tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/monckton-watch-782/articlesMonckton watch – The Conversation2011-07-14T04:25:40Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/23262011-07-14T04:25:40Z2011-07-14T04:25:40ZHear ye, hear ye – Monckton’s medieval warming tale is climate heresy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2288/original/Jeff_Hardcastle_.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C19%2C856%2C906&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Monckton is leading the public on a merry dance with his claims.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeff Hardcastle</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is a thankless task to track the frequent mistakes Christopher Monckton makes as he misinterprets science, as his statements are frequently at odds with the very scientists whose work he cites. </p>
<p>It is, however, necessary. </p>
<p>In a recent lecture given at the University of Notre Dame in Australia (June 2011) represented by his document “<a href="http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/climate-freedom-hancock-background.pdf">The Climate of Freedom</a>”, Monckton claims, “Dr. Craig Idso has collected papers by almost 1000 scientists worldwide, nearly all of which demonstrate the influence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and show it was at least as warm as, and in most instances warmer than, the present.” </p>
<p>This claim by Monckton has two parts that are important to the discussion of climate change:</p>
<ol>
<li>Was the MWP global in extent and warmer than today?</li>
<li>Does the presence of the MWP call into question human-caused global warming?</li>
</ol>
<p>To be clear, the prevailing view amongst scientists is that the MWP was neither global nor warmer than present times. </p>
<p>In fact, the National Academy of Sciences thoroughly investigated this issue and concluded, “the late 20th century warmth in the northern hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years.” </p>
<p>Other studies reinforce the view that when considered either by hemisphere or globally, the temperatures we are experiencing now are truly unprecedented.</p>
<p>In the past, I have found Monckton’s claims on this topic sorely lacking. </p>
<p>Specifically, he referenced authors whose work he used to either answer “yes” or infer “yes” to questions one or two. </p>
<p>Last year, I embarked on the task of actually reading the papers he referenced, and they all disagreed with Monckton’s interpretation. </p>
<p>To confirm, I wrote to the authors and they assured me that my understanding of their work was more correct.</p>
<p>Was this latest list of “1000” authors different from the list I had previously debunked? Had Monckton finally, after many missteps, put a nail in the coffin of human-caused climate change? Well, let’s find out … </p>
<p>What about this list? Well, if you go to the Science and Public Policy website (of which Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor), you will find a link to a Craig Idso article which is, in turn, linked to a denialist website CO2Science. Once at CO2Science, you’ll learn that they have a MWP Project which lists many articles that reportedly dispute recent warming. So I think I have the correct list.</p>
<p>I’ll begin with the following trivial assumption: the authors know more about their own work than Monckton does. </p>
<p>With this as a starting point, I selected a number of papers in the list and I sent inquiries which asked the two questions I’ve posed here. Now, since this is a list that Monckton is using, you’d think the deck would be stacked in his favor. That is, you’d expect that most or all of these papers to support his view. The problem is … that is not what I found.</p>
<p>Dr. Raymond Bradley responded, “No, I do not think there is evidence that the world was warmer than today in Medieval times.”</p>
<p>Dr. Jessica Tierney also had her work cited in this “study” yet she wrote to me, “No. The MWP is seen in many proxy archives, but it is not yet certain how global in extent it was. Whether or not it was warmer than today’s temperatures depends on the proxy and the place. Most global temperature reconstructions suggest that on average, the MWP was not warmer than today. Regardless, a warm MWP doesn’t disprove the fact that humans are changing climate presently.”</p>
<p>Dr. Lowell Stott reported, “the studies that are currently available for MWP temperature estimates have little to say about global warming in the context of anthropogenic contribution to Earth’s radiative balance. Even if the MWP was as warm or even warmer than the late 20th century, the cause would be completely different because we have very good constraints on the quantities of greenhouse gases that were present in the atmosphere during the MWP.”</p>
