[/media-credit]Lord Christopher Monckton looks on at a slide of Al Gore. Lord Monckton is a leading climate skeptic who opposes Gore's views.
But when presented with a request to co-host Christopher Monckton, a policymaker with an interest in climate change, at no cost to the college, we felt it was not only appropriate to have him speak, but our responsibility to ensure that both sides of an extremely contentious debate take place.
Campus critics have written off Monckton’s position as marginal in a debate that is one-sided. Those blind accusations could not be further from the truth. The fact that this debate exists at all shows the seriousness of both sides, further demonstrating the importance of this visit. Because we are a campus that takes the issue of climate change, and environmental issues in general, so seriously, we felt it incredibly necessary to stir debate and we are very proud we did.
But this event has taught all of us a broader lesson in the growing partisanship surrounding policy debate in our country. Just last week, as we were experiencing our own tense discourse, two moderate senators were shunned by extreme sides of the spectrum. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, one of the only Republicans to back the stimulus and the bailouts, announced her retirement citing concerns over the painfully partisan atmosphere in Washington. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who retired from his Nebraska Senate seat in 2001 and is courted by Democrats to reenter the arena in 2012, has been lambasted by the Left as a phony liberal. In essence, the C-word has become dirty. “Compromise” is not only frowned upon, but detested.
This is a national trend that exists on our very campus. The serious conversation that we built, with help from our counterparts in the Environmental Club, was destroyed by a professor who used the Q&A to throw a tantrum and a guest speaker who felt it appropriate to maliciously attack our college’s environmental leaders during his lecture. When individuals see opinions as zealous beliefs, civility is abandoned and stimulating intellectual conversation stifled.
We can only hope that as a campus, and as a nation, we move away from this harsh reality. Lord Monckton’s visit has demonstrated the problem truly exists. It’s up to us to change the dialogue from one of vicious partisanship to a tone of respectful disagreement.
Loading ...
I don’t think that it was necessarily partisanship that was the problem with Lord Monckton, rather it was the fact that the campus, as a whole, thought he was just too ridiculous. In the audience, both Democrats and Republicans alike scoffed at the ideas presented by Lord Monckton because they relied upon the twisted representation of science. I, as a Democrat, did not not care whether the beliefs held by Monckton were inherently conservative or Republican; I cared that these beliefs were based on lies and created a danger of intentional manipulation and misinformation.
I think this event was held with good intentions by the Republican Club. I think they definitely did a good job in the planning and the topic was relevant for serious debate. However, I think they made a poor choice in the speaker. A simple Google search on Lord Monckton essentially reveals that he has become the joke of the climate change science community and shows that he has been proven to purposely misrepresent data for his own purposes.
I commend the Republicans for trying to start this important debate, however I think they could have found a better speaker to spark that conversation. By bringing Monckton, rather than a more reputable climate change denier (if such a person exists), they set the debate up for disaster before it had even occurred.
Nick: Thank you for stressing a most important lesson that civil disagreement and civil discourse are the cornerstones of our democracy.
Yes, we can frame this as a serious debate all we want, but the fact remains that Mr. Monckton is not at all taken seriously in the climate science community. His work has been repeatedly de-bunked by actual scientists. Just Google “Moncton Barry Bickmore” or “Monckton John Abraham” or “Monckton Arthur Smith.” Or go to these links, noting that all these responses to Monckton’s ideas come from actual scientists:
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/the-monckton-files-solar-variation/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/the-monckton-files-we-are-the-world/
http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/the-monckton-files-papa-is-a-rollin-stone/
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/abraham-reply-to-monckton.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
And there’s more. You get the idea.
Somebody needs to read Andrew W. Montford’s “The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science.” Somebody also needs to spend some time reading criticism of the unproved hypothesis of CAGW (“Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming”). Somebody needs to investigate the facts for themselves rather than mindlessly accept what they hear.
“Nullius In Verba.”
It is simply not true that Monckton is not credible. His response to the critics is detailed, 82 pages long, and a classic study in applied logic, devastating the critics who have not replied to it.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/response_to_john_abraham.html
Feel free to bring up any three criticism of dozens of Christopher Monckton’s statements from this linked report.
We can discuss your viewpoint then. Until then, it is worthless assertion.
Anyone with an open mind should read this, then make up your mind.
Charles, the fact that you linked to RealClimate and John Abraham shows you’re either new to the climate world or easily influenced by alarmists. For one, RealClimate is underwritten by Fenton Communications, a PR firm known for slime, and it does not care to post dissenting opinions or papers.
Monckton presented data. Erin Delman, President of the Environmental Club, and Department Chair and Professor of Geology Donald Rodbell have merely whined with ad hominems.
Read here: http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/
This is what I see:
Monkton came, made a TECHNICAL presentation, and opened the floor to questions.
His detractors avoided direct debate, wrote a snotty weirds little editorial – full of feelings words and ad homenim attacks – but – as far as I could tell – not one scientific fact that could be investigated.
Note also – that they employ the “hit and run” approach. Will they stand up – and take questions? (From anyone whose grade and career is not dependant on their relationship).
