Leading global warming sceptic lacks facts, credibility
Harry Hope
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/01/31/lord-monckton-short-on-facts-and-credibility/
31st January 2010
Sceptic lacking facts, credibility
By Professor Ian Lowe (Australia)
CHRISTOPHER Monckton was paid handsomely to share with us his strange
views about climate change in Noosa on Saturday.
He has no scientific background.
Like any citizen, he is entitled to ask probing questions about
climate change and expect clear, honest answers.
But he is not qualified to pronounce on climate science.
He was quoted in this paper as saying that �the truth is� that there
has been no global warming in the past 15 years, that even if there
had been it would not have been caused by human activity, and that it
would cost too much to slow down the change that he doesn�t think we
are causing.
He is factually wrong on the first and third point.
On the second, his unqualified opinion is at odds with the expert
assessment of almost all the world�s professional climate scientists.
While there are some years hotter than average and some less hot, the
overall temperature trend is consistently upward.
Last year was the hottest year we have experienced in Australia since
records began.
The decade just ended was the hottest decade ever recorded.
The increasing global temperature is also apparent in rising sea
level, due mainly to thermal expansion of ocean water, shrinking of
Arctic sea ice, retreat of glaciers, changing rainfall patterns,
earlier flowering of plants, changing habitat range of insects and so
on.
Saying that there has been no warming in the past 15 years is just
wrong.
In the late-1980s, when I wrote Living in the Greenhouse, there was a
robust debate in the scientific community about whether the observed
climate change was being caused by human actions.
Literally thousands of person-years of research effort went into
building climate models to test the two possible explanations:
that the changes were part of the natural pattern; or that there was a
significant human contribution.
By the time of the 1997 Kyoto conference, the scientific jury had
returned its verdict.
No credible analysis has ever explained the observed changes purely as
an extension of natural patterns.
Every model that has explained the changes did so by including the
impact of human release of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide and
methane.
Deciding whether the evidence is convincing is a value judgement on
which people can legitimately disagree, but it is perverse to accept
the assessment of an unqualified person against the considered
professional judgement of the world�s best climate scientists.
You would only do so if you were desperate to believe what the
unqualified individual was saying.
I know smokers who are happy to accept the opinion of somebody they
just met in the pub who thinks smoking doesn�t cause lung cancer.
As for the third point, it need not be costly to slow down our impact
on climate change.
The most cost-effective approach is to improve the efficiency of
turning energy into the services we want, like hot showers and cold
beer � solar hot water, efficient appliances, using public transport
and cycling save me money as well as slowing climate change.
We are still spending billions of public money every year subsidising
the supply and use of fossil fuels.
We should phase out those subsidies, using the money to speed the
implementation of clean energy production and efficient energy use.
If our governments ignore the science and listen instead to
unqualified populists, we risk producing runaway climate change and a
terrible future.
It is true that climate science is not completely settled.
Such a complex question may never be completely settled.
But we know enough to understand that we should act now to reduce the
risk of serious consequences.
There is still uncertainty about the so-called �tipping point� beyond
which we would be unable to prevent disastrous impacts.
Just as any rational person wants to be sure that their food is safe
to eat and their water safe to drink, I believe any rational person
would want our leaders to play safe with the climate.
________________________________________________
Harry
Giga2
> http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/01/31/lord-monckton-s...
Yes, play safe. Get the science a little bit sorted first or we maybe
doing something counter-productive.
Tom P
> On Jan 31, 2:51 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/01/31/lord-monckton-s...
>>
>> 31st January 2010
>>
>> Sceptic lacking facts, credibility
>>
>> By Professor Ian Lowe (Australia)
>>
>> CHRISTOPHER Monckton was paid handsomely to share with us his strange
>> views about climate change in Noosa on Saturday.
>>
>> He has no scientific background.
>>
>> Like any citizen, he is entitled to ask probing questions about
>> climate change and expect clear, honest answers.
>>
>> But he is not qualified to pronounce on climate science.
>>
>> has been no global warming in the past 15 years, that even if there
>> had been it would not have been caused by human activity, and that it
>> are causing.
>>
>> He is factually wrong on the first and third point.