<p>Dr. Andrew Lorrey told me that his paper “certainly does not disprove AGW, and it does nothing to approach that particular subject of climate science.”</p>
<p>Dr. Rosanne D’Arrigo stated, “We do not believe that our work disproves” human-induced global warming.</p>
<p>Dr. Robert Wilson added, “It really does not matter if the MWP was warmer or slightly cooler than present. Ultimately, it is the underlying causes of these warms periods that we need to worry about.”</p>
<p>Now, was I surprised by these results? Not really. </p>
<p>You see, I had performed a similar investigation of claims made by Monckton in 2009 with similar results.</p>
<p>I live in Minnesota where baseball is a popular sport. To borrow a baseball analogy, Monckton does not have a very good batting average. Perhaps it is time he was benched. </p>
<p>So where does all this leave us?</p>
<p>First, the existence of the MWP is not in serious doubt; but whether it was global in extent or warmer than today is. In addition, the presence of a MWP does not call into question whether humans are now causing the Earth to warm.</p>
<p>Second, it is very dangerous to rely upon the interpretation of a non-scientist to real science work. </p>
<p>Monckton has never published any peer-reviewed scientific article, let alone anything on climate or energy. Despite this, we are supposed to trust his interpretation of science? Not only that, but his interpretation disagrees with the very scientists who did the work.</p>
<p>When I go to my next family reunion, I’m not going to let my Uncle Jed fix my car because he knows nothing about cars. </p>
<p>I won’t allow my Aunt Betty to teach my daughters calculus (she isn’t a mathematician). </p>
<p>In the same way, I won’t listen to Monckton when it comes to climate science. He has been shown to be incapable of understanding even the most basic subjects of climate science – this would be humorous if it wasn’t so serious. </p>
<p>Monckton is a one-man wrecking crew for the credibility of climate-change deniers.</p>
<p>So now a challenge to Monckton … I have provided you with responses from people whose research you have used. I have shown they do not agree with your interpretation. To a person, they agree with me. </p>
<p>Why don’t you write to them yourselves and see what you find? This was your own list and yet, it doesn’t support your view.</p>
<p>What can I expect from this letter? Well first, the hate mail will start immediately; how can I have the audacity to criticize the “Lord”. Second, Christopher will probably claim that his interpretation of the science is more accurate than the scientists themselves … that they are mistaken. I’ll leave it to the public to judge.</p>
<p>My position is that we need accurate information if we are to make wise choices in confronting the problem of climate change. In addition, we need to shift focus from whether there is a problem to what can be done about it. </p>
<p>If we are wise, the solutions to the climate problem will create jobs, improve our energy diversity, and better our national security. </p>
<p>Who can be against that?</p>
<p>Finally, we need to be more civil and respectful in our discourse. </p>
<p>We still must be candid, particularly when someone has difficulty interpreting the science or when someone gives inferences that are not in accordance with the science. </p>
<p>But when we disagree, we must not be disagreeable.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2326/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Abraham has no conflicts of interest related to this story.</span></em></p>It is a thankless task to track the frequent mistakes Christopher Monckton makes as he misinterprets science, as his statements are frequently at odds with the very scientists whose work he cites. It is…John Abraham, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering, University of St. ThomasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/21042011-06-30T07:13:13Z2011-06-30T07:13:13ZMonckton and Notre Dame: a case for free speech?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2029/original/free_speech_sjgibbs80.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1%2C272%2C766%2C514&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Is stopping someone speaking ever the right approach?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">sjgibbs80/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Is it wise to try to block a speech by Christopher Monckton? Are there other options?</p>
<p>Monckton, a well known climate change sceptic, was invited to speak at Notre Dame University in Fremantle on 30 June. Some supporters of mainstream climate science <a href="http://theconversation.com/notre-dame-university-should-not-host-monckton-2069">opposed allowing him this speaking opportunity</a>.</p>
<p>Monckton’s critics claim he is unqualified and has no credibility on climate change, making his speaking engagement an embarrassment to the university. The trouble is, this seems like censorship.</p>
