Question dodgers shouldn’t be debated

all they are both accomplished in the art of promoting a simplistic untruth against a complex truth.

Very true. But what tactic would you use in a formal debate to counter their untruths?

What were you saying about ‘charlatans’?

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Jeff,

This debate is not about creationism vs evolution - I think you are confused.

I know this (any) debate might make you feel uncomfortable since it challenges your system of quasi-religious, doomsday beliefs which you are unable to back up by scientific evidence.

Ben says:
“No science is quoted in Plimers book either”.
You obviously haven’t read it- it is full of scientific references…

Ben

Very true. But what tactic would you use in a formal debate to counter their untruths?

Facts would be a good start.

Politics, smears, ideology and fear mongering just aren’t cutting it anymore.

Feel free to start “cutting it” anytime Bennoba.

Nothing for me to ‘cut’ Ben. I’m not trying to convince people to blindly accept an unproven hypothesis.

The real “charlatans” in this issue have been shown to be the UEA climate scientists (and others implicated in the email/data scandal), the IPCC (how about them glaciers and Artic/Antarctic ice??) and more recently NASA.

Here you go:

They have succeeded in alerting the world to a simple truth against a complex untruth.

There, fixed it!!

As for any encouragement to back out, that just proves that you are a bunch of cowards with little to back up your fradulent argument of ACC/AGW/AGC.

Rock and a hard place, but once again I admire your courage to be the fall guy.  it will help Australia to wake up to this fraud.

Politics, smears, ideology and fear mongering

Yet Monckton & Plimer fill all those pre-requisites.

Phil - as a standard question - what position in Parliment does Monckton & Plimer hold - (I was unaware that they reside there)

Really Phil?

Yet Monckton & Plimer fill all those pre-requisites.

What doomsday scenarios have they been peddling?

What doomsday scenarios have they been peddling?

A green socialist/communist capitalist destroying takeover.

Phil M

A green socialist/communist capitalist destroying takeover.

Nonsense!

Monckton was referring to the content of the draft Copenhagen Treaty and he was correct.

I suggest you take the time to read it if you don’t believe me. I did and it’s terrifying which is why people like Kevin Rudd denied any knowledge of it.

No science is quoted in Plimers book either.

Well try looking at the science in some of the more reputable science bolgs here and you will see how dishonest Monkton is.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/

Why do they need to resort to such tactics?? Because they are using bankrupt arguments, one then has to question the motivations.

If they lie and dodge questions, why not pull them up?

Yeah step up bee-atch .... oh sorry ... that’s not debating. That’s just rudeness.

Debating is supposed to have rules and politeness. Does anyone remember the recent interview by Plimer on lateline? Plimer was clearly caught out but refused to admit his error and that volcanos emit less CO2 than humans. Plimer has been caught out fair and square and refused to admit even the basics. There is a point where politeness ends and sheer rudeness begins.

Does anyone remember high school debating? There were rules and manners. Hopefully this event will be properly regulated and maybe an extra member added to each team to make it more formal.

Yeah step up bee-atch .... oh sorry ... that’s not debating. That’s just rudeness.

You obviously did not understand what I meant by saying “pull them up”. It means do let them avoid the question. Ask again, and again, and again. How is this rude?

When was the last time you heard a warmist ask for a public debate on this issue?

I agree, seems to me the reasons given not to debate are the very reasons there should be a debate. If the proffessor is on as solid ground as he thinks he should relish the chance to go and get stuck in.

I have a problem with this attitude that there should never be any debate over this. The public deserve the right to hear both sides of an argument and judge it on its merits, not be force fed theories and predictions and told they are infallible. I think the government of this country has let its people down badly, seems only now we are at a point on AGW we should have been at years ago.

Well put Phil, just one mistake. It’s logical! We don’t do ‘logical’ in this blog. We do ‘rant, insult and invective’. Your list of Australian scientific institutions begins with BOM. Sorry, you blew it. Someone once questioned the temperature data collected from Darwin Airport weather station. Despite the lack of actual proof that there was an uncorrected error, that was enough to ‘prove’ to the denialists that all BOM data from the year dot to the present are ‘suspect’- that is, completely fraudulent and hopelessly compromised.
Since you are compromised by your admission of support for global warming theory, and your list begins with BOM, this proves conclusively that all positions held by any of the other institutions in your list must be corrupted by the great global warming conspiracy as well.
Please don’t try to argue with me, my opinion proves anything I want it to, so there!

