Climate Changes, But Facts Don’t
By Collin Maessen on comment
On the 19th of July in 2011 the National Press Club of Australia held a debate on climate change. In this video I will be analysing 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’m going to follow him up on this to see if the scientific literature, and other available sources, corroborate what he’s saying.
On the 19th of July in 2011 the National Press Club of Australia held a debate on climate change. In this video I will be analysing the claims Monckton made during the debate and if they are correct or not.
Climate Changes, But Facts Don’t: Debunking Monckton
Introduction to "Climate Changes, But Facts Don't"
Introduction
In this video I will be addressing this particular claim about the 2007 IPCC report and what the report actually says.
The IPCC Can't Predict Future Climates
In this video I address this particular claim about the Royal Society and talk about what the released statement does and does not say.
Royal Society Doesn’t Know How Much The Planet Will Warm
In this video I address this view on how consensus works in climate research and how consensus works in other science subjects.
Climate Science Is Done By Consensus
In this video I looked into these claims and what the IPCC report says, the science behind it, and the events surrounding these claims.
Medieval Warm Period And Fraudulent Science
With this video I went into the details of what was said in the report and the events surrounding the approval of the wording.
The 1995 IPCC Report Was Written By One Man
Here I explain the difference between the stated warming of the IPCC report and the number used by the Australian Government.
The World Will Only Warm By One Celsius Degree
In this video I explain to which chart Monckton is referring with this “flagrantly fraudulent statistical technique” and what the report actually states.
The 2007 IPCC Report Uses A Statistical Fraudulent Technique
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.
CO2 Measures In A Single Country Don’t Make A Difference
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.
The Australian Carbon Tax Will Cause Job Losses
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.
It Is Cheaper To Do Nothing Than To Prevent Global Warming
In this particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that based on current trends the increase in global temperatures cannot accelerate.
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?
Australia Is Now Considered A Sovereign Risk
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.
Credential Claims
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?
GM Miracle Rice
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.
Greenpeace And The Marxist Takeover
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.
The Communist Economic Agenda Of Environmentalists
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.
The Polarisation Of The Climate Debate
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?
Calculating 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?
There Is No Consensus On Climate Sensitivity
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.
Monckton Has Published In The Peer-reviewed Literature
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?
Spencer And Braswell 2010
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?
Lindzen And Choi 2011
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?
Other Countries Are No Longer Pursuing Climate Measures
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.
The Likelihood Of A High Climate Sensitivity Is Small
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.
Monckton Is A Member Of The House Of Lords
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.
Feedback Loop Gain From Process Engineering Shows Low Climate Sensitivity
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.
CO2 Is Plant Food
In this section I give my impression of the debate, how it was received, and how factually correct Monckton was.
Conclusion
Keep up the great work Collin.
Thanks for permission to repost this, your videos deserve to see very wide circulation.
Collin Maessen vs. Lord Monckton 2013
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2014/02/collin-maessen-vs-lord-monckton-2013.html
Lord Christopher Monckton 2013 – The Republican poster boy
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/lord-christopher-monckton-2013.html