On the 19th of July in 2011 the National Press Club of Australia held a debate on climate change. In this video I analysed the claims Monckton made during the debate and if they are correct or not.
The reason I’m doing this is that Monckton challenges his critics to check his sources, or like he put it in this debate “to do your homework”. I’ve taken him up on this to see if the scientific literature, and other available sources, corroborate what he said.
You will find the full transcript for this video on the pages for each individual segment. On the page for each segment you will also find a full listing of all the sources I used for that particular section of the video.
If you find any inaccuracies in the transcript, media listing, source listing, or in statements made by me, please do not hesitate to contact me and I’ll correct them as soon as possible.
In this video I will be addressing this particular claim about the 2007 IPCC report and what the report actually says.
In this video I address this particular claim about the Royal Society and talk about what the released statement does and does not say.
In this video I address this view on how consensus works in climate research and how consensus works in other science subjects.
In this video I looked into these claims and what the IPCC report says, the science behind it, and the events surrounding these claims.
With this video I went into the details of what was said in the report and the events surrounding the approval of the wording.
In this video I explain to which chart Monckton is referring with this “flagrantly fraudulent statistical technique” and what the report actually states.
Here I explain the difference between the stated warming of the IPCC report and the number used by the Australian Government.
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the point that Australia alone cannot significantly impact global CO2 concentrations to make a difference. Which is true, the problem is, Australia isn't the only country reducing its emissions.
In this section I talk about examples of what it costs to implement a carbon pricing system and what the economic literature says on these costs.
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that jobs will be lost. However real world examples, and studies, show that those jobs are easily replaced by new jobs in the renewable energy industry.
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that based on current trends the increase in global temperatures cannot accelerate.
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that “Australia is now regarded as a sovereign risk”. What does this mean and was this an accurate depiction?
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that he has studied and lectured at faculty level in the determination of climate sensitivity.
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that Greenpeace has been taken over by Marxists. I'll be looking into what is used to base this claim on and if this is a fair assessment.
Here Monckton makes the claim that GM crops have been in use for a long time and are safe for human consumption. But does what Monckton say match up with with reality?
In this part of the debate Monckton asserts that the stated goals of the Australian Green party match those stated in the Communist Manifesto and by European communist parties.
During this part of the debate the issue of civility in the public arena during discussions on climate change is raised. I give my take on the matter and on civility in general.
In this part of the debate Monckton made a few statements on climate sensitivity. But is it correct that there is no consensus in the scientific literature on how much the planet will warm for a doubling of CO2?
Monckton introduces the argument that the Central England temperature record can be used as a proxy for global temperatures. But can it be used for that?
Here Monckton makes the claim that he has published a paper in the peer-reviewed literature. I'll be looking into this paper, if it was peer-reviewed, and the history surrounding this paper.
During this part of the debate Monckton suggests that countries are dropping out of the Kyoto protocol as they don't see the merit in taking action on a non-issue. But is this the case?
In this part of the debate Monckton cites a paper by Richard Lindzen and his colleague Yong-Sang Choi as evidence for a low climate sensitivity. What does this paper say and are these conclusions justified?
In this part of the debate Monckton cites a paper by Roy Spencer and his colleague Danny Braswell as evidence for a low climate sensitivity. What does this paper say and are these conclusions justified?
In this section Monckton asserts that he can cite paper after paper showing that he's correct that there's a low climate sensitivity. And that there is no consensus on this subject.
Here Monckton makes the claim that he is a Member of the House of Lords, despite the House of Lords stating that he isn't. I'll be looking into the history of this claim and why Monckton has a different opinion on the matter.
In this section Monckton talks about feedback loops and how they show that climate sensitivity is low. I show how these concepts are used and what this means for the argument Monckton is presenting.
In this section Monckton claims that CO2 acts as a fertiliser and will increase food production significantly. I'll be looking into the basis for this claims and if this is supported by the scientific literature.
In this section I give my impression of the debate, how it was received, and how factually correct Monckton was.
A sampling of what others have written:
Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer
I almost overlooked Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) and Peter Sinclair's (Greenman3610) many examinations of Monckton's nonsense:
"Potholer54 vs Monckton"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Monckton responds (part 1/2)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Potholer54/Greenman3610 - The Search for Lord Monckton
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The list could go on and on.
But will the Republicans, who need to learn these lessons the most, ever develop enough rational skepticism to learn about what real climatologists are actually tell us?
Lord knows our children are depending on it.