>>
>> On the second, his unqualified opinion is at odds with the expert
>>
>> You would only do so if you were desperate to believe what the
>> unqualified individual was saying.
>>
>> I know smokers who are happy to accept the opinion of somebody they
>>
>> As for the third point, it need not be costly to slow down our impact
>> on climate change.
>>
>> The most cost-effective approach is to improve the efficiency of
>> turning energy into the services we want, like hot showers and cold
>> and cycling save me money as well as slowing climate change.
>>
>> We are still spending billions of public money every year subsidising
>> the supply and use of fossil fuels.
>>
>> We should phase out those subsidies, using the money to speed the
>> implementation of clean energy production and efficient energy use.
>>
>> If our governments ignore the science and listen instead to
>> unqualified populists, we risk producing runaway climate change and a
>> terrible future.
>>
>> It is true that climate science is not completely settled.
>>
>> Such a complex question may never be completely settled.
>>
>> But we know enough to understand that we should act now to reduce the
>> risk of serious consequences.
>>
>> which we would be unable to prevent disastrous impacts.
>>
>> Just as any rational person wants to be sure that their food is safe
>> to eat and their water safe to drink, I believe any rational person
>> would want our leaders to play safe with the climate.
>>
>> ________________________________________________
>>
>> Harry
>
> Yes, play safe. Get the science a little bit sorted first or we maybe
> doing something counter-productive.
The science has been sorted for decades.
Flaps_50!
> http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/01/31/lord-monckton-s...
>
What a pack of lies from an AGW acolyte. Just a coupe of points:
What's his evidence that Monkton was paid anymore than expenses?
What are these subsidies on oil?
What scientific societies carried out due diligence on the hockey
stick?
Cheers
Giga2
> Giga2wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 2:51 pm, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/01/31/lord-monckton-s...
>
> >> 31st January 2010
>
> >> Sceptic lacking facts, credibility
>
> >> By Professor Ian Lowe (Australia)
>
> >> CHRISTOPHER Monckton was paid handsomely to share with us his strange
> >> views about climate change in Noosa on Saturday.
>
> >> He has no scientific background.
>
> >> Like any citizen, he is entitled to ask probing questions about
> >> climate change and expect clear, honest answers.
>
> >> But he is not qualified to pronounce on climate science.
>
> >> has been no global warming in the past 15 years, that even if there
> >> had been it would not have been caused by human activity, and that it
> >> are causing.
>
> >> He is factually wrong on the first and third point.
>
> >> On the second, his unqualified opinion is at odds with the expert
>
> >> You would only do so if you were desperate to believe what the
> >> unqualified individual was saying.
>
> >> I know smokers who are happy to accept the opinion of somebody they
>
> >> As for the third point, it need not be costly to slow down our impact
> >> on climate change.
>
> >> The most cost-effective approach is to improve the efficiency of
> >> turning energy into the services we want, like hot showers and cold
> >> and cycling save me money as well as slowing climate change.
>
> >> We are still spending billions of public money every year subsidising
> >> the supply and use of fossil fuels.
>
> >> We should phase out those subsidies, using the money to speed the
> >> implementation of clean energy production and efficient energy use.
>
> >> If our governments ignore the science and listen instead to
> >> unqualified populists, we risk producing runaway climate change and a
> >> terrible future.
>
> >> It is true that climate science is not completely settled.
>
> >> Such a complex question may never be completely settled.
>
> >> But we know enough to understand that we should act now to reduce the
> >> risk of serious consequences.
>
> >> which we would be unable to prevent disastrous impacts.
>
> >> Just as any rational person wants to be sure that their food is safe
> >> to eat and their water safe to drink, I believe any rational person
> >> would want our leaders to play safe with the climate.
>
> >> ________________________________________________
>
> >> Harry
>
> > Yes, play safe. Get the science a little bit sorted first or we maybe
> > doing something counter-productive.
>
> The science has been sorted for decades.
Only if you regard guesses, distortions, frauds and fairy tales as
science.
erschro...@gmail.com
http://www.elistore.org/reports_detail.asp?ID=11358
"Fossil fuels benefited from approximately $72 billion over the seven-
year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29
billion."
Joern Abatz
> Sceptic lacking facts, credibility
Look who's talking.