<p>This is a recurring dilemma. Should those with outrageous or even dangerous views be offered platforms to speak? Or should Holocaust deniers, supporters of paedophilia, critics of vaccination, advocates of racial inequality - and climate sceptics - be censored in some way?</p>
<p>It is useful to examine the issue from three perspectives: the arguments for free speech, pragmatism, and alternative options.</p>
<h2>What about the defence of free speech?</h2>
<p>Dictatorial regimes regularly shut down critical media and muzzle outspoken opponents, sometimes through imprisonment, torture and murder. Free speech is a threat to tyranny and hence is worth defending.</p>
<p>Many large corporations are intolerant of free speech among employees: outspoken criticism, especially of management and when voiced outside the organisation, can lead to dismissal. Critics on the outside may suffer reprisals too. Scientists whose work challenges powerful corporations <a href="http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/99rsppp.html">sometimes lose grants or are denied jobs</a>.</p>
<p>What does this have to do with Monckton? His criticism of climate science serves a powerful vested interest, namely carbon-intensive industries. His livelihood is not at risk, so why should his right to speak be defended?</p>
<p>The argument is that free speech needs to be guarded as a general principle. If exceptions are made, these exceptions become avenues for censorship and are most likely to be invoked against those with less power. </p>
<p>If Monckton is prevented from speaking, why not all sorts of others?</p>
<p>Another argument for free speech is that it provides a basis for better informed decision-making. The idea is to let all express their views, even when they have little credibility with experts, and thereby enable an open engagement with and testing of ideas. </p>
<p>Are Monckton’s views really so persuasive that it’s necessary to prevent him speaking, at a university or anywhere else?</p>
<h2>Any publicity is good publicity: censorship can backfire</h2>
<p>Pragmatically, censorship is risky because it can give greater attention to the views being censored. Trying to block Monckton from speaking may lead to more publicity for his views.</p>
<p>Because free speech is seen as valuable, censorship is viewed negatively. Censors are seen as attacking a valued principle, sometimes creating sympathy for those censored.</p>
<p>Powerful groups engaged in censorship, such as repressive governments, use a variety of techniques to inhibit outrage from their actions. </p>
<p>They operate behind the scenes, to hide their efforts at censorship. They denigrate their targets. </p>
<p>They explain their actions as defence of higher principles, such as national security or public health. They use courts and agencies to legitimise policies. They <a href="http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/03counterpoise.html">intimidate opponents</a>. </p>
<p>Sometimes, however, these techniques are not sufficient to dampen outrage, and censorship backfires. </p>
<p>McDonald’s sued two British anarchists, Helen Steel and Dave Morris, over their leaflet “What’s wrong with McDonald’s?” and used all these techniques to inhibit outrage. </p>
<p>However, Steel, Morris and their supporters were able to frame the legal action as censorship, causing many more people to become aware of the claims in the leaflet. The result was a massive public relations disaster for McDonald’s.</p>
<p>Those trying to block Monckton can readily be labelled as censors. However, unlike governments, Monckton’s critics have few resources to inhibit outrage from their actions such as using intimidation or courts and agencies. </p>
<p>Instead of operating behind the scenes, through inside connections with Notre Dame, they used an open letter, virtually guaranteeing publicity about their efforts. </p>
<p>The case of David Irving is instructive. Irving, a well known historian, is widely seen as a Holocaust denier. He twice visited Australia in the 1980s, receiving relatively little public attention. Since the 1990s, the Australian government has denied Irving entry to the country, resulting in much more media comment than if he had been allowed to visit and speak. </p>
<h2>What are the other options?</h2>
<p>A speaking engagement by someone with contrary views can be used as an opportunity to present one’s own views; for example in leaflets, posters and tweets. Monckton’s striking claims provide an opportunity to present evidence about and dispel misconceptions about climate change.</p>
<p>It may also be useful to point out vested interests. Monckton’s visit is sponsored by companies with a vested interest in challenging climate science.</p>
