a moron, or at least plays one on radio

I'm guessing that you're not from Australia, otherwise you would have known for a long time that Alan Jones (aka "The Parrot") is a moron. One of the funniest programs on TV years ago was Media Watch http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/ (still pretty funny, look at it now) during the time that Stuart Littlemore hosted it. Nearly every week Littlemore brought up a clanger spoken by Jones. Jones became well known for copying statements by one of his favorite pundits and trying to pass it off as if he wrote it himself.

It's interesting that not a lot has been said about Jones on this thread. I'm guessing it's because anyone in Australia who's not a mindless sycophant has known for a long time that Alan Jones is a moron and any discussion on the subject ended years ago.

Peter,

...but was also impressed that Lord Monkton was not nearly as "mad" as many of your blog visitors made him out to be.

He wasn't in this case, possibly because he had a reasonably knowledgable opponent instead of a largely unquestioning audience.

Try Googling for some videos of other performances and appearances (throw in "Hitler youth" or "communist world government" if you want some recent highlights). And check out carefully the slides Tim linked to. There's plenty of material on the public record. He's quite a colorful chap, that Monckton, and an accomplished speaker - but not highly prone to making sober statements grounded in reality.

You might also find the Denialist Deck of Cards interesting. Study and compare with what's happening in the political and PR domains with respect to global warming. Anything look familiar?

Chris, I am from Australia, although I've spent years living overseas too. I was already fairly convinced that Alan Jones is a moron, but thought I'd reinforce it for anyone who wasn't from Australia ;-)

What a disappointment. I expected you to put Monckton in his place but he ruled the roost. You lost the argument. What the heck went wrong ? Are you doubting your position ?

> What a disappointment. I expected you to put Monckton in his place but he ruled the roost. You lost the argument. What the heck went wrong ? Are you doubting your position ?

Yet another extremely detailed post-debate analysis.

Lotharsson:

He's quite a colorful chap, that Monckton, and an accomplished speaker

He also has a very nice voice and likes to throw in lots of irrelevant anecdotes that allow him to exploit that ability, e.g. he mentioned "natural or Napierian logarithms" at one point and also in relation to an island off the Indian coast that disappeared, he talked about the "Hoogli river" with a very smooth tone. No wonder a lot of people don't care if what he's saying is true or not, they're just so reassured by the sound of his voice.

Go Monckton! We need warriors like him to fight against the evil, unscientific lies of AGW. It's hard to believe anyone would be stupid enough to believe AGW with ZERO scientific evidence to support it, but then many are afraid to lose their jobs, many want to jump on the gravy train of the government-backed politically correct pseudo-consensus(the kind of people that would join in with a racist mob and kill jews to feel powerful and accepted), and many are just plain stupid.

EDUCATION TIME

Now here are the facts: The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years, well before humans could've had any impact, and cooled for the past 8 years. As the climate has been steadily warming naturally, independent of human influence, then of course the hottest days are going to be at the end of the record!!! So claiming the hottest days/years being evidence of AGW is a fallacy.

The medieval Warm period was warmer than today, Global ice levels are normal and sea levels have not risen significantly for 60 years.

Also climate models and IPCC predictions vastly exaggerate warming, they overstate CO2 levels, and exaggerate climate sensitivity forcing equations for CO2. They propose a fictional runaway feedback effect as the CO2 heats up the oceans which then release more CO2 into the atmosphere in a vicious circle. While this feedback does happen to a certain extent, not only is CO2 a lesser greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, the greenhouse effect is counterbalanced by other factors. For instance, the climate models vastly exaggerate upper tropospheric water vapour leading to understated Outgoing Longwave Radiation, and thus vastly exaggerating warming.
In reality, Increased cumulonimbic convection and humidity creates more return flow subsidence and radiative mass sinking, leading to less upper tropospheric water vapour. This leads to more OLR escaping and thus less warming.

The models also ignore or understate low level clouds resulting from increased humidity that reflects radiation back to space and cools the planet.

The mid tropospheric hotspot that should be there according to the IPCCs greenhouse gas warming contribution projections is NOT there.

Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) has studied the climate for 40 years and has plotted the satellite data that shows that Outgoing radiation goes UP with surface warming, NOT down as the IPCC suggests.

Sea acidification is also complete rubbish as even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was dissolved in water it would not even come close to approaching a neutral PH, let alone acid.
Corals, crustaceans and other life forms flourish with more CO2.

