Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
I will be debating Christopher Monckton this Friday.
John Smeed emails:
The Grand Ballroom at the Sydney Hilton Hotel is booked for 12.30pm to 2.30pm on Friday 12 February 2010 where it was planned that Alan Jones would MC a Lord Monckton lecture.
I have now rearranged this function to become a 'Presidential Style' debate (like the format used in the USA Presidential elections) on DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND ? with Alan Jones as the Moderator.
Each speaker will present a 10-15 minute Synopsis of his argument
The Moderator, Alan Jones, will ask a sequence of say four (4) relevant questions with the order of speaking being reversed each question.
Questions will be received from the floor, again with the order of speaking being reversed each question.
Each speaker will be given a five (5) minute summary time at the end of the question time
Moderator will close the debate
Comments
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.
Posted by: John Peate | February 7, 2010 12:07 AM
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!".
Posted by: frankis | February 7, 2010 12:27 AM
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.
Posted by: raypierre | February 7, 2010 12:29 AM
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.
Posted by: Mercurius | February 7, 2010 12:39 AM
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | February 7, 2010 12:39 AM
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.
Posted by: Brian D | February 7, 2010 12:42 AM
Have fun, but I seriously doubt there is any way you can win this so-called debate.
Posted by: John Carney | February 7, 2010 12:44 AM
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.
Posted by: dhogaza | February 7, 2010 12:48 AM
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.
Posted by: Paul H | February 7, 2010 12:57 AM
"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.
Posted by: Steve | February 7, 2010 1:48 AM
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.
Posted by: Neilious | February 7, 2010 1:58 AM
Mercurius says:
I accepted unconditionally, but suggested that we be allowed to put questions to each other.
Posted by: Tim Lambert
| February 7, 2010 2:05 AM
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.
Posted by: Philip | February 7, 2010 2:17 AM
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.
Posted by: sod | February 7, 2010 2:21 AM
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.
Posted by: Ezzthetic | February 7, 2010 2:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Phil M | February 7, 2010 2:38 AM
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.
Posted by: Donald Oats | February 7, 2010 2:47 AM
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.
Posted by: sod | February 7, 2010 2:53 AM
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.
Posted by: Ian Musgrave | February 7, 2010 3:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Nick | February 7, 2010 3:26 AM
Damn Damn Damn... I wish I could go, but will be stuck in the Philippines.
Posted by: joni | February 7, 2010 3:33 AM
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...
Posted by: Gareth | February 7, 2010 4:14 AM
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...
Posted by: Mercurius | February 7, 2010 4:31 AM
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.
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.
Posted by: Phil M | February 7, 2010 5:15 AM
Risky venture. Graham Readfern quit his job at the Courier Mail after his bout with the Lord.
Posted by: el gordo | February 7, 2010 5:17 AM
DVR.
Posted by: Bernard J. | February 7, 2010 5:29 AM
Argh! That's my idea! :)
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 Rod™...)
[1] I know, the debate will take place in Australia, but it doesn't matter
Posted by: bi -- IJI | February 7, 2010 6:04 AM
Ian @19:
http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/main/index.html?id=1418
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?
Posted by: Spring Hill Voice | February 7, 2010 6:10 AM
Gordo, on past performance 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.
Posted by: Chris W | February 7, 2010 6:15 AM
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
Posted by: Paul UK | February 7, 2010 6:25 AM
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.
Posted by: Richard McGuire | February 7, 2010 6:34 AM
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.
Posted by: Bud | February 7, 2010 6:51 AM
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.
Posted by: Phil M | February 7, 2010 6:57 AM
@31 corrrection, the Courier Mail journalist was Bruce McMahon not Ian McMahon, apologies.
Posted by: Richard McGuire | February 7, 2010 7:08 AM
Gotta agree with Richard McGuire. This is risky. The whole set-up is heavily rigged in favour of Monckton's townhall rabble-rousing showman style. But too late now.
Posted by: WotWot | February 7, 2010 7:18 AM
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.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| February 7, 2010 7:27 AM
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.
Posted by: Vagueofgodalming | February 7, 2010 7:34 AM
Good luck, Tim. I might humbly suggest that you preface each rebuttal to a claim with the phrase "That's not true."
Posted by: Deech56 | February 7, 2010 7:43 AM
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.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| February 7, 2010 7:45 AM
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!
Posted by: wbb | February 7, 2010 7:46 AM
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:
Show no mercy! Take him down!!
