Monckton vs. Littlemore: A Debate in the Waiting
Update: Roy Green and Christopher Monckton's have accepted
The debate airs on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008, at 3:05 EDT on the Corus Entertainment radio network
The tireless British nobleman, Christopher Walter, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has been ever on the hunt for debating partners, triggering Roy Green, (host of the Roy Green Show, heard on the Corus Radio Network, Saturdays and Sundays, 2-5pm Eastern) to ask David Suzuki to join Monckton for an on-air confab.
Well, David Suzuki has better things to do. But I don't. I'd love to chat with Chris about the public relations of climate change. Accordingly, I have responded to the Roy Green challenge, per the letter below:
Dear Mr. Green,It's come to my attention that Christopher Walter, the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is looking for a debating partner for an upcoming show, and I would like to confirm that I am available.I know that the Viscount Monckton has been trying to line up an argument with Al Gore or, in a pinch, David Suzuki - and I personally would rather debate Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper - but I think you'll have to agree that Monckton and I are a more appropriate match.Monckton is a journalist with political aspirations and a smattering of scientific knowledge. I spent 20 years in the Canadian newspaper business, ending by writing editorials and editing the Opinion and, for a time, Editorial pages of the Vancouver Sun. Politically, I was an elected member of the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors. I was vice-chair of its Air Quality Committee and was delegated by the Metro Vancouver Board to sit on the Chretien government's (laughably entitled) Kyoto Implementation Process. (In that role, I suppose you could call me a one-time science adviser to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, but I'd rather you didn't.) I also wrote the Suzuki Foundation's first public education package on climate change in 1996 and have been an avid fan ever since of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.As to my scientific credentials, they are pretty similar to Monckton's (which is to say, I haven't any). I won a national magazine award from the Canadian Science Writers' Association (for a piece on prostate cancer, not climate change), but for the most part, my expertise (like Monckton's) is in communications and public relations. In particular, I am Editor of DeSmogBlog.com, a climate change website that specializes in covering the "debate" about global warming, and which endeavors to sort out which parts of that debate are rooted in science and which parts are rooted in PR.The Viscount Monckton has made much in the last year or so of the refusal of people like Al Gore or James Hansen to debate him. I suggest that this is mostly self-promotion, that Monckton's principal goal is to be seen on the same stage as these, rather-more-accomplished individuals. If I am wrong, if Monckton sincerely wants a debate, if he believes that he can go toe-to-toe with someone of a similar background and put a superior argument before your listeners, well, again, I'd be happy to accommodate.Sincerely,Richard Littlemore
rlittlemore@hoggan.com
JTK's Sideshow
"By engaging with them [deniers], you lose."
Yup. Just about every time! (Including in court.)
No wonder we are so very eager to "engage".
"Why is it that deniers are so often semi-coherent and semi-literate?"
One might also ask why the vast majority of the best educated of the world bought into the Club of Rome silliness. One can only conclude that being a member of the postgraduate crowd and being correct on science-related policy issues are not necessarily related.
The debate barely touched many of the primary issues (positive feedback loops, albedo, or "the big 6" multidecadal oceanic-atmospheric cycles, what have you), yet I found it quite entertaining.
FWIW, I do consider Mr. L. a standup fellow for being willing to debate. There are not too many on the AGW side left who are willing to do that. It's been a bad year for AGW, all things considered.
Thanks
Thanks, Frank. Unfortunately I'm not going to be able to tune in - I've got guests. Hopefully someone will record and post it....
Listen online to the channel hosting the Roy Green Show
http://tinyurl.com/5q4d9t :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Where is it broadcast?
Can someone provide some clues as to which station it is broadcast on? Is it internet accessible? From England?
I've hunted the Corus website (which doesn't work in Firefox or Opera [sigh]), but can't find any mention on the dozens of stations listed.
If not, will it be recorded and available for later download?
TIA.
P.S. Gary, you're a clueless troll who does more good for promotion of AGW than denial of it. Keep posting.
The Gore factor...
Why do the deniers always bring up and want to set up a debate between Gore, who is a spokesman and not a scientist, and one of the few actual scientists on their payroll, er, side?
It brought to mind this old article...."Why the Right Goes Nuclear Over Global Warming"
http://www.truthout.org/article/jonathan-chait-why-right-goes-nuclear-over-global-warming
Goracular prognostication for the debate outcome :)
Thanks Anonymouse for yet another thumbs-up for my blog!