Add to that all the data tampering and manipulation, for example the Darwin tampering, the elimination of weather stations from higher altitudes, the attempted removal of the mediaeval warming period, and the bullying of scientists who didn't support the AGW scam, in other words the bullying of scientists with a least a shred of conscience and morality and guts as opposed to cowardly scumbag scientific worms and political doxies masquerading as journalists (you know who Im talking about)that don't contribute to civilisation, only destroy,and you have a 100% certainty that AGW is a scam.

And today's winner for the gold-plated, how-much-nonsense-can-I-spout-in-one-breath prize goes to...

Sabretruth[sic]tiger!

One word of advice, STT: you should use alfoil for your anti-thought-control-ray hat, rather than the lead foil that you are obviously employing.

Even Alice could have told you that.

STT.

If you are not simply a stunning example of a Poe that might be so Poe that it is obviously Poe, you might consider picking you three favourite claims from that rant above and actually provide the evidence that properly backs it up.

Betchya can't.

Sabretruthtiger:

Now here are the facts: The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years

Wrong, wrong,wrong. No-one seriously disputes global temperature reconstructions for the past 400 years. Read the summary which says:

"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface tempera-
ture was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any
comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by
the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies."

The temperature reconstructions in that report show very little trend from 1700 to 1900 followed by a very strong positive trend afterwards. Thus the claim:

The Earth has been warming steadily for 300 years

is complete rubbish. Why are there so many arrogant ignoramuses around who think they know so much?

> many want to jump on the gravy train of the government-backed politically correct pseudo-consensus(the kind of people that would join in with a racist mob and kill jews to feel powerful and accepted), [...]

> Lindzen (you might have heard of him, the top climate scientist in the world) [...]

I'm calling Poe on this one.

Oh, and a public service announcement: the animal which is sometimes misnamed as the "sabre-toothed tiger" is more correctly called the "sabre-toothed cat".

Chris @346....

"No wonder a lot of people don't care if what he's saying is true or not, they're just so reassured by the sound of his voice."

Chris, try to stay on subject, this post is not about Obama.

this post is not about Obama

I forgot to mention, Monckton's English accent greatly contributes to the effect of his voice. Thanks for reminding me about the accent.

I have seen the light! Sabretruthtiger is correct!

Wait, wait, hear me out!

There's clearly a new standard of evidence as ... well, evidenced by the recent Daily Mail article about the BBC interview with Phil Jones. See, statistical significance isn't important now and frankly it's too hard for us normal folks to understand, so let's all thank the journalists for simplifying it (and science!) for us. Now many more of us can become scientists at home - the great democratisation of the former religion of science can only be a good thing that liberates us all from the evil gravy train of those who would join in with...er, sorry, got off track a bit there.

So, er, how does it go now? Any level of uncertainty expressed by a scientist means ... well, they're unsure - by definition! Just look up a dictionary like real journalists do! And common sense says that means in other words they don't really know. In other words, they have no evidence, otherwise they would know, right? And you know a catchy way to put that state of affairs is that there is ZERO evidence! See? Using this simple and easy to understand democrafying standard, STT is absolutely correct that AGW has "ZERO scientific evidence to support it"!

We can all breathe a sigh of relief.

But just don't go outside today. There's zero evidence that you won't be hit by a meteorite, and there's 100% evidence that today it will both rain...and not rain. Hopefully the scientists will find some evidence one way or another soon - my stockpile is down to the last few cans of beans.

;-)

I think people like STT clever enough to figure out that AGW is 100% certainly a scam must be clever enough to be making money from their deep insight. There must be a market somewhere, perhaps a betting market, where you can make money from the fools who believe in AGW. Perhaps he can let us in on the little secret of where such opportunities exist so that we, his new disciples, can ride on his coattails a little and share in the wealth.

And if those opportunities don't exist, perhaps it's time to create them. So many fools who believe passionately in something that is 100% wrong - some of them can surely be persuaded to bet on it! I love a sure thing!

Folks can say climate is not the same thing as winter until they're blue in the face, but this winter may well have been a mortal blow to AGW. And this on top of CRU data leaks, discovery of just how weakly some of the IPCC's data choices were sourced, etc., etc.

Then there's:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Asto…

Wherein Phil Jones seems to be making some admissions contrary to his earlier positions.

"...but this winter may well have been a mortal blow to AGW".

Snertly, another scientific illiterate, makes his presence known.

Yeh, Snertly, it must be so because temperatures in much of the Arctic have been at or near record high levels the past month...