You fall into your own trap by calling upon us to believe what a person says must be true because they are a scientist. A truly naive and layperson’s view if there ever was one. There are countless areas of scientific realms now. Gone are the days of Benjamin Franklin who could be an expert in all fields. And many scientists who have gone against scientific consensus have later been proved right. Einstein couldn’t even get a teaching post and was a 3rd grade clerk at a patent office when he produced the 6 great papers in 1905 including relativity. Even then only a handful of friends believed his output and he still gained no academic position! Just because an engineer develops a CAT scan doesn’t make him a qualified radiologist to see if there is a tumor on your brain.

BBC may dump Met office after complaints about ‘BBQ summer’ and ‘mild winter’ predictions

LOL.

Since when has the public ever needed to be called upon to decide whether scientists know what they are doing?

Answer: when it became obvious that climate scientists were not following correct scientific methodology.

But as you say, you’re not a scientist.

You are happy to take what Mann, Briffa et al have to say on faith, then you take a swipe at religion by trying to tie Monckton in Hillsong, FFS…

Why? Is it because that religion is competition to yours?

So there goes one of the favourite lynch pins of the skeptics argument “the earth is cooling & has been since 1998”.

Oh that’s so funny.

11 years of stable or falling temperatures mean nothing to you but the fact that 2009 may have been a bit hotter than 2008 totally destroys the sceptics argument.

The skeptics have always said the alarmists argument works like this,

Falling temperatures (no matter for how long) equal weather

Rising temperatures (no matter how short) equal climate change

Hypocrite!

Phil

The IPCC was commissioned by hundreds of governments around the world & their reports were signed off on by 130 countries.

Those hundreds of governments around the world are looking increasingly silly.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Add this to the ever growing list of why I am a skeptic.

Hi Phil - just a couple of points:

1. Cherrypicking of information was used most effeciently by the AGW supporters.
2. arnt those agencies (1 to 9) reliant on government funding, so why would they go against any government position, especially one which is a huge cold carrot to them.
3. why would anyone in those agencies go against their current ‘fad’ - and most likely they dont get listened to or they are refused publishing - by their management.
4. I can count some countries without even looking - any developing country, Czechoslavakia, - and Phil any countries that says it will do something as apposed to actually doing something, do they really support AGW?
5. then why arent all the governments falling over themselves to get to this supposed honey pot? - if you dont know the answer to that question, that is a huge problem on your behalf.
6. Thousands of Green Business - where, and how many would not be survivable if government funding was axed?
7. I dont think it is a case of reading the data that is the problem - its the policy of removing and changing the data that IS the PROBLEM.
8. So what if the temps are going back up - come-on Phil - Proove that man is doing it and that it is apocalyptic.  - its that simple.

and meanwhile it appears that the IPCC are taking reports at face value and NOT EXAMING THE SCIENCE of the report - re Himalaya Glacier Report.

Phil M

I agree with this your sentence in particular.

Monckton, being a politician, is able to straight faced look at people & lie & talk at length of that lie.

What surprises me is your bias against politicians that you don’t like and blind acceptance of the opinions from the politicians that you agree with.

Gore, Rudd, Wong, Garret - are politicians, so if you assume that all politicians lie, you have to accept the fact that these politicians lie as well.

Fortunately we don’t need to listen to the political opinions to realise that climate science is far from being settled, since there is plenty of peer-reviewed, published papers to confirm this fact.

P.S.
I really hope that warming is on the way back because we still need 1-2 degree up before we reach climatic optimum.

Phil...perhaps this will help with your case re: IPCC...or not…

Oh, and I think the green sector has received more than mere millions...but hey, don’t let emotion get in the way of fact…

There are no climate scientists at The Institution of Engineers Australia.

The Institution of Engineers Australia is no authority on man made global warming.

Sarina,

“You fall into your own trap by calling upon us to believe what a person says must be true because they are a scientist.”

I don’t think this is being said at all.

Phil M stated:

“The IPCC was commissioned by hundreds of governments around the world & their reports were signed off on by 130 countries. How many support Moncktons views?....0%”

So 130 countries sign off on the IPCC reports and as a result this makes the content of those reports credible; is that what you are saying?

Lets just take 2 examples of what has been included in IPCC reports. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick featured prominately in those reports. It has been completely discredited yet it was the centrepiece of the IPCCs reports convincing the world that global warming was taking the planet to catastrophe. So what did those 130 countries do to fact check Mann’s research? Zilch obviously.

A further claim of the IPCC reports was that Himalyan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Where was the science of support this assertion so credible that it could grace the pages of a report with the imprimatur of 130 governments? There was none at all. It was a titbit picked up in a radio interview and was repeated until it achieved a life of its own.

Now we are finding that the datasets which purport to show that the planet is warming to hell have been severely compromised.