...and speaking of which, the spirit of the Great Goracle hath inspired me to write out this prognostication for the debate's outcome:
http://tinyurl.com/6jansx
Littlemore may want to read it beforehand and use it. :)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Quick query, Richard
Will DSB be posting a transcript or recording of the debate? I can't follow it in real time due to prior commitments, but I don't want to miss the fun.
Fern Mackenzie
See Frank Bi's helpful link below
Thanks Frank
What is the format of the
What is the format of the debate? Also, what is the topic? Richard said it was the PR of climate change while his viscountness said it was the science. Since it was your offer, Richard, I would advise making sure the title and debate remain focussed on the PR. This is not because his viscountness has science on his side, but because it is always easy to cloud and confuse on such an intricate subject. Even in his post, he has demonstrated enough smoke screens that he can jump from one to another. On the other hand, if you want to get the science correct, you will have to be nuanced and explain complicated concepts and relationships in limited time and with somebody goading you constantly to slip up even a little. There is a good reason why science does not progress through public debates but through written (and peer reviewed) publications and arguments. So, my advice at this point: make sure the title and debate are on the PR. And find out the format, etc.
Science debate
The title and format are at the discretion of Roy Green, who's dedication to the skeptical cause is well-documented. (He said, himself, in his first email to me, "I am not a supporter of the IPCC.") So Monckton (or "Lord Christopher," as Green calls him) will pretend to talk about science with customary implacability. And I will marvel at his loquacity and offer short, sharp snippets of verifiable (and almost surely contradictory) information. Because Monckton is essentially a PR guy who presumes scientific expertise and I am a PR guy who dabbles at the edges of a scientific issue, I suspect there will be no reason to rewrite any recent Nature articles as a result of our blistering exchange.
My promise to Green is that the session will be entertaining and, to the extent possible, informative - and I plan to do everything in my power to keep that promise.
Canada's #1 Professor of Climatology!
Surely, given Roy Green's dedication to the skeptical cause, he's had Tim Ball on his show. I think it would be effective if you could obtain a transcript and show how Monckton is just dressing up poor old arguments.
But there are so many things to do and most of them are difficult. That's why politicians never let the questioner determine the answer. They keep it simple and just push their pet phrases and talking points over and over. Go in there with the strongest points, which are:
1. The science, in the peer-reviewed literature, is settled. And for good reason.
2. These guys aren't debating scientists regarding the science. If they could, they would submit papers for peer review to respected journals (not to the unreviewed letters sections of academic societies). Instead they go on radio shows and try to get on a stage with Al Gore and write op-eds. They're interested in PR, not science.
3. Since Hansen's AGW forecasts of global warming in 1988, which could easily have been wrong if AGW was baseless, global temperatures increased in-line with 2 out of three of the scenarios. With the last 20 years of improved science, data collection, and computing power, climatologists have generally confirmed that initial work. Since 1997, when the Kyoto Accord was struck, ___ of the 10 hottest years have occurred. Average September sea ice extent in the Arctic has dropped ___% relative to the previous decade, and ___ relative to the 10 years before that. Etc. (I think you should have researched a bunch, say 20, statements like this that you can interject throughout the program.)
Steve, I agree with most of
Steve, I agree with most of what you have said. But, one thing I would advise is to be aware of and have responses for are the distortions / fluff that Viscount da Vinci will invariably provide:
1. "The science, in the peer-reviewed literature, is settled."
- Consensus is not science.
- Yes, that is because of circle the wagons mentality.
- 31,000 scientists are not enough for you? Lindzen is MIT. Al Gore is not MIT and besides, he is fat.
- X said blah. Now on a blog, somebody will go back and check the actual paper of X, which says something very different. Difficult to do in a radio program.
- People are hounded out. Look at Gray being kicked out of IPCC. Look at Gray being kicked out of whatever he resigned from. Look at the disclaimer the president of APS put on Viscount da Vinci's 'technical paper' in the 'learned newsletter'.
- You made such and such statement. What is the reference for that? And for the next statement and for the next?
2. "These guys aren't debating scientists regarding the science. If they could, they would submit papers for peer review to respected journals (not to the unreviewed letters sections of academic societies). Instead they go on radio shows and try to get on a stage with Al Gore and write op-eds. They're interested in PR, not science."