<p>Yet another option is to ignore Monckton. If he really lacks credibility, why give him so much attention? And why risk turning him into a martyr by trying to censor him?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2104/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brian Martin does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any organisation that would benefit from this article. He is Vice President of Whistleblowers Australia, an organisation that supports speaking out in the public interest. He received an Australian Research Council grant in 2003-2005 that supported his work on censorship backfire.</span></em></p>Is it wise to try to block a speech by Christopher Monckton? Are there other options? Monckton, a well known climate change sceptic, was invited to speak at Notre Dame University in Fremantle on 30 June…Brian Martin, Professor of Social Sciences, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/21032011-06-30T04:59:22Z2011-06-30T04:59:22ZUniversity of Western Australia’s VC disowns Monckton event on campus<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/2015/original/aapone-20100125000216484205-lord_monckton_climate_presser-original_1_.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lord Monckton will appear at two Western Australian universities over the coming days.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Vice Chancellor of the University of Western Australia has distanced himself from climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton, who will <a href="http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/lecture-series-perth-christopher-monckton-final.pdf">appear on campus next Monday</a>.</p>
<p>Professor Alan Robson today <a href="http://www.news.uwa.edu.au/201106303703/uwa-distances-itself-monckton-talk">released a statement</a> which said Monckton’s scheduled talk did not reflect the views or values of the University.</p>
<p>Earlier today he said he hadn’t felt moved to speak out against an individual appearing at the University before, but the news that Monckton would be speaking urged him to act. </p>
<p>“I think it’s an extraordinary case,” he said.</p>
<p>“My view has been to let many flowers bloom and let many voices be heard, but when people take an anti-science view I’m more critical.”</p>
<p>According to Professor Robson UWA had not sought out the appearance.</p>
<p>“It’s not endorsed by the university, it’s not hosted by the university, he’s not invited by the university. A group from the community have hired a venue at the university and we are providing a venue from which he’s going to speak.”</p>
<p>“Somebody rang up and booked a venue and that’s the extent of the involvement.”</p>
<p>Monckton will be giving the annual <em>Lang Hancock Lecture</em> at the University of Notre Dame in Fremantle tonight, an appearance that prompted UWA PhD student Natalie Latter to <a href="https://docs.google.com/a/theconversation.com/document/pub?id=17SkAkgRMhG5bfO7eIwTJCM6QKcJ172dq9nMN8sXCZR0">circulate an open letter</a> condemning the University’s decision to host the visiting peer. </p>
<p>The lecture is sponsored by Gina Rinehart, Chair of mining company Hancock Prospecting.</p>
<p>But Latter says Monckton’s appearance at UWA on Monday comes under a different set of circumstances.</p>
<p>“I’ve read the statement that the Vice Chancellor put out today and I accept that there is a big difference between hosting an event and hiring out a lecture theatre to a community group,” she said. </p>
<p>“But that doesn’t mean I like it.”</p>
<p>Professor Malcolm McCulloch of UWA’s school of Earth and Environment says he was disappointed to see Monckton appearing on campus.</p>
<p>“I am unhappy with it because I think it’s misrepresenting UWA’s view,” he said.</p>
<p>“He’s a non-scientist pretending to be a scientist. Not only is he a non-scientist but he is actually deliberately misrepresenting scientific information. </p>
<p>"If any academic did that they would be subject to reprimand.”</p>
<p><a href="http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/losing-our-rights-to-free-speech/20110630-1grti.html">On 2UE this morning</a>, Monckton said the campaign to stop him speaking at Notre Dame betrayed the “totalitarian tendency” of academics.</p>
<p>He said his ability to give the lecture was a matter of free speech.</p>
<p>But Professor Michael Levine, who specialises in free speech and tolerance at UWA’s School of Philosophy, says this isn’t the case.</p>
<p>“It’s not about free speech,” he said. “The issue is about the best available scientific evidence and the kind of speaker one wants to hear on this type of issue.”</p>
<p>Professor Levine said the real issue lay with the members business community who are partially funding Monckton’s tour.</p>
<p>“You must let people speak, but you shouldn’t confuse a case of free speech with a case where you’re endorsing somebody, and paying somebody, to speak at a university when they’re obviously not the best person to speak on the matter.”</p>
