On the 19th of July in 2011 the National Press Club of Australia held a debate on climate change. In this video I will be analysing the claims Monckton made during the debate and if they are correct or not.
The reason I’m doing this is that Monckton challenges his critics to check his sources, or like he put it in this debate “to do your homework”. I’m going to follow him up on this to see if the scientific literature, and other available sources, corroborate what he’s saying.
On the 19th of July in 2011 the National Press Club of Australia held a debate on climate change. I will be analysing the claims Monckton made during the debate and if they are correct or not.
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.
And I could go on reciting paper after paper after paper done by measurement and observation which clearly establishes the strong likelihood that climate sensitivity is low. And therefore it is not acceptable to say that science is settled. You must read the literature and read it widely, and understand that there is no consensus on this, there can be no consensus on this, and the way things are turning out at the moment, the likelihood of high climate sensitivity of any problem whatsoever with the climate is very small indeed.
The problem with the papers Monckton cites is that they are a small subset of what is available in the literature. I was already familiar with the ones he cited as they are part of a few papers the so called sceptics, like Monckton, use. If you do read the literature broadly the picture emerges that we do have a good idea what the climate sensitivity of our planet is. Yes, there are some uncertainties but nothing like Monckton is trying to depict here.
Another salient point is that if there is no consensus on what the climate sensitivity of our planet is, then why can Monckton assert that the likelihood of a high climate sensitivity is very small? Think about that for a moment, as these two points contradict each other.