Posted by: DavidCOG
| February 7, 2010 8:15 AM
I'll temporarily play devil's advocate and help the inactivists write their post-debate press release even before it's happened:
Remember, you heard it here first.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | February 7, 2010 8:23 AM
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.
Posted by: tilden cats | February 7, 2010 8:42 AM
Those links again fixed:
Also, the Munchkin's recent debate with Rupert Posner:
Posted by: DavidCOG
| February 7, 2010 8:50 AM
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-on442423.html
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...
Posted by: Arthur Smith | February 7, 2010 8:54 AM
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.
Posted by: JamesA | February 7, 2010 9:01 AM
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.
Posted by: Neven | February 7, 2010 9:04 AM
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.
Posted by: wbb | February 7, 2010 9:29 AM
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?
Posted by: Donald Oats | February 7, 2010 9:35 AM
Suggestions:
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!
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.
Munchkin uses the 'big lie quickly followed by small lies, small truths or irrelevancies' - don't let the big lie go unchallenged!
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.
make a big point about ocean acidification - this alone is reason to stop pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere
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!
Posted by: DavidCOG
| February 7, 2010 9:58 AM
Assemble his conspiracy theories one after the other. This will not make him look like a rational person.
Posted by: John | February 7, 2010 10:08 AM
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.
Posted by: Mary | February 7, 2010 10:10 AM
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.
Posted by: Todd F | February 7, 2010 10:16 AM
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!
Posted by: Mark S | February 7, 2010 10:46 AM
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
Posted by: Tom | February 7, 2010 10:48 AM
Tim, is it open to the public?
Have fun!
Posted by: barry | February 7, 2010 10:54 AM
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.
Posted by: Boris | February 7, 2010 11:17 AM
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.
Posted by: TomG | February 7, 2010 11:46 AM
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.
Posted by: pough | February 7, 2010 12:05 PM
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.
Posted by: san quintin | February 7, 2010 12:06 PM
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!
Posted by: clarencegirl | February 7, 2010 1:00 PM
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."
Posted by: MapleLeaf | February 7, 2010 1:07 PM
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").
Posted by: Dappledwater | February 7, 2010 2:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Majorajam | February 7, 2010 2:21 PM
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
Posted by: AmandaS | February 7, 2010 2:27 PM
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.
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 ...
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| February 7, 2010 2:40 PM
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...
Posted by: Gareth | February 7, 2010 3:18 PM
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
JesusNot 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.
Posted by: Brian D | February 7, 2010 4:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Mercurius | February 7, 2010 4:32 PM
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.
Posted by: jakerman | February 7, 2010 4:36 PM
Does Monckton have kids?
Posted by: Neven | February 7, 2010 4:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Joseph | February 7, 2010 5:04 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike | February 7, 2010 5:07 PM
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.
Posted by: jakerman | February 7, 2010 5:16 PM
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?
Posted by: MapleLeaf | February 7, 2010 5:29 PM
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.
Posted by: Jeremy C | February 7, 2010 5:33 PM
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.
Posted by: bruced | February 7, 2010 5:40 PM
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.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 7, 2010 5:49 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike | February 7, 2010 5:52 PM
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
Posted by: Holly Stick | February 7, 2010 5:56 PM
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):
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
Posted by: bluegrue | February 7, 2010 5:59 PM
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 ?
Posted by: Keith | February 7, 2010 6:13 PM
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.
Posted by: Alex | February 7, 2010 6:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Mercurius | February 7, 2010 6:28 PM
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?
Posted by: Stephan | February 7, 2010 6:30 PM
The key thing to keep in mind Tim are the audiences.
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.
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 ...
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.
Posted by: Fran Barlow | February 7, 2010 6:36 PM
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.
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | February 7, 2010 6:38 PM
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:
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?
Posted by: Joseph | February 7, 2010 6:42 PM
'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...
Posted by: Mercurius | February 7, 2010 7:05 PM
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
Posted by: John Cross | February 7, 2010 7:06 PM
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.
Posted by: theblob | February 7, 2010 7:25 PM
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.
Posted by: Arthur Smith | February 7, 2010 7:28 PM
...and what Fran says....
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | February 7, 2010 7:29 PM
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.
Posted by: Phila | February 7, 2010 7:45 PM
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!
Posted by: Phila | February 7, 2010 7:47 PM
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.
Posted by: jakerman | February 7, 2010 7:57 PM
@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.
Posted by: Joseph | February 7, 2010 8:04 PM
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 ..."
Posted by: KiwiInOz | February 7, 2010 8:10 PM
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.
Posted by: WotWot | February 7, 2010 8:19 PM
The question being debated is:
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.