The Climategate emails show that the raw data on which all the CRU modelling was based was witheld from FOI requests and was subsequently said to have been destroyed. The UK Met office has since said that it will take it 3 years to reconstruct the data to enable findings to be checked (peer reviewed). Revelations in the last few days have cast serious doubt over the credibility of the NCDC and GISS datasets in the USA. The data has been cherry picked, homogenised and quality adjusted to fit the researchers predictions.

Until the entire field of data is reconstructed, the actual weather stations are reviewed for adequacy and the data then put through the models to reproduce the results, the alarming predictions should be set aside. Yet you seem to think that because 130 countries have endorsed the IPCC reports those reports have credibility. Pull the other one!!

The credibility of the Hockey Team - the lead authors of the IPCC reports has been shredded. You are just embarrassing yourself by clinging to their authority.

Your final paragraph, hanging your hat on the graphs produced by those organisations as proof of ongoing warming is laughable given the credibility of the datasets that are maintained by those organisations. Time to start all over again Phil.

When Monckton gets through with the IPCC reports there will not be much left to salvage.

GRAHAM: The National Academies of Science investigated Michael Mann’s temperature reconstruction. Their findings are here. No shredding of reputations though.

Answer: when it became obvious that climate scientists were not following correct scientific methodology.

And what is that Joe? To follow the debunked theories of the minority you follow, or the AM weatherman blog proof? I suppose only the guys you back follow correct scientific methodology? Which is what? Anything that favours a good outcome for the fossil fuel sector?

You are happy to take what Mann, Briffa et al have to say on faith

This is a circular argument. We could say that about any scientist you want to quote too.

then you take a swipe at religion by trying to tie Monckton in Hillsong, FFS…

I was making a comparison. I did not say they were tied together. I was pointing out that both regularly speak to large audiences & are comfortable doing so. Whereas many people ARENT comfortable in that atmosphere. But people able to perform well on stage doesnt somehow translate into being right, or speaking the truth, it just means your a good performer.

11 years of stable or falling temperatures mean nothing to you

A hundred years of rising means nothing to you?

but the fact that 2009 may have been a bit hotter than 2008 totally destroys the sceptics argument

Why yes Sherlock, glad you agree it destroys your theory.

Falling temperatures (no matter for how long) equal weather

Thats just rubbish & you know it. Dont try to distance yourself from what you & others have said for a long time now, that the earth is cooling & has done so since 1998. I can post videoes of Bob Carter, Plimer & Monckton all saying the same thing & never once mentioning weather. Its been crucial to your argument & it no longer a crutch you can lean on.

Those hundreds of governments around the world are looking increasingly silly.

Maybe silly, but the science hasnt & wont change.

1. Cherrypicking of information was used most effeciently by the AGW supporters.

Circular argument.

2. arnt those agencies (1 to 9) reliant on government funding

Yes, like the past few hundred years, you just realise this now? But only have an issue with it recently & with this one sector of science? Now thats oil pr brainwashing.

so why would they go against any government position, especially one which is a huge cold carrot to them.

It was scientists who spurned politicians to make policy based on their observations & theories, not politicians who made scientists create science based on their policy. You are putting the cart before the horse.

3. why would anyone in those agencies go against their current ‘fad’ - and most likely they dont get listened to or they are refused publishing - by their management.

Oh yeah, they have nothing better to do & cant think of anything else to look at. What do you suggest a climatologist applies for grants in then? Astrophysics? Does a mechanic look for a job as a carpet layer?

4. I can count some countries without even looking - any developing country, Czechoslavakia, -

So they have signed a document similar to the IPCC saying they dont back the science behind this?

5. then why arent all the governments falling over themselves to get to this supposed honey pot? - if you dont know the answer to that question, that is a huge problem on your behalf.

Entertain me, I like to hear conspiracy theories.

6. Thousands of Green Business - where, and how many would not be survivable if government funding was axed?

Another circular argument. What if all the subsidies that have been paid to the fossil fuel sector for the past 100 years have been pulled. What if Anna Bligh doesnt build a train line for Clive Palmers coal mines?

7. I dont think it is a case of reading the data that is the problem - its the policy of removing and changing the data that IS the PROBLEM.

Thats the interpretation of an unimformed few.

8. So what if the temps are going back up - come-on Phil - Proove that man is doing it

Again, its been proven over & over. This is the point at which you run. We both know you are not here to spread or promote an understanding of science. You are here to spread uncertainty, doubt & delay action.

Phil M

Again, its been proven over & over.

It has never been proven and you know it. If it had been proven we wouldn’t be having this debate.

It is a hypothesis - not a proven fact.

