Monckton gets testy with Auckland TV reporter

While Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, was in New Zealand on a speaking tour, he was interviewed by Country99 TV News reporter Benedict Collins. Collins asked Monckton a number of questions related to his rejection of peer review and a detailed debunking of one of Monckton’s presentations by Prof. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas. Monckton was not amused, as you can watch for yourself below.

10 replies »

  1. Is there any truth to the rumor that Monty Python is threatening to sue Lord Monckton for performing their “argument” skit without prior permission?

  2. What a totally biased and nasty piece of work. The interviewer is a total twerp. A report was published by a professor Salby two days after this interview which exonerates Monckton totally

  3. John, you mean the one where Salby ignores junior high physics by failing to account for conservation of mass (“matter can never be created or destroyed”) in his declaration that the rising CO2 isn’t from fossil fuels? Or did he come out with something else?

  4. A poor interview by a biased reporter not interested at all in hearing Monckton’s arguements, but rather, editing the piece and layering in masses of his own opinions. This wasn’t an interview; it was a denigration. It looks like Benedict Collins has fallen hook line and sinker for the global warming fraud. Yes, fraud. A UK court determined that 11 of Gore’s main assertions – INCLUDING the claim that carbon dioxide causes global warming – were “materially false”. Gore is now being investigated by the UK securities commission, triggering a Gore ‘divorce’ in order to protect Gore assetts. I guess Benedict isn’t aware of the UK court’s rulings. And it appears he also hasn’t seen the BBC documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. Its on Youtube for all but the fantical and lazy to see. Global warming is a fraudulent scheme cooked up by UN leftists for the purpose of foisting on gullable westerners a one-world wealth transfer scheme. If they are successful the standards of living in the west will crash. As Climategate (Google it!) revealed, the global warming conspiracy is massive and includes the manipulation of data, lying, bullying, intimidation, uttering threats, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and a host of other crimes committed by all the big global warming promoters as well as most of the mainstream media. This might explain Benedict’s cheesy piece on Monckton. Youtube has a great satirical piece on the ‘warmers’ manipulation of the data. Check out Youtube’s Hide the Decline. Unfortunately, as many things, the general public doesn’t bother (Or is too lazy to) check facts for themselves, and so they simply go along with these gangs when they show up every few decades. The Germans did it in the 30’s; the Russians too, in 1917. Westerners are doing it again, in today’s world. With this kind of biased reporting by Country99 it is no wonder all of the mainstreams are in dire straits while the upstart Internet based news organizations like PJTV are thriving. Eventualy, at some point, people start to smell a rat.

    • Your information on the UK report is incorrect. I invite you to read Mr. Justice Burton’s actual ruling here, where he writes in paragraph 17:

      The following is clear:
      i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.

      and, in paragraph 22,

      I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant’s expert, is right when he says that:
      “Al Gore’s presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate.”

      Oh, and it was only 9 “‘errors'” (yes, Mr. Justice Burton puts the word “errors” in quotes), and the phrase “materially false” does not exist in the ruling anywhere. You’ve been misled, I’m afraid, a point you can investigate yourself by reading the ruling yourself.

      I look forward to you admitting that you were misled about the ruling. After all, it’s all there on the web for someone who isn’t lazy or gullible to read for themselves. I’d be happy to discuss the rest of your points after this.

  5. Surprised to hear that the science of climate change is settled. I look forward to the meta-analyses, which disprove the null hypothesis that catastrophic climate is not occurring. What are the p-values and 95% confidence intervals? Endless arts faculty or politics department style dispute is not settled science.

    Settled science requires the acceptance or rejection of a null hypothesis on the basis of independently reproducible data or experiments involving randomization of data acquisition and prospective experimental design, showing a statistically significant difference between data sets, comprised of observations which are independent of each other, using validated test methods and end points. The independently derived studies must then be sufficiently homeogenous and preferably identical to allow systematic review and meta-analysis. Settled science must control for known and unknown confounders. Please show me where the meta-analysis is. Statistical modelling is nowhere near settled science. Please show us the sensitivity analysis for the statistical models. Typical of modelling is that small changes in assumptions can cause dramatic changes in conclusions.

    Statistical modelling is done by economists and probably puts the ‘con’ in e’con’nomics. It is all they can do. They are unable to provide controlled randomized data for more rigorous analysis. Where are all the wealthy people with economics degrees? If it worked, one would expect to see more of them.

    The threats of impending catastrophe on the basis of this opaque science, give it the appearance of a modern day selling of indulgences like happened under Pope Leo X and which he used as a cynical source of income. It led to the reformation under Luther and the sacking of Rome. The idea was ‘you believe in me and I will save you if you pay me money’. Pope Leo X was a member of the Medici banking dynasty.

    • NL – There are certainly some issues that remain unsettled, but there are a significant number of settled points:

      CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
      The extra CO2 is from human consumption of fossil fuels.
      CO2 absorbs IR strongly and is therefore a greenhouse gas.
      Since CO2 absorbs IR and is increasing, changes in the Earth’s energy balance are a result of human consumption of fossil fuels.