Posted by: Donald Oats | February 7, 2010 8:29 PM
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.
Posted by: Bernard J. | February 7, 2010 8:34 PM
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 ?
Posted by: Keith | February 7, 2010 8:40 PM
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?
Posted by: QrazyQat | February 7, 2010 9:01 PM
Thank to bluegrue's transcript, Monckton states:
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:
Leading back to Monckton's letter to to APS:
What assumptions were they again? If Monckton hasn't refined his claims in the last 2 years, then I think someone has called him on this before:
But imagaine debating those details?
Posted by: jakerman | February 7, 2010 9:03 PM
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.
Posted by: Proud Sceptic | February 7, 2010 9:04 PM
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.
Posted by: MikeH | February 7, 2010 9:21 PM
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?
Posted by: Donald Oats | February 7, 2010 9:21 PM
"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....
Posted by: Richard Davidson | February 7, 2010 9:21 PM
"DOES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING ENDANGER MANKIND ? "
Why wouldn't this be a shoe-in for Tim?
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?
Posted by: RyanStarr | February 7, 2010 9:26 PM
+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...
Posted by: Lotharsson
| February 7, 2010 9:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2010 9:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| February 7, 2010 9:41 PM
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!
Posted by: Paul Williams | February 7, 2010 9:50 PM
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.
Posted by: David Horton | February 7, 2010 9:51 PM
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...
Posted by: Lotharsson
| February 7, 2010 9:55 PM
Keith, love your work 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, 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?
Posted by: jakerman | February 7, 2010 10:02 PM
Any debater resorting to post-it notes or to shuffling piles of paper under the microphone is instantly disqualified. Rightly!
Posted by: wbb | February 7, 2010 10:05 PM
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
Posted by: Jazza | February 7, 2010 10:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Ken Fabos | February 7, 2010 10:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Todd F | February 7, 2010 10:21 PM
This had better be posted to YouTube!
No excuses...
Posted by: hushashi | February 7, 2010 10:22 PM
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.
Posted by: Proud Sceptic | February 7, 2010 10:24 PM
Who is debating with Monckton? El Gordo or David Duff?
Posted by: John | February 7, 2010 10:32 PM
@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.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2010 10:48 PM
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.
Posted by: Kate | February 7, 2010 11:05 PM
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.
Posted by: jakerman | February 7, 2010 11:07 PM
I'll believe that when a politcal leader camgaings clearly promising inaction and wins.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2010 11:14 PM
"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 don’t 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.
Posted by: elspi | February 7, 2010 11:18 PM
@127, Your post is a clear indication as to why sceptics call people like yourself religious zealots.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2010 11:36 PM
@125, Yeah, you must have missed it. Here is the link: http://en.cop15.dk/. :-)
Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2010 11:39 PM
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.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 7, 2010 11:50 PM
Proud Skeptic wrote:
Ah, yes.
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.
Posted by: Lotharsson
| February 8, 2010 12:08 AM
Whups, posted this in the wrong thread. Monckton lies:
7:32 “Now we have as scientific phrase, we scientists, for this…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idTHcot8tLc
Call him on it. Monckton is NOT a scientist. Not by education, nor profession.
Posted by: Dan Gleibitz | February 8, 2010 12:21 AM
Also, Monckton is still trotting out the graph discussed here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
It might be useful to produce a copy of the real deal, contrast it with Monckton's 'creative' version, and let the audience decide...
Posted by: Dan Gleibitz | February 8, 2010 12:29 AM
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.
Posted by: Jimmy Nightingale | February 8, 2010 12:39 AM
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.
Posted by: janama | February 8, 2010 12:53 AM
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.
Posted by: jakerman | February 8, 2010 1:14 AM
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.
Posted by: Barry Brook | February 8, 2010 2:18 AM
Monckton is NOT a scientist. Not by education, nor profession.
Nor, most importantly, by temperament.
Posted by: WotWot | February 8, 2010 2:47 AM
This is an object lesson in how to admit defeat and then spin it before you've even lost.
Not exactly the way to prop up your man....
Posted by: Rick Bradford | February 8, 2010 3:20 AM
Agree with Janama,tone is more important than substance with Monckton's patsies.
Posted by: Nick | February 8, 2010 3:33 AM
What it is, Rick, is an object lesson in how little the truth matters to the stupid and the venal.
Posted by: marcusj | February 8, 2010 3:54 AM
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".
Posted by: Donald Oats | February 8, 2010 3:57 AM
"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?