- M&M broke the stick. Wegman said yes. NAS report said they agree. Peer review, properly done, opposes the climatati.
- Peer review is not too hot because of gatekeepers. Look how they handled hockey stick.
- You mean people (hence PR) are not important? You live in ivory towers. That is why you like computer models, and not real data.
- If science is settled, why are people not believing you?
3. "Since Hansen's AGW forecasts of global warming in 1988, which could easily have been wrong if AGW was baseless, global temperatures increased in-line with 2 out of three of the scenarios. With the last 20 years of improved science, data collection, and computing power, climatologists have generally confirmed that initial work. Since 1997, when the Kyoto Accord was struck, ___ of the 10 hottest years have occurred. Average September sea ice extent in the Arctic has dropped ___% relative to the previous decade, and ___ relative to the 10 years before that. "
- Hansen is Al Gore lite and Al Gore is fat.
- Al Gore consumes mucho energy in his house.
- Hansen is being investigated.
- Hansen said ice free Arctic soon. Scientists do not believe him. Hence Hansen is fraud.
- Hansen could not figure out which of the 2 scenarios will be correct. Temperatures are even below the constant CO2 scenario. Hansen is Al Gore lite and Al Gore is fat.
- Climatologists have not confirmed work. Look at the German paper that says it is going to get cold. Anyway, models are not to be relied upon because of ...
- Current temperatures are cold. World is cooling.
- Temperatures are cyclic. Sun spots are less, hence world is cooling.
- 1930's nonsense about ice. Some Chinese navy account.
This is what I had at the top of my head. Of course, some of the above are pretty weak. Two strategies that people use when this is the case is:
(i) Say 5 things in one paragraph. Then, interrupt as the other person is attacking just one; so as to leave the four assertions unchallenged.
(ii) Keep moving from one argument to another (which is demonstrated by Viscount da Vinci in his even if statements).
Well, I believe Richard has a lot of experience debating; so he knows all this and will be fine. Just wanted to put in my two cents based on the blog troll behavior I have seen. Also, do think about using Frank Bi's website.
By the way I finally read the complete missive from the Viscount. Based on so many things he is an expert on, I can only compare him to da Vinci.
And I hope you are prepared
And I hope you are prepared for the scenario that his viscountness asks you to explain the science and produces contradictory-on-the-surface-but-ultimately-wrong / inapplicable / statistically meaningless data.
Good luck with the debate!
Just in case...
I don't think that's going to be an easy sell (pun unintended).
If -- just in case -- Monckton prevails in insisting on debating the science, then perhaps Littlemore can ask him to explain the details in a way that the layman can understand.
(Yes, the details, in layman terms. Not just "The only thing the layman needs to know is that the climate models are completely wrong! The end.")
Alternatively, Littlemore can supply his own layman explanation. Again, how to do that is left as an exercise for the reader. :-B
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Advice for debating
Advice for debating Monckton? Watch Money Python and the Holy Grail and study their methods of causing people extreme frustration. See if you can get him to push you around and call you a bloody peasant. :)
Money Python?
OK VJ.
You made a spelling error.
By your own standards, all of your posts are now to be disreguarded.
Obviously you have not education and not intellegence and none of your comments are valid.
Glad I was here to see it too. LOLOLOLOLOL
The debate
Well this should be an interesting bit of entertainment. I'll have popcorn ready. I hope people can phone in with questions. I have a few for Mr. Monckton.
Of course, Mr. Monckton's recent assertions (see above) have been thoroughly refuted by two scientists--Drs. Gavin Schmidt and Arthur Smith (who is a true gentleman, needing none of the bluster of some others who like to consider themselves as fashionably civil and erudite).
That would be one scientist
And one fanatical econutbar. (schmidt)
"... and not just a ridicule
"... and not just a ridicule session," Gary said, as he continues his hypocrisy.
Not ridicule
Just correcting an error.
Monbiot
Speaking of George Monbiot, I love this quote, which the denialists will deny, because, well, they're in a state of denial:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists
“It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.”
Monkton...
Thank, Richard...
I read Monbiot religiously, but I missed this one! What a hoot!
Questions for the Viscount
I'm pleased that the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has dropped by, as I'd really like to ask him some questions.... but nothing to do with science, yet.