The Institution of Engineers Australia is no authority on man made global warming

Engineers Australia have environmental engineers colleges . I agree technically, they are not in the game. I’m happy to withdraw them if you are happy to withdraw the 32% of engineers that made up the oregon petition.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick featured prominately in those reports. It has been completely discredited yet it was the centrepiece of the IPCCs reports convincing the world that global warming was taking the planet to catastrophe. So what did those 130 countries do to fact check Mann’s research? Zilch obviously.

You are obviously a little behind the times & get your news directly off McIntyre himself through climate audit. You will notice his site doesnt have any updates after 2008. Thats because they took the debate to PNAS & McIntyre lost. The hockey stick stays.

A further claim of the IPCC reports was that Himalyan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Where was the science of support this assertion so credible that it could grace the pages of a report with the imprimatur of 130 governments? There was none at all. It was a titbit picked up in a radio interview and was repeated until it achieved a life of its own.

Hey, even the light side of the force is prone to tripping on their robes. Haha.

The Climategate emails show that the raw data on which all the CRU modelling was based was witheld from FOI requests

Blah blah blah. Yeah yeah, youve read one side of the story & have no clue I know, its ok, I wont tell anyone you read womans day, dont feel bad.

Yet you seem to think that because 130 countries have endorsed the IPCC reports

Ahh sweet sweet 130. Please repeat it another few times, its like music to my ears, how many again support your side I keep forgetting...oh yeah 0% ahah. Schweeeet.

When Monckton gets through with the IPCC reports there will not be much left to salvage.

Monckton the politician...is going to go through… the IPCC reports?......aaaaaaahahahaha! That is one of the funniest things Ive seen in a while. What will he plan on doing with all his condemning evidence? Makes it pretty hard to have a scientific argument when your NOT A SCIENTIST!!..hello.

I agree in once sense though, that he WILL go through it with a fine tooth comb, just like every oil pr team & oil pr scientist is doing...why?

Becauuse the debate in the scientific realms is over & was over a few years ago. Sure there is an opposing paper submitted here & there in a low weight journal, but not enough to overturn the overwhelming weight of evidence. Thats why for the fossil fuel industries PR teams & fossil fuel scientists, this is all thats left for them.

All thats left now is to try & own the public debate & at the same time try & discredit scientists & the institutions. The institutions are the backbone of the whole thing now & its why there are more & more attacks on them, to try & water down their credibilty & reputation.

Attacks on CRU, NOAA, NASA, BOM, IPCC, all in this last year is showing the desperation of their situation. In the public debate, all the oil pr teams need to do is trigger well used emotional triggers to start people off, like socialism plot, communism plot, capitalism destroying, big government, big taxing. Stuff that makes any card carrying Coalition/Republican voter seeth at the sheer sight/sound of the words.

Here is the golden rules & requirements that us “alarmists” must adhere to when providing any evidence:

1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

G) If you ever refuse to debate with me, that is proof that your position is untenable, you’re frightened of the truth and you don’t have the evidence. And, by the way, when will Burt Newton respond publicly to the claims that he’s a trans-gender vampire who was regenerated in a vat from a single hair of Vlad the Impaler? His silence on this issue is telling…

Yep, just another day in the big green plot against humanity to inflict clean air & a liveable planet for future generations.

It has never been proven and you know it. If it had been proven we wouldn’t be having this debate.

Every climate instituion in the world backs it bennoba & I have provided you with links for CSIRO & BOM here in Australia for you to examine, but you conveniently go quiet & disappear when presented with it. You seem to only get your news from right wing blogs.

Have you called or written to the CSIRO or BOM yet to inform them they have it all wrong yet & need to change their position to your anti science dogma?

I can provide you with the links again if you are still having troubles remembering this.

Your mission is to spread uncertainty, not promote an understanding of science, otherwise you would have found it by now & asked them about it. Instead you battle it out here in the public domain trying to spread misinformation.

Phil M

The CSIRO do not agree with you.

I have linked to their article on another post.

Phil M

Your mission is to spread uncertainty, not promote an understanding of science, otherwise you would have found it by now & asked them about it. Instead you battle it out here in the public domain trying to spread misinformation.

Do you have any idea of how completely irrational that sounds?

Deniers are far worse.

Yeah,Dazza,those stolen emails really prove a lot don’t they? They prove that there’s no shortage of wishful thinkers claiming to be skeptics who’ll swallow any interpretation of them if it explicitly confirms their prejudices.

Dr John Costella’s take on the emails is a blend of ignorance,naivity and ill-will. No different from yours,really.

For instance, Costella’s judgement of the Briffa/Funkhouser 1996 emails reveals his ignorance of dendroclimatological methodology,and a consequent rush to judgement without foundation: where Funkhouser sees the chronologies as failing to make the grade as reliable proxies-for reasons he outlines- and is understandably disappointed considering the time and expense of the field work,Costella sees this as an attempt to hide inconvenient results.

