Video description

Lord Monckton has garnered some attention again, this time due to a debate with Richard Denniss, an economist. A debate that was organised by the National Press Club and was held on the 19th of July. The "climate skeptics" have already declared Monckton the winner despite Monckton repeating his old and debunked claims.

Transcript

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
Once again, please will you do your homework.

What I'm saying is if you take a preconceived position on this question and, therefore, you don't check both sides of what you're told, rather than only checking my side because you're on the other side, then you will not get a balanced view on this question.

Lord Monckton has garnered some attention again, this time due to a debate with Richard Denniss, an economist. A debate that was organised by the National Press Club and was held on the 19th of July.

This debate is already doing it's rounds on websites like Watts Up With That and has been heralded as a victory by these so called climate sceptics. I've watched this one hour long debate in full and I can say it wasn't a victory for them. It was Monckton yet again repeating his well known, and faulty, talking points.

For example when Jennifer Bennett from Campus Review asked the question why he hasn't published any peer reviewed articles if he's so sure about his position.

STEVE LEWIS:
Next question from Jennifer Bennett.

JENNIFER BENNET:
Hello. Jennifer Bennett from Campus Review. A question for Lord Monckton.

You're often critical of climate change scientists, because they don't like to go head to head with you in a public debate. Australian scientists have told us that a debate forum doesn't allow the time and format necessary for communicating complex information. If you're so certain of the facts, why not debate the scientists on their own terms? Why won't you submit the research you say you've undertaken, to a quality peer review journal to be assessed?

[Applause]

[...]

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
may I, perhaps, refer the honourable lady to Physics and Society for July 2008, where you will find an article entitled: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. The author is Christopher Walter Monckton of Brenchley and the article was, indeed, reviewed by Professor Alvin Saperstein, the Professor of Physics at Wayne State University and also the review editor of the journal concerned

JENNIFER BENNET:
Sorry, [indistinct]…

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
…at the time.

JENNIFER BENNET:
…society?

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
The American Business Society, yes, that's right.

JENNIFER BENNET:
And so [indistinct] case that it's not peer review.

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
Indeed, it does. So why don't you check with Professor Saperstein to find out whether he, in fact, reviewed it. Have you done that?

JENNIFER BENNET:
Why would [indistinct]…

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON:
[Interrupts] No, I didn't think you had. Once again, please will you do your homework.

What I'm saying is if you take a preconceived position on this question and, therefore, you don't check both sides of what you're told, rather than only checking my side because you're on the other side, then you will not get a balanced view on this question.

The fact is that I am under no more obligation to publish in the peer review literature on this, than anyone else. I have published in the review literature. They try to say it wasn't peer review now, but they were perfectly happy to say it was peer review at the time. They were leant upon. This happens. You know, we too are sometimes victims of the other side going too far and putting too much pressure on.

Now he got all huffy when asked that question and claimed he has published a peer reviewed article.

The article he is referring to is “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered” and was published in the Newsletter of the American Physical Society. And it states, below every single article, the following:

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.

This has always been the case for these newsletters. And due to Monckton constantly claiming this article is peer reviewed the American Physical Society saw the need to add the following statement:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters.

So they weren't perfectly happy to say it was peer-reviewed at the time and then subsequently changed their position to saying it wasn't peer-reviewed. As it never was.

Mind you this has been pointed out to Monckton time and time again. Because of that I instantly knew what he was on about and where he was going wrong.
Things like this is the very reason I dismiss everything he says out of hand. As every time I checked his points he turned out to be wrong. And not only that, he keeps repeating these very same points, even after it has been pointed out to him.

Because of this Monckton is nothing more, and nothing less, than a liar. And as I'm someone who normally gives people the benefit of the doubt, that is saying a lot.

Sources

1. Lord Monckton wins National Press Club debate on climate
2. Monckton Debunked By Monckton
3. Monckton Debunked By Monckton -- Correlations And Himalayan Glaciers
4. Monckton Debunked By Monckton -- Quotes And Misquotes
5. Monckton Debunked By Monckton -- What, MORE Errors, My Lord?
6. Wayback Machine: Newsletters page

Media resources

1. National Press Club Lord Monckton
2. Intro: StrangeZero -- Deep Of Night (Album Delusional Disorder)
3. Outtro: Mindthings -- Exponential Tears (Album Life's Path)