In this section I give my impression of the debate, how it was received, and how factually correct Monckton was.
In this section Monckton claims that CO2 acts as a fertiliser and will increase food production significantly. I’ll be looking into the basis for this claims and if this is supported by the scientific literature.
In this section Monckton talks about feedback loops and how they show that climate sensitivity is low. I show how these concepts are used and what this means for the argument Monckton is presenting.
Here Monckton makes the claim that he is a Member of the House of Lords, despite the House of Lords stating that he isn’t. I’ll be looking into the history of this claim and why Monckton has a different opinion on the matter.
In this section Monckton asserts that he can cite paper after paper showing that he’s correct that there’s a low climate sensitivity. And that there is no consensus on this subject.
During this part of the debate Monckton suggests that countries are dropping out of the Kyoto protocol as they don’t see the merit in taking action on a non-issue. But is this the case?
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?