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?
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.
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?
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 asserts that the stated goals of the Australian Green party match those stated in the Communist Manifesto and by European communist parties.
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 particular section of the debate Monckton makes the claim that he has studied and lectured at faculty level in the determination of climate sensitivity.