I have seen bits of Monckton on Sunrise, heard him on Alan Jones, read about his having lunch with Miranda Devine, and heard a bit of him on Radio National breakfast this morning. There are several points I want to make:
1. He is being given far too easy a ride even by those journalists who do not trust him. On Sunrise, where there was a young scientist in opposition, he was allowed to get away with the broad statement that there are many (hundreds?) of peer reviewed papers showing that climate sensitivity is low. (That is, increasing CO2 will not lead to much of an increase in temperatures.) He has continually repeated his discredited maths in his letter to Kevin Rudd. There was no real response to this alone the simple lines "the climate scientists who hold this view are in a very, very minority. There is no doubt at all that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe in levels of climate sensitivity which are of great concern to them and which should be acted upon now." How hard is it to say that?
People like John Quiggin argue that engaging with skeptics on science in a debate forum is often counterproductive, and I understand the point. But what is happening now is just as bad.
Sure, people who read widely on the topic know the answers to Monckton's claims already; but the average audience member who is neutral or disinterested in the topic are being done a disservice by what seems to be a non-response to Monckton's direct claims.
If scientists want the science out there, they have to get more aggressive in answering the likes of Monckton.
I haven't had time yet to watch the embedded video interview by Ben Cubby that heads the Miranda Devine article: I hope it's better, but we need more than journalists challenging him.
2. As for those who do already sympathise with him; well what do you expect. I would be interested to know, however, on what basis (according to Devine) Monckton is said to be a mathematician.
Yes I know, he came up with a puzzle that presumably shows he has an interest in mathematics. But why doesn't anyone point out that the last time he took this gamble on his expertise, he lost. (His puzzle was solved within a year, not his estimate of three.)
3. Why does anyone keep calling him "Lord", or even "Viscount" Monckton?. As David Koch noted, Monckton had invited him to call him Christopher, yet people keep insisting on referring to his completely irrelevant title. Did Jeffrey Archer keep getting this from Australian and American interviewers? Not to the same degree, as far as I can recall. I can understand why grovellers to his views like Alan Jones will use the title over and over, but those who don't believe his message, just drop it.
In short, this is no time to be taking a back step in the PR wars over AGW. Scientists need to step up to the plate in defending their work, clearly point out the errors in Monckton's claims, and the reasons he should not be believed.
UPDATE: I've now watched the Ben Cubby interview of Monckton, and it wasn't too bad. Cubby manages to get Monckton annoyed by pressing him on the meaning of "peer reviewed", and Monckton waffles on and on in his pathetically self serving way. It's like that old Keating crack about Bronwyn Bishop: he's a mile wide but an inch deep.
No comments:
Post a Comment