First of all, I'd like to know where the funding comes from to run the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), where he is listed as a scientific advisor. We know that the Union of Concerned Scientists has followed the paper trail and determined that the Frontiers of Freedom took more than $1 million from Exxon over the last several years, and that a sizable chunk of that money went to establishing the SPPI. But some other details are sketchy.
So I'd like a few more facts on where the SPPI gets its funding, and some insight into what he does there in his capacity as a science advisor. In particular, does he actually accept money from a group with proven ties to big oil, or does his status as a millionaire obviate that need?
Secondly, his criticism of Dr. Hansen is unfair. Dr. Hansen is a conservative, and he has said that he supported Republican John McCain in the primaries before the 2000 election. So he's hardly the left-wing toady that the Viscount describes. Hansen just an expert on climate change who is concerned about the future. If Monckton's claim suggesting that Hansen has ideological reasons for his stance on global warming are so misguided, how can we give any weight to his pronouncements on science?
I also think the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley should update his Wiki page. It describes him as a politician and business advisor, but nowhere does it list scientist as among his credentials.
Monckton a scientist?
Spelling error
Thats George Moonbat.
"... and not just a ridicule
"... and not just a ridicule session," Gary said.
Here we go again
The usual smoke screen.
If Exxon paid me to tell you that the sky was blue, you would no doubt call me a liar since we all know that Oil Money renders any and all Facts untrue.
What a completely stupid position.
But all too common amoung the AGW reality deniers.
Exxon
No... but it would help if they had some science to support their position. Any science. Just a little. A smidgen. A dollop. A dash. Anything.
But as they just set a new record for earnings, your claims are hollow and empty.
I'm still waiting on you to find the scientist who can publish his (or her) work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and who is willing to go on the record saying that we can breach the level of 450 ppm of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere without serious consequences for the planet.
Dance around all you want... we all know you haven't a single fact to support anything you say here.
I can take you with one hand tied behind my back. :-)
450 PPM +
Not sure I have seen any specific paper saying exactly that, nor can I say I have seen any that say specifically that over 450 ppm will cause harm.
I have seen several hysterical statements from alarmists that claim pretty much total global destruction at 450 ppm but we all know that Hansens predictions are just plain silly.
I have also seen papers that “may” not have been peer reviewed stating that well over 450 ppm would be quite beneficial.
I know I know. If it wasn’t written by a climatologist and peer reviewed by one of his friends or relatives it doesn’t count . But there it is.
Interesting
That is pretty much the whole skeptical side in a nut shell.
If the AGW pushers had even a little bit of believable science to back up their claims it would be a debate and not just a ridicule session.
Please.... if you have ANUTHING concrete to back up the claims, let us know what it is.
So far all we have seen is computer models with poor starting data and bad assumptions for sensitivity and some really thin sort of corrolations with a perfectly natural warming in last 30 years of the 20th century.
Not much to go on.
Have anything more?
Anything that is real?
So...
So... how about discussing debating strategies? Or has the verbal brickbattery already begun?
It seems that Monckton will be harping on his "low low climate sensitivity rates" material, so that's something Littlemore can work from.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Debating Strategies
Yeah, guys, bring 'em on. I'd be happy for any and all suggestions of the three or five things that you always wanted to say to my Noble debating buddy ....
Gish Gallop
I've not heard Walter speak, but if his verbal style matches his bloviated writing, then half the battle will actually be deciphering his arguments which will quite possibly be delivered in a 'Gish Gallop' (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gish_gallop).
One of my favourite arguments for deniers, that has never received a (coherent) response in 'debates', is:
"Every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change is due to human activity. Why is this?"
The only responses available are "they've all made a mistake" or "there is a massive, coordinated global conspiracy". Either one makes the denier look really silly - and most of them know it, which is why they always duck it.
Also, as you've done above, listeners should be made aware that Walter is not any type of scientist (other than 'armchair').
P.S. When is the debate being broadcast? Your update gives a time but not a date - and where on the Corus site do we go? It's not obvious....
I have heard him speak
He is clear and concise and easy to understand.
Even you will be able to follow.
So just his written...
So just his written communication is bloviated and pompous? That's OK then....
Re: Every national science academy...
The US Federal (Bush) government itself admitted to the causal relationship between GH and warming only several weeks ago, did it not?