      These points are simply not arguable given the overwhelming data in support of them (CO2 mass balance estimates, ratios of carbon isotopes, ocean acidification, observed optical properties of CO2, et al). There are a few scientists who agree with these points but who posit that climate sensitivity is low (MIT’s Lindzen for one), but their analyses have not held up under peer scrutiny. At this point, multiple lines of evidence independently point to a mean value of climate sensitivity of approximately 3 °C/2xCO2. These lines of evidence include10 million years of correlation between CO2 and temperature, studies of recent ice ages via ice core data, and estimates based on how the global climate responded to Pinatubo for starters. But because the data has uncertainty associated with it and because models are inherently statistical in nature, the range is from about 1.5 to 4.5 °C per 2xCO2. However, due to the mathematics, a high value is more probable than a low value, skewing the distribution away from the low sensitivity that Lindzen and others like him favor.

      I don’t think any climate scientist I know would say that they know everything they need to know, but rather that they know enough to know the broad strokes of what is most likely to happen if CO2 emissions continue accelerating as they have. We don’t need some mythical 100% certainty before we act – if we did, we’d never make it to work because we’d sit paralyzed in our automobiles fretting that we weren’t 100% certain that the car wouldn’t explode when we turned the key.

  6. Brian, to concede that some issues remain to be answered is to stretch the meaning of the word euphemism to breaking point. Whether or not the issues you mention are settled (and I am not commenting) is not the important question. The issue is whether the available data is a sufficient basis on which to form government or social policy and hand the keys to the farm over to policy makers of dubious repute, on the basis of promises that they can fix the problem, if indeed there is a problem at all. In the course of any research program there may be surrogate end points that are significant or at least look compelling. However, conclusions do not become rigorous by marrying together disparate observations one believes to be well supported. This may well be convincing to Arts or Politics graduates, but not Science. The absence of the usual rigour of science leads to a political-like world of speculation and spin, claim and counter claim.

    The primary end point is whether or not climatic catastrophe is imminent. The next question is if suggested interventions are going to be effective in preventing or minimizing this. The cure may be worse the disease. The only certainty I can imagine is that with cap and trade, emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes, the groups that are likely to be certain beneficiaries are big business and big government.

    From climate science nobody should expect the mythical 100% certainty you refer to, just the statistically rigorous 95% certainty expected of any other science. I doubt climate science can even provide a 50:50 certainty to the question of serious or catastrophic climate change in 10, 50 or 100 years, unless it is based on mathematical modelling which was disparaged above. Climate is a really interesting but unfortunately highly politicized area. Presumably it is great for climate scientists. I assume funding has increased significantly over the last few years. The absence of transparent and rigorous data acquisition and analysis casts a pall over the certainty of any scientific conclusions, climatic or otherwise. One rule for climate science, and another for all other science is not acceptable. Regarding peer review, readers may be interested in the article by the former vice chancellor of Canberra University dated 6/4/08 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-177537270.html

    • NL, you’re unfairly disparaging statistical modeling based on economics, not upon the statistically rigorous methods like Monte Carlo that are used in climate modeling (and engineering, my own discipline). My point about 100% certainty is that statistical modeling has already a) made projections of what is expected to happen with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and b) those projections have been observed. I refer you to both RealClimate’s description of how well real-world data is tracking IPCC AR4 projections and Skeptical Science’s “Lessons from Predictions” page for support of point b, but there are many other examples as well. The models projections project faster warming in the Arctic, shifting the jet streams poleward, stratospheric cooling simultaneous with tropospheric warming, ocean acidification, changes in the observed energy balance of the planet, (there are probably more) and all of these have been observed. This degree of matching between model projections and observations is why the models should be taken seriously. Please don’t confuse modeling of human behavioral systems (which defy easy modeling due to psychological effects) like economics with the modeling of physical systems based on well known and well understood physical laws.

      As for whether or not there is a catastrophe in the brewing, that depends on your definition of “catastrophe,” doesn’t it? Regional modeling is much less mature (and thus has wider error bands) than global modeling is, but even so it’s clear that some areas of the world will get marginally “better” while most will get significantly “worse.” In this case I’m defining “worse” as more intense and less predictable precipitation leading to both flooding and drought, higher heat indices, increased topsoil loss, the spread of deserts poleward and a corresponding shift of viable farmland poleward, drought and famine and sea level-rise driven migration of refugees, and the spread of tropical diseases out of the tropics into temperate regions. None of these are really controversial given that conservative organizations like the US Department of Defense, the CIA, and major reinsurance companies (the companies that insure insurance companies, like Munich RE) have been planning on how to address these issues and identify future global hot spots. Everywhere won’t get this bad, but everywhere will be affected in some way, shape, or form. We should have much better information when the AR5 is published in 2013. Whether the effects I describe would qualify as a “catastrophe” is up to individuals to decide for themselves.

      I’ve also looked at your implied claim that climate scientists are only in this for the money and found that it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.