<p><em>The Conversation is putting Lord Monckton’s climate change theories to the test in <a href="http://theconversation.com/monckton-watch-interrogating-the-lords-science-1984">Monckton watch: interrogating the Lord’s science</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>I contacted Lord Monckton for comment on this story. He missed the publishing deadline and has requested that his response be published in full. It follows below.</em></p>
<hr>
<p><strong>Q. I’m interested in your reaction to the petition that’s been going round in Western Australia urging Notre Dame to cancel your visit. Is this an issue of free speech?</strong></p>
<p>I understand that the petition makes the following assertions, to which I shall respond <em>seriatim</em>:</p>
<p><em>Primo</em>, I am alleged to have circulated “widely discredited fictions about climate change” and to have distorted the research of countless scientists.</p>
<p>Please specify three instances in which I am thought to have circulated “<em>widely discredited</em> fictions about climate change”, with a clear citation in each instance of my <em>ipsissima verba</em>, and provide evidence, in the form of at least five peer-reviewed refutations in each instance, that the <em>widely discredited</em> “fictions” are indeed fictions
.
Please specify 25 instance [sic] in which I am thought to have “distorted the research of <em>countless</em> scientists”, with a clear citation in each instance of my <em>ipsissima verba</em>, and with evidence from each of the scientists in question that he or she has directly criticized my work from their personal knowledge of it, rather than from hearing a distorted account of it via an interfering third party, and with evidence in each instance from the peer-reviewed literature that the scientist’s criticism is justifiable, and with evidence in each instance that the scientist in question is unaware of any peer-reviewed literature that might reasonably be held to support my alleged “distortion”.</p>
<p><em>Secundo</em>, “With zero peer-reviewed scientific publications, he has declared that the scientific enterprise is invalid and that climate science is fraudulent.”</p>
<p>See <em>Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered</em>, in <em>Physics and Society</em> for July 2008. See also my commentary on the maladroit attempt by the American Physical Society to claim <em>ex post facto</em> that the paper was not peer-reviewed (hint: it was). Please explain why, after undergoing the discourtesy to which the Society subjected me, I should be at all inclined to submit further papers for peer review, and explain whether a point similar to this one has been raised by any of the petitioners in respect of Al Gore and, if so, with what result, and, if not, why the petitioners are singling me out as uniquely unfitted to speak freely.</p>
<p><em>Tertio</em>, “He stands for the kind of ignorance and superstition that universities have a duty to counter.”</p>
<p>This is mere hand-waving. In the absence of any specific allegation, I am not in a position to answer.</p>
<p><em>Quarto</em>, one of the signatories said it was a disgrace that any university associated itself with “someone who has clearly got no academic credibility”.</p>
<p>At the University of Cambridge, it was not unusual for laymen with interesting things to say to address academic audiences: I have done so myself on many occasions at many universities (including Cambridge), both in public lectures and in faculty-level seminars on subjects as diverse as the theory of currencies and the determination of climate sensitivity. It is difficult for me to discern any evidence that the petitioners have had foreknowledge of the content of my proposed lecture. In the absence of that foreknowledge, it is not clear what is the petitioners’ evidence for their notion that I have “no academic credibility” (whatever that may mean).</p>
<p><em>Quinto</em>, another signatory said he endorsed my right to free speech “for example in a pub or on a soap-box or in a circus arena”.</p>
<p>More hand-waving. It is not clear to me what academic credibility any such remark is thought to possess.</p>
<p><em>Sexto</em>, the petition was organized by a student and signed by only four or five dozen students and their teachers.</p>
<p>It is encouraging that, after weeks of scavenging for signatures, so few members of the Australian academic community could be induced to seek to deny to the University of Notre Dame at Fremantle its academic right to allow and to foster free speech in accordance with its statutes and statutory objectives.</p>
<p><strong>Q. How do you respond to allegations that you purposefully misrepresent science to promote your view?</strong></p>
