Collin Maessen vs. Lord Monckton 2013

One of the most astounding and frightening aspects of the "Republican" attitude towards learning about and understanding climate science is the GOP's willingness to embrace serial lies in order to support their political agenda.  

As though having wealth and power makes them superior to our planet's natural forces.  Yet, even though human history is filled with stories of the hubris of greed and power destroying its own civilizations, they remain hostile to rational information.  Why does it seem like the GOP hasn't learned anything in these information rich and supposedly enlighten times?

I've been thinking about it because of the recent farce where one serial liar Lord Monckton has come to the rescue of another deception artist Dr. Richard Lindzen the scientist who loves misrepresenting his colleagues. (also see: “A disservice to the scientific method”: climate scientists take on Richard Lindzen )

It's become the cause du jour in the echo chamber, thus making this sharing of the research done by Collin Maessen timely. To be sure his is not the first serious exposure of the lies Lord Monckton feels comfortable repeating and that his audience love him for.  For example:

    

John Abraham's excellent review of a 2010 Monckton presentation

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      

Another worthy science-based take-down is at:

Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I'll share more links at the end of Collin's list of videos, each one exposing another deception - the deceptions that some unskeptical accept as the final word on this critical issue - of what we are doing to our climate system.

But, it is the most recent and up to date.  I thank Collin for giving me permission to share and now it's time to hand it over to Collin:

Collin Maessen's 

ventures into scepticism

Real Sceptic

Climate Changes, But Facts Don’t

13th March 2013

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Climate Changes, But Facts Don't: Debunking Monckton

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.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Climate Changes, But Facts Don't

01: Introduction

02: The IPCC Can't Predict Future Climates

03: Royal Society Doesn't Know How Much The Planet Will Warm

04: Climate Science Is Done By Consensus

05: Medieval Warm Period And Fraudulent Science

06: The 1995 IPCC Report Was Written By One Man

07: The 2007 IPCC Report Uses A Statistical Fraudulent Technique

08: The World Will Only Warm By One Celsius Degree

09: CO2 Measures In A Single Country Don't Make A Difference

10: It Is Cheaper To Do Nothing Than To Prevent Global Warming

11: The Australian Carbon Tax Will Cause Job Losses

12: The Increase In Global Temperatures Cannot Accelerate

13: Australia Is Now Considered A Sovereign Risk

14: Credential Claims

15: Greenpeace And The Marxist Takeover

16: GM Miracle Rice

17: The Communist Economic Agenda Of Environmentalists

18: The Polarisation Of The Climate Debate

19: There Is No Consensus On Climate Sensitivity

20: Calculating Climate Sensitivity

21: Monckton Has Published In The Peer-reviewed Literature

22: Other Countries Are No Longer Pursuing Climate Measures

23: Lindzen And Choi 2011

24: Spencer And Braswell 2010

25: The Likelihood Of A High Climate Sensitivity Is Small

26: Monckton Is A Member Of The House Of Lords

27: Feedback Loop Gain From Process Engineering Shows Low Climate Sensitivity

28: CO2 Is Plant Food

29: Conclusion 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

01: Introduction

Introduction to "Climate Changes, But Facts Don't"

02: The IPCC Can’t Predict Future Climates
In this video I will be addressing this particular claim about the 2007 IPCC report and what the report actually says.

03: Royal Society Doesn’t Know How Much The Planet Will Warm
In this video I address this particular claim about the Royal Society and talk about what the released statement does and does not say.

04: Climate Science Is Done By Consensus
In this video I address this view on how consensus works in climate research and how consensus works in other science subjects.

05: Medieval Warm Period And Fraudulent Science
In this video I looked into these claims and what the IPCC report says, the science behind it, and the events surrounding these claims.

06: The 1995 IPCC Report Was Written By One Man
With this video I went into the details of what was said in the report and the events surrounding the approval of the wording.

07: The 2007 IPCC Report Uses A Statistical Fraudulent Technique
In this video I explain to which chart Monckton is referring with this “flagrantly fraudulent statistical technique” and what the report actually states.

08: The World Will Only Warm By One Celsius Degree
Here I explain the difference between the stated warming of the IPCC report and the number used by the Australian Government.

09: CO2 Measures In A Single Country Don’t Make A Difference
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.

10: It Is Cheaper To Do Nothing Than To Prevent Global Warming
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.

11: The Australian Carbon Tax Will Cause Job Losses
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.

12: The Increase In Global Temperatures Cannot Accelerate
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that based on current trends the increase in global temperatures cannot accelerate.

13: Australia Is Now Considered A Sovereign Risk
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?

14: Credential Claims
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.

15: Greenpeace And The Marxist Takeover
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.

16: GM Miracle Rice
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?

17: The Communist Economic Agenda Of Environmentalists
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.

18: The Polarisation Of The Climate Debate
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.

19: There Is No Consensus On Climate Sensitivity
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?

20: Calculating Climate Sensitivity
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?

21: Monckton Has Published In The Peer-reviewed Literature
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.

22: Other Countries Are No Longer Pursuing Climate Measures
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?

23: Lindzen And Choi 2011
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?

24: Spencer And Braswell 2010
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?

25: The Likelihood Of A High Climate Sensitivity Is Small
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.

26: Monckton Is A Member Of The House Of Lords
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.

27: Feedback Loop Gain From Process Engineering Shows Low Climate Sensitivity
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.

28: CO2 Is Plant Food
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.

29: Conclusion
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:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Monckton Testimony at US Congress: Ignorance or Perjury?

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/monckton-testimony-at-us-congress-ignorance-or-perjury/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Church of Monckton

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/the-church-of-monckton/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Monckton Files: Bickmore’s First and Second Laws of Monckton

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/the-monckton-files-bickmores-first-and-second-laws-of-monckton/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Monckton Challenged To Put Up Or Shut Up By John Abraham

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/591

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Monckton Myths: A one-stop-shop for debunking The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/02/01/207434/monckton-myths-debunking-the-viscount/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hoity Toity Christopher Monckton sez the Earth is losing energy and other silliness at WUWT

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/hoity-toity-christopher-monckton-sez.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Climate Misinformer: Christopher Monckton

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Nigel Lawson and the Royal Society

https://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/nigel-lawson-and-the-royal-society/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

How Richard Lindzen Screws Up Climate Science

http://planetsave.com/2012/03/08/how-richard-lindzen-screws-up-climate-science/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dr. Richard Lindzen, scientist as fiction writer

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/01/dr-lindzen-scientist-as-fiction-writer.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I almost overlooked Peter Hadfield (Potholer54) and Peter Sinclair's (Greenman3610) many examinations of Monckton's nonsense:

Coughlan000 has collected a complete series by Potholer54 into one long video: 
"Potholer54 vs Monckton" 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okJXxWBsulk
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Monckton responds (part 1/2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Potholer54/Greenman3610 - The Search for Lord Monckton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZKzJwMOWAI
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Lord Monckton: "I've discovered a cure for HIV!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Debunking Monckton Part 2 (updated)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhTrCgVb5U

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And you can do a search for "Monckton" here at CC and find that Monckton and I had a short correspondence honeymoon in 2010, before he got angry that I didn't buy his lies and ran off to hide.

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.