Posted by: Mercurius | February 8, 2010 3:59 AM
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.
Posted by: Kent Brockamn | February 8, 2010 4:09 AM
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.
Posted by: John Catley | February 8, 2010 4:30 AM
@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.
Posted by: Mercurius | February 8, 2010 4:44 AM
John #123
David Duff clearly has a better sense of humor.
Posted by: el gordo | February 8, 2010 5:03 AM
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.
Posted by: Phil M | February 8, 2010 5:05 AM
You'd be ideal to moderate this cartoon debate,eh,Kent Brockman?
Posted by: Nick | February 8, 2010 5:11 AM
@Donald
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...
Posted by: Dave | February 8, 2010 5:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | February 8, 2010 5:56 AM
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.
Posted by: John | February 8, 2010 6:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Fran Barlow
| February 8, 2010 6:18 AM
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.
Posted by: Dibble | February 8, 2010 6:20 AM
Jeff, the confidence you mention the denialists have, sounds like the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
“ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ”
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. does a great deconstruction of Lomborgs dishonesty.
Posted by: Phil M | February 8, 2010 6:41 AM
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 (which needs updating but still works IMO).
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 8, 2010 6:46 AM
Unfortunately, I tend to think these "debates" are almost always set-ups.
For what it's worth, here's my advice:
Posted by: Ezzthetic | February 8, 2010 6:49 AM
Darwin apparently pointed this dynamic out - "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
Posted by: Lotharsson
| February 8, 2010 6:49 AM
Hope you were watching Media Watch tonight Tim. Worth checking out the transcripts if you missed it.
Posted by: Gummo Trotsky | February 8, 2010 6:52 AM
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
Posted by: derspatz | February 8, 2010 7:04 AM
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.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 8, 2010 7:12 AM
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'.
Posted by: Bernard J. | February 8, 2010 7:24 AM
Hope you were watching Media Watch tonight Tim. Worth checking out the transcripts if you missed it.
Second that.
Posted by: WotWot | February 8, 2010 7:28 AM
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.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 8, 2010 7:32 AM
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!
Posted by: MattB | February 8, 2010 7:35 AM
Thanks for the tip Gummo, the link is here:
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2813459.htm
— ABC Radio 774, Mornings with Jon Faine, 1st February, 2010
Posted by: jakerman | February 8, 2010 7:37 AM
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.
Posted by: facepalm | February 8, 2010 8:00 AM
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!
Posted by: Stu | February 8, 2010 8:18 AM
Stu is Monckton not arguing that there is very low forcing rather than low sesitivity?
Posted by: jakerman | February 8, 2010 8:24 AM
Best of luck Tim, it won't hurt you to study http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/monboit-vs-plimer-weve-had-debate.htmlhow Monboit trounced Ian Plimer six weeks ago.
Posted by: Wadard | February 8, 2010 8:43 AM
Good luck - I do fear it's stacked
And I do hope you've asked at least what Monckton's getting in a fee.
Posted by: Dave McRae | February 8, 2010 9:04 AM
question is really horrible.
wild speculation and making up complete nonsense is a Monckton speciality.
Posted by: sod | February 8, 2010 9:07 AM
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
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 9:15 AM
Bruce, you are uninformed.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/
i guess you can t stand the heat, can you?
Posted by: sod | February 8, 2010 9:38 AM
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.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | February 8, 2010 9:42 AM
jakerman, I guess "The Barrier Reef Authority" turns out to be McLean, purportedly using NOAA data:
http://mclean.ch/climate/GBR_sea_temperature.htm
prominently featured on marohasy
Posted by: bluegrue | February 8, 2010 9:51 AM
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.
Posted by: Eamon | February 8, 2010 9:55 AM
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
Posted by: MikeB | February 8, 2010 10:09 AM
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.
Posted by: Joseph | February 8, 2010 10:18 AM
gah... gah...
"NASA deliberately crashes CO2-sensing satellite on take-off to avoid revealing that climate change is a complete hoax"
Posted by: Lazar
| February 8, 2010 10:25 AM
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!
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | February 8, 2010 10:31 AM
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.
Posted by: pauly | February 8, 2010 10:32 AM
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 _."
Posted by: hankroberts
| February 8, 2010 11:56 AM
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
Posted by: Holly Stick | February 8, 2010 1:16 PM
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
Posted by: janama | February 8, 2010 1:35 PM
Tim could bring a handout ...
Posted by: dhogaza | February 8, 2010 1:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Phil M | February 8, 2010 3:40 PM
awesome, I hope it's webcast, I can see the headlines now: "Peerless Blogger Meets Blog-less Peer!"