The problem for Costella here is that the work produced NO results,whatever their ‘convenience’. The chronologies had nothing reliable to offer about local climatic history. There was nothing to hide because there was nothing to show. Of course Funkhouser wanted to find workable material,and Briffa, at a remove from the study, wanted a result in principle ,too. Who wouldn’t?

Costella implies that we are seeing “censoring of results that do not lead to a pre-determined conclusion”. He’s wrong. The material didn’t reach the quality threshhold of providing results to form conclusions from… Costella also smears Briffa by claiming,through his [Briffa’s] eminence in the palaeoclimate field, he influenced Funkhouser’s results,but a simple reading of Funkhouser’s reply two days later provides no support for Costella’s view. Who is this self-appointed interlocutor fooling?

Yes Poly keep your fingers in your ears....lalalalalal. Look over there it’s unicorn! Certainly know who the deniers are.

If it is as you say all a storm in a tea cup then why did Phil Jones stand down? Why not stand and fight it? Stay there and clear your name. Clear the name of the institute.

Another day another embarrassment! Please keep quoting the IPCC reports are ‘proof’....it truly is amusing!

You may be interested in this…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

The IPCC claims with 90% certainty that the Hymalaya’s Glaciers will be no more by 2035.... (last report I believe)

Only problem is that claim is based on
an interview given by an Indian Scientist (1) that has now said it was entirely speculative and based on NO RESEARCH.

Lucky those 2000 + scientists are on the ball and ensuring the science is right before they publish BS and unsupported claims.. But hey.. the science is done right???????

plus the interesting information that has come to light late last week regarding the GISS and NOAH data sets.....

The gullibility (and hubris)of the “Warmista believers” is amazing to see..

If they weren’t talking about wasting Trillions of dollars it would be comedic GOLD

Dazza,’The Australian” is now so desperate it has been reduced to recycling stories,co-opting the work of the shifty Jonathan Leake. Once again,Leake does not credit the original news source,the BBC,and their story back in early December. Still,it promotes the controversy in the lead up to the “Great Debate"…

Oh,of course Nicky Minchin is all over it now. One error means that the whole report is suspect. Right,Nick,may as well offload the Rolls when you find a mark in the paintwork.

The stupid is burning hotter than ever.

Care to provide evidence for your charge against Quiggin? Monckton and Plimer have already demonstrated their malfeasance in print and on tape..

I think you will find the real reason that the Prof would not debate this question is ...

... written in black and white on his own blog.

the Governments shameful ETS that was going to Tax all Australians with no benefit to the environment

Given the ETS (or perhaps even a DD election) is back on the agenda when parliment resumes, maybe the Brisbane Institute could get another two players in the debate from both side of government it could make the debate more newsworthy.

Ben

..could get another two players in the debate from both side of government it could make the debate more newsworthy.

I think this whole debate has already been hijacked by political ideology.

I can see your point but I think it’s best that politicians from either side don’t get involved.

It may make it more newsworthy but personally, I’d prefer it if both sides just presented their arguments and supported them with evidence.

I think this whole debate has already been hijacked by political ideology.

Monkton is a politician.

I’d prefer it if both sides just presented their arguments and supported them with evidence.

Well evidence about human CO2 emissions vs volcano emissions would be a start.

Personally I would like to see this debate more like the Melbourne comedy festival debates with three people on a side and an adjudicator with a bell. It would be the best way of dealing with this lot.

I have a sneaking suspicion that politics and book promotion may play a role in this “debate”.

Besides giving Minchin, Feilding and co a chance to voice their opinions would also be fun. he he he.

Monkton is a politician.

Sure, but he is making his argument based on a political ideology? I honestly don’t know the answer to that but he does deserve to be heard, as does anyone else who believes they can bring something to the debate.

Whether you agree with their point of view is irrelevent.

I have a sneaking suspicion that politics and book promotion may play a role in this “debate”.

Of course you do. Your lack of objectivity became apparent a long time ago.

“Monckton and Plimer haven’t earned the right to discuss climate science in public. They are not published or active in research in the field.”

Are you aware that most of the IPCC expert authors aren’t climate scientists? They are biologists, engineers, economists, geographers etc.

Biologist Barry Brook and palaeontologist Tim Flannery have never published a paper on climate science. Neither has theology graduate Al Gore or economist Rajendra Pachauri - the Head of the IPCC. However they are all happy to give their “expert” opinions on climate science.

Owned again Polyaulax.