One issue I see here – most of the comments are obviously from the young – is that this type fo discussion is now accepted – and acceptable. In fact – Union’s own professor – in a science field – employs it. Feelings, name calling, – etc. From the point of view of an older culture – you sound like girls discussing your favorite on American Idol. I don’t say thios to be rude – but rather – to give you some wake up call.
Seriously – stop whining.
As for the core science behind the discussion – and please – let’s skip the name calling and “its been settled~!!!!!!!! comments for today – (similarly – realclimate? yikes!)
It is not under discussion that the Earth is warming.
It is not under discussion that CO2 causes the Earth to warm
It is not under discussion that CO2 concentration in atmosphere is increasing.
It is not under discussion that humans contribute to this growth in CO2.
Sure – we can argue nuances of these issues – but they are not the core issue.
What IS under discussion – at the basic level – is this:
The primary Green House gas for Earth is water vapor. (Also – not under dispute.)
Alarmists model CO2 concentration to increase Earth temperature, leading to 3X multiplier (forcing) for water vapor.
“Skeptics” believe that the forcing factor for increased water vapor is closer to 0.5.
That is it – in a nutshell.
So – for a doubling of CO2 – leads to increase in temp of 1.1C – for alarmists – means planet increases by 3.3C. For skeptics – 0.6C.
The problem for the alarmists is that after $billions in research and studies and 20 years of modelling =- the data supports the “skeptic” forcing factor. As does history (the Earth tends to stay in equilibrium, not highly sensitive to flunctuations in parameters – but rather – highly damped. Negative feedback loops – not positive.)
This is why the models over predict temperatures. They over predict forcing factor.
It is not complex. If the alarmists are not talking about forcing – if they are talking about temperature history record, and sea level, and weather, and Polar Bears, and mosquitos, and glaciers, and sea ice, etc etc etc – they are just confusing the issue.
Wake up boys and girls – you are being played.
PS – my second 250KW solar project is being installed. “Skeptics” are just technical. It isn’t our fault the forcing factor in reality does not match the dreams of the alarmists. it just – is what it is.
I’m not new to climate science, Lyons, and I couldn’t care less who underwrites RealClimate. What I care about is the science that is presented. In all the links I listed you will find scientists who use data and logic to show the numerous errors in Mr. Monckton’s work.
And I’ll repeat what others have said: if Mr. Monckton is so sure of his work, let him have it peer reviewed and published. He has never done so, to my knowledge.
Maybe you could point out – what part of Monckton’s work do you think belongs in an original paper?
Or – should it be “peer reviewed” like the typical warmist silliness?
If you are such a stickler for peer review – you must really have a bone to pick with IPCC – yes? After all – they are an offical agency – Monckton is just a lone man. Surely – the IPCC – relys only on peer reviewed literature, as their own policies suggest?
Go whine some more.
Neil, thanks for your response. Perhaps you miss my point, which is that if Mr. Monckton is so sure of his work, he’d have no trouble getting it accepted in the peer reviewed literature. That has never happened. And, quite to the contrary, his work has been routinely found to be full of errors by those with the competence to assess his work.
I’m puzzled as to how you can interpret my comments as a whine. I’m simply making an observation. For what it’s worth, I really hope you and the others who believe the climate is not warming and that CO2 has a very limited sensitivity are right. But thus far that is not what I see in the data. As ever with physical phenomena, time will tell who is right.
Cheers.
Charles, read the link here, and take up my challenge.
http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/moncktons-visit-shows-partisanship-over-civility/4220/#comment-20092
Charles -
Your write: “I really hope you and the others who believe the climate is not warming …”
based on my comment: “It is not under discussion that the Earth is warming. It is not under discussion that CO2 causes the Earth to warm.”
Can you please explain your straw man? Why you attributed a statement to me that is the opposite of what I actually wrote? And you wonder – why I notice the whining?
If I say “the sky is blue” – will you be waiting for my paper to be “peer reviewed” as well?
Concerning your comment – “that is not what I see in the data” – umm – do you have different data from the rest of us? The data says -the Earth has not warmed significantly in almost 15 years. The warmist models – based on high forcing factor – predicted significant warming over this time period.
You are free to “see in the data” whatever you want. But frankly – you sound as un-scientific as the professor. Or – is this another “cooling is a sign of warming” type comment?
Yawn. Publish, Christopher, publish. Or, as a second best, present at a climate conference organized by a recognized science body–perhaps AGU, AAAS.
” … devastating the critics who have not replied to it.”
Except that critics of Monckton have replied:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/abraham-reply-to-monckton.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-scientists-own-work-part1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-specific-situations-part2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-specific-situations-part2.html
One wonders, too: if Mr. Monckton is so concerned about the inappropriate use of ad hominem, why does he himself engage in it so continuously.
Neil, if you’re still around:
“The warmist models – based on high forcing factor – predicted significant warming over this time period.”
Can you show me these predictions? As to the last 15 years, where do climate scientists argue that the temperature increases would be linear? The fact is that the planet has not cooled significantly and temperatures remain at the highest levels in a long time. Also, do you know the difference between a projection and a prediction? What you are claiming as predictions were actually projections which, yes, make assumptions about things like forcings.