Posted by: Carl C | February 8, 2010 3:52 PM
Holly stick,
And what is wrong with Lomborg's "key message"?
Posted by: Dave Andrews | February 8, 2010 4:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Neil | February 8, 2010 4:40 PM
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....
Posted by: MikeB | February 8, 2010 4:45 PM
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?
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 5:10 PM
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.
Posted by: guthrie | February 8, 2010 5:19 PM
Posted by: Holly Stick | February 8, 2010 5:47 PM
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 :)
Posted by: davidk | February 8, 2010 5:50 PM
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.
Posted by: Mark Hadfield | February 8, 2010 6:07 PM
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.
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 6:16 PM
193 Bruce Barrett,
Why don't you do some basic research? Then you wouldn't be spouting this ignorant insulting drivel here.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 8, 2010 6:27 PM
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.
Posted by: TrueSceptic | February 8, 2010 6:35 PM
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 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/ (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.
Posted by: Stu | February 8, 2010 6:38 PM
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?
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 6:39 PM
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 ∼20% 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 two–three decades."
There was pronounced trend towards drier conditions over most of Africa between 1950 and 2002. And this is only the beginning.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | February 8, 2010 6:45 PM
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?
Posted by: Vince Whirlwind | February 8, 2010 6:54 PM
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): 1 2005 0.63 2 2007 0.57 3 2009 0.57 4 1998 0.56 5 2002 0.56 6 2003 0.55 7 2006 0.54 8 2004 0.49 9 2001 0.48 10 2008 0.43 11 1997 0.4 12 1990 0.38 13 1995 0.38 14 1991 0.35 15 2000 0.33 16 1999 0.32 17 1988 0.31 18 1996 0.29 19 1981 0.26 20 1983 0.26 21 1987 0.26 22 1994 0.23 23 1944 0.2 24 1989 0.2 25 1980 0.18 26 1973 0.14 27 1993 0.14 28 1977 0.13 29 1986 0.13 30 1992 0.13
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.
Posted by: Donald Oats | February 8, 2010 7:00 PM
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?
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.
The rain forest is not disappearing from global warming. Another poorly cited addition to the IPCC report.
The polar ice cap is not disappearing, and has made recent gains.
More people in Africa will have water abundance than water shortage from increased warming. Another retraction from the IPCC.
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?
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"?
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.
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.
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 7:02 PM
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.
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 7:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Ian Musgrave | February 8, 2010 7:10 PM
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, more here , 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? Sadly, they will have to think of a new name in ca. 10 years. Have another look at glaciers in Montana.
Bruce Barrett, will you take an honest look at this information? Will you?
Posted by: JasonW | February 8, 2010 7:10 PM
Donald,
Here are only some of the things wrong with your analysis.
Mann will not release the core data of which stations he took data from.
Warming if proven does not prove AGW.
CO2 emissions will not stop.
Studies have not proven that warming will not be a benefit.
They have cooked the data at East Anglia and I suspect they are cooking the data at GISS.
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.
Why is 1951 to 1980 your reference period?
Don't claim empirical evidence where it is not empirical. Too short of a range and unproven quality of the raw data.
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 7:12 PM
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?
Posted by: Stu | February 8, 2010 7:16 PM
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?
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 7:19 PM
Stu,
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.
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.
North Pole summer ice extent.
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/02/07/the-great-ipcc-meltdown-continues/ The better article on rainfall was I believe in The Globe and Mail. I will have to find it.
Okay so nearly all of the models predicted temperature rise and were wrong.
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.
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?
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 7:41 PM
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?
Posted by: WotWot | February 8, 2010 7:43 PM
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.
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 7:46 PM
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.
Posted by: Bruce Barrett | February 8, 2010 7:49 PM
That's the problem with deniers, they defend their made up beliefs with religous zeal.
Posted by: John | February 8, 2010 8:12 PM
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?
Posted by: jakerman | February 8, 2010 8:14 PM
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.
Posted by: Stu | February 8, 2010 8:24 PM
What difference does it make?
Posted by: luminous beauty | February 8, 2010 8:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Jimmy Nightingale | February 8, 2010 8:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Todd F | February 8, 2010 8:57 PM
Bruce B sums up the denialist approach:
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.
Posted by: jakerman | February 8, 2010 9:46 PM
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)
Posted by: Stuart | February 8, 2010 10:26 PM
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-wegman-file
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.
Posted by: MapleLeaf | February 8, 2010 10:39 PM