Yes,BB,I have noticed the IPCC report is multi-disciplinary. Barry Brook has some experience you may not be aware of. Pachauri has the authority of the chair,like it or not.

Indeed ,Flannery and Gore have no direct research experience in the field,but then,they don’t presume to lecture the experts on their ‘errors and lies’,do they? As prominent science communicators they defer to the fields from which they derive their content...they aren’t perpetually locked in acrimonious confrontation with the climate science consensus. And despite their prominence,neither are critical to the issue (and they would agree) except in the eyes of those needing hate figures. Gore has never presented himself as an ‘expert’ on climate science,but as a man of political experience. Which is why he won’t get into the cage with poo-slingers like Plimer or Monckton.

Seriously,Monckton and Plimer have done the world a favour by committing their insults and fallacies to paper...they can’t avoid their records.

The bloke who wrote the glacier chapter in the IPCC report admits he know nothing about glaciers.

GRAHAM: Where did he say that?

The bloke who wrote the glacier chapter in the IPCC report admits he know nothing about glaciers.

GRAHAM: Where did he say that?

Graham, I have already provided the quote and the link. But guess you would not have bothered to read it so here it is again. From the Times article I linked to this morning…

Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert on glaciers.and I have not visited the region so I have to rely on credible published research. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.

I don’t really understand why you pretended to not know about this Graham.

GRAHAM: Not being an expert and knowing “nothing” are different things. Your statement was an absolute.

You should learn from The Master - do not take questions, do not debate, just keep preaching.

This is exactly what I predict will happen.

Graham won’t debate Monckton. All he’ll do is trawl through the thousands of pages of Monckton’s statements made of the past decade or so and blindside Monckton questions like

On April 24th 2001 you said that blah blah blah (some inconsequential point)

It won’t be a debate, the alarmists won’t allow it to become one. They are already studying up on the alarmists handbook to see what tactics they can use to actually prevent a debate happening. You only have to read the alarmists blogs to see how they are already working themselves into a frenzy attempting to discredit Monckton.

Monckton would wipe the floor with Graham in a climate change debate which is why Graham will do anything apart from actually debate him.

BTW go to the Crikey link that Graham provided. Remind yourself that this is an ultra left-wing website then read the comments. Even Crikey readers no longer believe the climate change myth.

All he’ll do is trawl through the thousands of pages of Monckton’s statements made of the past decade or so and blindside Monckton questions..

Neither Graham or anyone else involved in the debate will be allowed to do this if it is conducted properly.

Otherwise, they may as well just call it Lateline.

Those points you regard as ‘inconsequential’ go to the heart of the matter of credibility.

Unfortunately,when arguing the minutiae, a mountain of ‘inconsequential’ points ruins Plimers book. CFCs from volcanoes..oh dear. misrepresented Keller’s findings..oh dear. USGS contradicts Plimer on CO2 sources...whoops. Misrepresents cited sources on at least 50 occasions...oh dear. Claims climate science ignores geology ..where did they source palaeoclimate details,borehole studies and some of the carbon cycle work,then? Asserts the MWP was 2 to 3 degrees warmer than today without adequate supporting citations...claims the Roman Warm Period, by 300AD, was warmer than today without any support....these are just a few of many errors and untenable claims that render Plimer’s views ‘inconsequential’..

Polyaulax

Pidwirny, M. (2006). “Earth’s Climatic History”. Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition.

“By 5000 to 3000 BC average global temperatures reached their maximum level during the Holocene and were 1 to 2 degrees Celsius warmer than they are today. Climatologists call this period the Climatic Optimum. During the Climatic Optimum, many of the Earth’s great ancient civilizations began and flourished. In Africa, the Nile River had three times its present volume, indicating a much larger tropical region.

(...)
The period from 750 BC - 800 AD saw warming up to 150 BC. Temperatures, however, did not get as warm as the Climatic Optimum. During the time of Roman Empire (150 BC - 300 AD) a cooling began that lasted until about 900 AD. At its height, the cooling caused the Nile River (829 AD) and the Black Sea (800-801 AD) to freeze.”

Wherever you look you can find scientific evidence that change is what climate does.

Yes,yes,Marek,the climate is always changing. Nobody is under the impression that climate is unchanging. Past change is one of the keys to understanding the present Ah..it’s the rapidity and cause of the current anthropogenic change,affecting the planet in its entirety at a time when human population and demand on the biota has gone exponential,that is exercising minds.

Thank you for providing a source which supports the fact that Plimer is speaking through his bottom about the Roman Warm Period around 300AD. According to your source a cooling trend was well under way,before Plimer’s ‘peak’...I suggest you send him that reference (which still doesn’t hazard a temperature estimate,just a trend). He needs help.

