Will this Monckton Myths resource reduce his effectiveness at misinforming the public?

You need look no further than the two sides that are doing combat on YA! to see that this will change nothing.

What we really see here is a chess match. One team is using blitz tactics because they believe that there is a time limit, while the other is content to try and take as much time as possible and even slow their opponent down.

Unfortunately, both sides function much like a fire; So long as there is fuel - the fire will continue to burn. As long as there is evidence suggesting that warming is continuing (and as long as the public are made aware of that evidence) people will put stock in the science. Likewise, as long as there are political pundits and pseudo scientists such as Monckton spouting uninformed opinion that supports what a proportion of the population wants to hear, there will be wind in the denialist campaign.

The reality is that the only way in which the controversy of this topic will die is when the science is proven categorically wrong or some supremely massive event occurs and mankind is forced into action.

We've demonstrated the validity of AGW repetitively and there are those who refuse to accept it, just as there are those who refuse to accept that smoking gives to cancer (Lindzen).

@OttawaMike:

When you connect science to politics, it demonstrates that your science is based on politics. This is the same with the connection of church and state. Whenever a church connects itself to the state, it demonstrates that its religion is actually based on politics and state control/power.

@Andy:

Where on skepticalscience does it say that no change in climate occurred in the past 12,000 years? I can't seem to find where you "divined" this information. Also, the cooling period referenced there is to qualify the projections of sea level rise as a result of increased global mean temperature.

Given that the last ice age occurred 10,000 to 110,000 years ago, and the change in temperature is correlated using ice core O2 isotope and CO2 concentrations, which serves as yet another form of evidence for the link between CO2, we know that science already demonstrates that climate change has occurred in the past 12,000 years.

i think it will have very little effect. I still see the argument "how can global warming be true if it's so cold?" If people can't get over this, how can they get over any other argument no matter how big of a lie it is. I see many people who succumb to intellectual laziness on Y!A.

I have to agree with Ottawa to an extent, but not in the way he'd expect. reducing CO2 emissions is not the ONLY course of action needed to be taken with respect to saving the Earth. being a young environmental studies major taking training for "green collar" jobs, my bias is clear. I do not try to hide it. however, i am also a practical person and i know whether things are going to change or not.

when it comes to ignorant deniers who still think the Earth is cooling, there's pretty much no hope in changing their opinions. but for the logical and skeptical minded person, facts are key.

"The BBC is running a show tonight in which they follow Monckton around his tour of the USA and Australia, giving various climate-related talks. Basically they gave him a chance to make his case. "

Well let's look at this in more detail with views from the other side: "He (Monckton) told the judge in London that he wanted the programme, Meet The Climate Sceptics, to include his 500 words or three minutes which, he said, was proportionate in the context of a 60-minute film almost exclusively about him."

If you read the source I provide, this request was denied basically because the judge determined that the agreement between Monckton and the BBC lacked the clarity to grant his application. That seems to make you above quote really quite wrong and one-sided.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/A...

Regarding the BBC, perhaps you should be aware of the thoughts of a 20 year veteran anchor for that media outlet, Peter Sissons, who is soon to release his account of his time at the BBC. Read through the next source I give which is Sissons' own abbreviated account of his time at the BBC.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Le...

So my thought is that your skepticalscience.com source is simply an alignment with the BBC. And that's not very impressive at all. And the arguments on that page are just re-directions back at studies that skeptics call into question. That's just a circular argument. It appears your tactic is just to shout louder and more often to get support.

*******************************************************************************************************

Edit: "LOL! Yes Ottawa, we know that "skeptics" "call into question" any study which goes against their biased pre-determined conclusions."

I'm not sure how you can claim who has or doesn't have a "pre-determined conclusion" but from your question and additional details I can only conclude that you seem to believe that you do not have such and all others who are contrary to your view do.

That would actually be quite remarkable. It would be on the same level as you being always correct and everyone else always being incorrect. Frankly, I don't think that is statistically possible although I'm sure you can find a study that shows me wrong on that supposition. And I just might be skeptical of that study (even if that is my "pre-determined conclusion").

**********************************************************************************

Edit @ Steve C

Politics is what we do to decide how we get through life and how we organize society. It is at the top of the decision scale. Science is a source of information that we can use to make political decisions more efficiently (along with many other factors).

What we have here with Global Warming is science trying to assert to politics that there is a necessary course of action. Many people miss this distinction. I can accept AGW theory as being completely true and that temperatures will rise as predicted by the IPCC or by James Hansen or anyone else and I can also accept the consequences of what that temperature rise may bring.

Now the big HOWEVER. However, none of that means that I have to follow one specific course of action as a result of that. My political choice could be just the accept this temperature rise and climate consequence and adapt to it, or to try other avenues like geo-engineering, or moving inland or building more dykes or whatever. The fact that CO2 might cause temperature rise and temperature rise might cause sea level rise and drought and floods and hurricanes, etc. doesn't mean that my path of resolution rests solely on reducing CO2 emissions. I hope you can see my point of view.

I don't know this Monckton character. I'm a big fan of good science. The posts on "Skeptical Science" debunking Monckton are NOT good science. In fact most of the posts are not science at all, but politics and trite bumper stickers, and many are easily shown to be false. Quite embarrassing ones at that.

Fox News is a privately owned media company. It cannot be impeached.

Good question. Haven't got a good answer, sorry, but wanted to chime in to thank answerer "Fang" for his gem about stupid people being in thrall to those who make them feel smart.

Wow, when is Skeptical Science going to start correcting it's own errors such as there was no warming or cooling for 12,000 years. That is the biggest fallacy that I see on the AGW side. The next big one is using temperatures from a cool down as the basis to compare warming to.

It will have minimal effect, I suspect.

Example: No matter how many times you prove Rush Limbaugh to be a corrupt puppet, he'll still have a loyal fan base.

Stupid people will always praise people who tell them that they're smart.

i doubt it. sadly, people believe what supports their current belief system. it seems almost impossible 2 change peoples minds.