Graham, I would be interested in your comments about Pinker’s refutation of Monckton’s Musings (sarc).

The audio in the live-stream was quite good (I haven’t watched/listened to a-pac). I also recommend reading Pinker’s paper, the ‘edifice’ of Monckton’s argument for a low sensitivity to CO2 forcing.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/308/5723/850

Let me know if you can’t get this full version.

I agree, Monckton is a very polished performer and he does have some valid points to say on how society should tackle climate change.

However, I disagree with you when you say you “didn't see him make any serious errors (in the time you were watching)” ... he made a doozie.

Monckton chose that the scientific ‘debate’ should be about climate sensitivity, and chose Pinker’s research to demonstrate his assertions, from the beginning.

If you don’t think he made any serious errors, all I can assume is that you also don’t understand what the Pinker et al paper is saying - notwithstanding you haven’t read it?

Monckton has read and relied on Pinker et al (although he didn’t know Rachel was a woman) to make his claims. Either he doesn’t understand it, or he is deliberately distorting it, to give some credence to his musings - played out very well (as we acknowledge) to an otherwise ignorant (of the facts) audience.

Graham, you say “he (Monckton) is wrong on Pinker to some extent (how do you know?), but that obscures his general point, which is still good, that the recent warming is partly due to increasing amounts of radiation reaching the earth's surface.”

Graham, where do you think this increasing amount of radiation is coming from?

Ok, Lambert is not a ‘climate scientist’, a point he conceded up front – but he has done his homework on climate sensitivity. His quip about recent snowfalls was clearly wrong, and he admitted as much in his follow up thread. I doubt the Lord M will concede as much following Pinker’s refutation of Monckton's science 'expertise'.

Will Monckton correct his scientific errors prior to the next Heartland convention to the converted? I don't think so.

This blog seems to have gone cold for now. But I would encourage people to keep posting. Seems that some of the so called scientists
are jumping ship, but with a respectable exit, if you get my gist?

Also lobby your respective politicians and write letters to the editor of some of your local or National papers. I have, and they get published.

Keep lobbying.

Kind regards from Australia

Bunny,
I'm not jumping ship and I doubt anyone else is, apart from the swaying voters who unfortunately hold sway.
You lot haven't substantiated anything, nor substantially discredited the science on AGW. All you've done is cynically exploit its complexity and the simplicity of the average voter. The fact that we are systematically destroying the biosphere is beyond doubt. AGW is also conclusive, for mine. At what rate? is the only matter that's in question.
For me the far more important issue has always been ethics. Like human rights, a lot of posturing goes on over ethics, but when it comes to action on anything human ethics mutate into pragmatism and the bottom line.
You lot also haven't substantiated your absurd nonsense about about corruption on a grand scale. You've had what will be a short lived victory. Unfortunately your eventual humiliation wont fix anything.
Enjoy your gloating while you can.

qanda I had read Pinker's paper before I made my comments. Perhaps you can explain to us why Monckton is wrong and what Pinker says. I know you'll probably get someone else to do the precis, but I'm curious with what you'll come up with because the rest of your comment suggests to me that you might have found the article but you didn't understand it.

Climate sensitivity is of course the nub of the debate. Monckton has one peer reviewed publication on climate change and it is in this area. I said before that he is not right on Pinker, neither is he completely wrong. When I get a bit of time this afternoon I'll try and get to the part of the debate where Lambert pulls the video of Pinker out and see exactly what her "refutation" is.

Lambert didn't make a "quip" about snowfall - it was a long involved explanation. It demonstrates he has no grasp of elementary physics, chemistry or climatology. No-one who had any one of those, let alone all three, could have said anything as comprehensively stupid as he did.

Lambert has an archivist's approach to this debate. "You want to know about precipitation? I have a book here that should be able to help."

He has a site full of references and links which all "support" his position. When someone comes out with an argument that attacks his position he can always find a link for the other side, but that doesn't mean he understands it, or that the information in the link is correct. This incident in this debate was a very neat exposition of this weakness.

In a debate where commenters(and I thought you were one of them) frequently claim you have no standing unless you're a climate scientist and have published in the peer reviewed literature, Lambert fails on both counts, Monckton on only one. I wouldn't go to either of them if I wanted serious understanding.

>The fact that we are systematically destroying the biosphere is beyond doubt.

It has been several months since I have heard the phrase;

"The science is settled !"

Graham says

<< Climate sensitivity is of course the nub of the debate. Monckton has one peer reviewed publication on climate change and it is in this area. >>

I must have missed it Graham, can you provide a direct link.

On the other hand, if you mean this:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

Please, don’t bother.

That so called “peer reviewed” article was submitted to the Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter ... not the APS Journal, and certainly not peer reviewed (unless of course reviewed by Monckton’s “peers”).

Indeed, his piece created such a stir and so many complaints that the APS prefaced it with:

"The following article has NOT (my emphasis) undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

The footnote says this:

"The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non-peer-reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee."

Again, you said “Monckton has one peer reviewed publication”.

Please, point us to it.

If you can't, then you obviously don't understand the peer review process, or you are intentionally trying to mislead and distort. I would be happy to retract ... just "show me the money."