Polyaulax

Since I’ve never listen to Plimer o read his book, I can’t agree or disagree with his opinion.

I can find enough evidence in published papers online that there is nothing unusual about current level of climate change.

Ah..it’s the rapidity and cause of the current anthropogenic change,affecting the planet in its entirety at a time when human population and demand on the biota has gone exponential,that is exercising minds.

There is nothing unusual about rapidity of the current climate change - that’s for sure.

I have provided you here before with a list of peer-review, published papers about large numbers of really rapid climate changes from the past - current climate changes are not even close in rapidity or temperature change compare to many past ones. (there were only first 15-16 papers that I’ve picked but there is still much more there)

Science still do not understand clearly mechanisms behind climate changes, there is plenty of published hypotheses, very often contradictory (links to these papers in my previous posts), so there is no reason to jump into conclusion that humans have anything to do with the current climate changes, especially that on the other planets/moons of the solar system we can also observe global warming.

There is only one area of consensus I can find is the governments, some NGOs and big financial institutions are trying to cash in on trading the hot air.

Marek,don’t quote me,then cherry-pick part of the sentence.

The rapidity is not unprecedented,it’s that in combination with the presence of a huge population with a total dependence on natural systems operating at stretch,that is the concern. The timing for a rapid climate change could not be worse,if you’re concerned about social stability and the ability to adapt.

In the past human populations could move away from the northern hemisphere ice advances,with the guarantee that there was sufficient unexploited space and biotic capital to survive the moves which would have taken generations. In fact ,ancient peoples were largely always on the move within ranges and territories.

We do not now have the luxury of these kinds of adjustments,which is why governments will need to explore any mechanism to possibly mitigate ,and adapt to,a climate change that is almost certainly anthropogenic in origin,despite your reading of the fundamentals. ‘Warming’ on other planets and satellites is not analogous to our planet and atmosphere. It is not The Sun.

More than a century of ramping research effort,particularly since the 1950s, hardly equates to ‘jumping to conclusions’.

Yes,people and groups are strongly motivated to profiteer. If we do nothing to mitigate AGW,we will still be taxed to adapt to ongoing climate change,when the population is approaching 7 billion,and marching into another territory and appropriating land is a messy or non-existent option.

Polyaulax

Marek,don’t quote me,then cherry-pick part of the sentence.

It is not my fault that you link two separate things like: 1) “rapidity”, 2)"anthropogenic change” by “and” implying that they both are on the same level of certainty.

I’m concerned about social stability and can’t see any evidence that introduction of ETS tax will have any influence over that factor.

Direct link hoverer exists between higher costs of living and number of people living below the poverty line and proposed ETS tax is going to increase costs of living.

Don’t you care about larger number of people living below the poverty line?

We can’t control climate, simply because todays’ science do not understand fully mechanisms behind the changes of the climate. Any action will be based on pure guessing with absolutely unknown outcome, if any - it resembles gambling, where one thing for sure is that the government gets its taxes from it.

Since we know that climate might only get warmer or cooler, it makes more sense to spend money on adaptation to possible changes. And from the existing knowledge we know that probability that climate will change in the future is 1 - it will change for sure.

People will not be able to move that much as they used to, but the global economy and access to mass transportation of goods allow them to eg. change the plants they grow in the existing place and sell them to other countries and buy other products they might need.

Example: It it gets cooler - the farmer who grow oranges can start growing apples. If it gets warmer - farmers who grow apples, can start growing oranges - per analogy other crops.

If anything money should be redirected to such adaptations, and since most of the countries subsidise farming, there is no need for more taxes, but just for better spending of the money that they already collecting.

We do not now have the luxury of these kinds of adjustments,which is why governments will need to explore any mechanism to possibly mitigate ,and adapt to,a climate change that is almost certainly anthropogenic in origin,despite your reading of the fundamentals.

And I will be happy to look at any sensible mechanism that they propose, but ETS is just plain stupid.

You have no scientific evidence to back up your claim about certainty of anthropogenic origin of climate change. All you have are the computer models which can’t predict current climate events and can’t predict past climate working backward.

I gave you link to the scientific papers about global warming on other planets of the solar system. I’m not pushing any specific origin of these changes (this would be the same way silly like claiming that we understand Earth climate changes), this is just another piece of evidence that climate changes are natural not only on Earth but also on other planets and moons of the solar system - nothing unusual about climate changes.

If we do nothing to mitigate AGW,we will still be taxed to adapt to ongoing climate change,when the population is approaching 7 billion,and marching into another territory and appropriating land is a messy or non-existent option.

If “doing something” it is just new form of tax which will not help us to adopt to natural climate changes I prefer “doing nothing”.