@Snertly:
First of all, you might benefit from checking the source of the Daily Mail article. As expected, the 'translation' of the Daily Mail of the Q&A that the BBC had is horrid:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Second, the 'mortal blow' of this winter apparently results in UAH TLT showing its highest ever temperature anomaly for January, and several places all around the world sweltering in heat:
>http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature…>
the following is even nicer, it shows an anomaly graph for the globe. Compare the red to the blue areas. Notice anything? Feeling any more humble?

Snertly: why should a winter that is milder than normal* be a mortal blow to AGW?

*At least, it has been where I live.

Disagree as you wish, but I'll bet my dollar on nothing substantial happening vis a vis legally enforceable carbon output limits, beyond what's already in place, for at least the next two years.

Any progress on this issue in the US, in the next year or two, will be sold, not on the basis of climate change, but on general environmental improvement, better efficiency/cost, and energy independence. All of which are good reasons.

But the climate change movement and particularly the AGW faction, as a force in its own right, especially as the motivator for carbon trading and similar economic actions will experience extended doldrums as climate change science struggles to recover from lose of face.

Speaking of which:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-…

re: claim that about co2 from volcanoes on land and sea are far greater than man made, easly found on usgs site,
usga information copied and pasted in:-
Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

355 : I think people like STT clever enough to figure out that AGW is 100% certainly a scam must be clever enough to be making money from their deep insight. There must be a market somewhere, perhaps a betting market, where you can make money from the fools who believe in AGW. Perhaps he can let us in on the little secret of where such opportunities exist so that we, his new disciples, can ride on his coattails a little and share in the wealth.

Interesting, didnt Piers Corbyn have his betting account shut down when he consistently predicted extreme weather events using solar weather ?

http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5
In 4,000 Weather Test Bets over 12 years with William Hill, Weather Action forecasts made a profit of some 40% (£20,000). The Odds were statistically fair and set by the Met Office before being shortened by William Hill by a standard 20%; the results were then provided by the Met Office for William Hill to settle each bet. Piers Corbyn was excluded by the bookies from such account betting in 2000.

Chris:
>didnt Piers Corbyn have his betting account shut down when he consistently predicted extreme weather events using solar weather ?

Not as far as I'm aware, but if you have any evidence that he did then please provide it.

Meanwhile you might want to learn about the difference between weather and __climate__, which Corbyn [apparently will not bet on](http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/trying-to-bet-on-climate-with…), despite the wild claims he makes about it.

The thing is, he can predict extreme events using solar techniques that are often accredited to 'Climate Change' e.g. Hurricanes, Blizzards, floods in france, uk, etc, etc weeks and sometimes months in advance.

If you look at the link in post 362 you will see the link there about his William Hill betting account.

There is another reference in this article, but you will need to search for 'piers' to find it.

http://www.islandone.org/Foresight/Updates/Update10/Update10.1.html

Perhaps just look around their website : www.weatheraction.com

Monckton is entirely correct on everything that I've ever heard him say.

It's so refreshing to finally hear the truth spoken in public by an adult instead of the childish lies from the scammers that try to make us believe in the fantasy nightmare of global warming/climate change/gnomes driving SUV's.

Gore has been caught in so many lies that a British judge doesn't allow Inconvenient "truth" to be played in classrooms without some of the errors/lies being exposed before it's played.

31,000 scientists and the one of the founders of the Weather Channel say that AWG is a hoax.

4500 of the 6000 weather reporting stations were closed because they didn't give warmer temperatures more convenient to the scammers.

AGW is a lie!
Everyone listen to Moncton

Wow GT, how long did you study each of these claims before you made them. You'll find a detailed rebut on this site alone to almost every point you claim. Tell me which of your above claims do you think is your strongest argument and I'll direct you to the relevant post on it..

> Gore has been caught in so many lies that a British judge doesn't allow Inconvenient "truth" to be played in classrooms without some of the errors/lies being exposed before it's played.

I wonder if Monckton told you that, given that:

> Monckton is entirely correct on everything that I've ever heard him say.

It seems that Monckton forgot to tell you that the judge said the film was **broadly correct** in its presentation of the science - and that the film Monckton was touting (which I think was The Great Global Warming Swindle) **was not** and could not be shown in schools.

> 4500 of the 6000 weather reporting stations were closed because they didn't give warmer temperatures more convenient to the scammers.

[False](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/false-claims-proven-false/) - and those results have been [replicated by others](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/), including some of a "skeptic" bent.

The certainty you have for many of your claims appears unjustified.