The conspiracy must go high up indeed, as well as wide...
Storming the brain...
Speaking of conspiracies, the latest version of my climate conspiracy theory genealogy is here: http://tinyurl.com/6j73kf :)
If I were the one who's debating, I'd probably talk about Tom Harris's tricky strategy of changing "perceptions of public opinion" (http://tinyurl.com/5fb74s), and try to find a way to work it into every minute of the discussion, just to get Monckton miffed. :-B (In fact I think changing the opinion perception is part of the point of this very 'debate'. As for how to work it into a discussion on the minutiae of climate sensitivity estimation, well, that'll be left as an exercise for the reader...)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Put your Money on Monckton
My Money is on Monckton, he is extremely accomplished on the subject and is one class act, and gentleman.
I doubt Mr. Littlemore will stand a chance. I believe he would need be Alotmore to win against Christopher Walter.
Incoherence
Why is it that deniers are so often semi-coherent and semi-literate? They can never quite manage to produce an entire post without some grammar, punctuation, spelling or semantic butchery.
As for 'class act', I'd be more inclined towards 'windbag'.
Partly
becaus this damn little laptop keyboard is too small and partly because the subject at hand (AGW) is not really very important in the overall scheme of things.
So why be too perticular about spelling or syntax.
The climate will do what it will do dispite anything we say or do anyway, so this is just entertainment.
What?
I use a laptop and I can type just fine. Also, a small keyboard also doesn't explain how you can turn "e" into "i" to form the `word' "dispite". I think the problem isn't with your laptop.
(Also, small keyboards may explain how "55% of glaciers" became "555 of glaciers", but it still doesn't explain the hordes of `skeptics' who simply lapped up the error without any attempt at verification.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Really, This should be good.
Richard is firm in his conviction and quite knowledgeable on the subject. So in Monkton.
Both have spent years in the field.
While my view is with Monkton’s I am very much looking forward to a good debate.
A civil one too I hope.
May the bet man win.
(actually a winner is unlikely due to the uncertainty of the topic but one of them will be more convincing.)
Gee, Gary
You just nailed the reason that any debate between Al Gore, David Suzuki James Hansen or anybody else is no place to "settle" the science: a winner is unlikely due to the uncertainty of the topic but one of them will be more convincing. Well done, although I suspect you are hedging your bets because Richard is very likely to tie Monckton in knots.
Fern Mackenzie
No Really hedging at all
I believe in the scientific method.
I believe any and all theories must be attacked with vigour to expose error.
Theories that withstand attack are accepted and those that don't are rejected.
Only religious doctrines are accepted without the above rigor.
Therefore I look forward to Richards attempts to show Monktons positions to be false.
I want to know the truth about this stuff. Whatever that is. Whether I like it or not.
Just so far, I have not seen convincing evidence and therefore side with the “overwhelming Concensus” until better arguments are presented.
I say; go for it.
This is going to be hilarious
Wow. Talk about Littlemore's mouth writing a cheque his ass can't cash.
Sadly, Monkton will not have accomplished any great feat in this. I mean, what's the point of publicly humiliating a completely forgettable failed journalist -- now a mendacious PR company lackey for the Suzuki death cult? But, hey, if that's what it takes ...
Bravo Richard!
I am impressed!
Didn't really think anyone would step up to the plate.
We will all be listening (I will anyway), Best of luck to you.
Richard, go easy on him
Remember that he suffers from a couple of serious medical afflictions.
See here for details:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3avyyh
I hope I have not breached doctor patient confidentiality.
Ian Forrester
Thanks, Ian
I needed a laugh!
Fern Mackenzie
Monckton Debate
Richard,
As the old curse goes: "Beware of what you wish for. For you may actually get it".
Richard, It seems there is
Richard,
It seems there is little value in engaging someone like Monckton - he has demonstrated in his 'papers' that he is detached from scientific reality and continues to add evidence of that with the comment here. Black is white, up is down and the moon is made of green cheese.
He must know that his latest offering has been eviscerated, and yet ploughs on as though he was some scientific colossus: http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
One imagines he will simply roll out the same thoroughly refuted, tired fallacies that all the other deniers use. He's already given us a small sample here, all of which were buried long ago, e.g. http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
Well, the debate should be amusing if not enlightening. Good luck.