What’s the point of applying the cure that is worse then potential disease and the cure that is not even design to fight this disease?

I think the the basic evidence for AGW is unquestionable. The doubt is over the timing and exact size of the feedbacks,not the underlying cause or destination of the temperature trend with doubled CO2.

CO2 is a GHG,we are the agent releasing large quantities of fossil carbon,global temperature is rising over the century and a half,solar variability contribution is accounted for,thermal lag of the ocean response is well quantified,and observations confirm the signature of tropospheric warming coupled with stratospheric cooling that extra CO2 produces in the atmospheric profile. While modelling is important for agreements and projections, observation underlies this certainty.

Nobody disputes that climates change on all planetary bodies with atmospheres. Some-like Monckton-have tried to link these changes to a common synchronous cause. Examination of sources disproves such attempts.

Nobody disputes that an asteroid strike or a major downshift in solar output may render the whole argument moot. Nobody disputes that a sustained period of vulcanism could halt /delay and temporarily reverse CO2 induced warming,hence the geo-engineering suggestions with SO2.

With those caveats accounted for,the response is a economic/industrial one, and I agree there is every reason to suspect that the mechanisms available,affected by typical tribal human in-group behavior,will not work in a timely fashion and will hurt people. But the economists are working on it,to be faced with the same mechanisms of alarm ,delay and misrepresentation of their own area of modelling.

Polyaulax

I think the the basic evidence for AGW is unquestionable.

First of all in the science everything is questionable always.

Second, AGW is only working hypothesis that exists together with many other scientific hypotheses.
The only main drawback of the other ones is that they do not give excuse anyone to earn money on trading the hot air and increase the taxes.

What evidence you are talking about? - all you have are faulty computer models.

Too Right - Greenpeace should never be given port facilties in Australia

Terrorists? Did you miss the opening movie for Copenhagen? Disgusting.

Feel free to boycott it. Lord Monckton will have plenty of people to talk to, even though the green crowd would far rather cover their ears and close their eyes - as you so aptly demonstrated in your contribution to the blog.

You seem to extol the virtues of the WWF. Yet it was party to rendering a report to the IPCC that has turned out to be false. In the ‘Australian’ newspaper today it has been shown that the melting of Himalayan glaciers is an outright exaggeration of major proportions. It was based on one phone call by one scientist who had no valid evidence. But, heck, who cares about facts? It made good PR up to the present time, but it will be expunged from the next IPCC report.

Terrorists have greater rights to free speech than anyone questioning man’s contribution to impending climate disaster.  I mean terrorists will only kill people in their hundreds, maybe thousands.  AGW deniers however will kill people in their trillions if they are allowed to suck up to big oil and destroy the planet.

No prizes for guessing which colour kool-aid that you are guzzling by the gallon.

You do know you’re supposed to dilute it?

If your brand of fascism and sanctimony is in any way representative of the pro-AGW movement, it’s no wonder skepticism is rapidly increasing.

Hi Dave, are you ok?

anyone questioning man’s contribution to impending climate disaster isnt that what we are doing Dave - asking questions - we would like you to answer them for us, can you Dave?

AGW deniers however will kill people in their trillions, Dave I think Barbie dolls and Lego People cannot be counted in ‘population’ surveys.  Oh I see you are including all the ones that are already dead in cemetries around the world (I think they dont have a problem with AGW)

big oil and destroy the planet., so Dave big oil is going to destroy the planet - so it wont be a solar flare, the sun exploading, the Vogon Constructor Fleet, Mutent Space Goat, Comets, Asteroids etc - Dave wasnt AGW going to destroy the world not big oil.

Dave

AGW deniers however will kill people in their trillions if they are allowed to suck up to big oil and destroy the planet.

How can you post such hysterical nonsense with a straight face?

Still, I guess it’s easier than making a factual argument and supporting it with evidence.

It’s hard enough protecting the planet without this sort of rubbish still taking place.

Do you mean the dubunked man made global warming hypothesis?

Good to see that your education provided you with the ability to think critically.

Why bother. You can’t understand it anyway.

Mike, I have been publishing links to the negative AO for December for a week or more now. Be prepared for the attack of the zombies (Dead arguments that just won’t lie down). Jim Hansen, you understand, is an arch conspirator in the whole ‘climategate’ debacle! It is proved beyond reason that anyone associated with the utterly discredited notion of AGW is tainted by the Hadley disease. As Hansen himself observed when they bizarrely accused him of being the whistleblower who released the emails after he had deleted his own incriminating contributions, ‘What level of proof would these people require when the very absence of evidence is taken as proof of complicity?’
Good luck and keep up the good work.