<p>Please specify three allegations in terms, together with my <em>ipsissima verba</em> in each instance, and with evidence from the peer-reviewed literature that my “view” was erroneous, and with evidence that a suitably-qualified scientist in the relevant field contacted me to inform me of my error, and with evidence that, even after such contact, I persisted in my erroneous view, and with evidence that no peer-reviewed paper could be found which might reasonably be held to endorse my “view”.</p>
<p><strong>Q. What are your thoughts on the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Western Australia distancing himself from your scheduled appearance at the University?</strong></p>
<p>Professor Robson should resign and put himself out to grass immediately. He is plainly unaware of his duty to protect and promote freedom of speech. Students at the university should consider leaving it and going to a proper university, lest they be corrupted by canting sanctimony.</p>
<p>Finally, a question of my own. Please disclose the sources and amounts of your website’s funding and, in particular, please state how much funding the website has received directly or indirectly from taxpayers’ funds. This is a Freedom of Information request.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2103/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The Vice Chancellor of the University of Western Australia has distanced himself from climate change sceptic Lord Christopher Monckton, who will appear on campus next Monday. Professor Alan Robson today…Megan Clement, Deputy Editor, Politics + SocietyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/20692011-06-29T04:23:44Z2011-06-29T04:23:44ZNotre Dame University should not host Monckton<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1987/original/research_Zebra_Pares.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Universities have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of academic and scientific research.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Zebra Pares/Flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On June 30 Notre Dame University intends to host a lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton, one of the world’s most flamboyant climate change deniers.</p>
<p>On learning of this I wrote an <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=17SkAkgRMhG5bfO7eIwTJCM6QKcJ172dq9nMN8sXCZR0">open letter to Notre Dame </a>protesting their decision and asking them to cancel the lecture. </p>
<p>I feel very strongly that Notre Dame’s actions are a betrayal of the academic community, and many of my academic colleagues in Australia and beyond agree. The letter has widespread support from some of Australia’s leading researchers in the area of climate science, policy and law.</p>
<p>The currency for credible academic research is academic integrity. Academic integrity requires honesty, fairness and above all rigour. The reputation of academics and academic institutions relies on this integrity being strictly upheld and supported by a process of peer-review. </p>
<p>We are trained as students to respect the academic process and to pursue our research accordingly. Climate change research, like any academic research, follows these guidelines.</p>
<p>And then there are figures like Lord Monckton. Monckton has no scientific qualifications (he is trained in classics and journalism). He claims that scientists cannot possibly predict or understand the behaviour of the Earth’s climate. He claims that climate science is the “greatest fraud of our time”. </p>
<p>He undermines, ridicules and abuses the values of academic integrity. He accuses climate researchers of doing false research for the purpose of obtaining research funding. He maliciously misrepresents this research. </p>
<p>Respect for peer-reviewed climate science leads to Monckton labelling you a Nazi, authoritarian, fascist, communist, or (if you are young enough) a member of the Hitler Youth.</p>
<p>Monckton recently likened Professor Ross Garnaut to a Nazi, showing a slide with a quote from Garnaut next to a swastika and claiming that the Professor expected people to “accept authority without question”. He called this a fascist point of view. This was an outrageous slur on one of Australia’s most respected economists and the academic community at large.</p>
<p>When scientists such as Professor John Abraham <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-chief-troupier-the-follies-of-mr-monckton-1555">scrutinise Monckton’s misrepresentation</a> of peer-reviewed scientific research, Monckton accuses them of “deliberately dishonest” attacks on his integrity and reputation and threatens to sue them. </p>
<p>Clearly, Monckton is unfamiliar with the peer-review process and does not seem to want to take part in it. This is hardly surprising since his claims cannot stand up to scrutiny.</p>
<p>And this brings me to Notre Dame University’s “proud” decision to host a lecture by Monckton. At the bidding of one of its benefactors (Hancock Prospecting, which is sponsoring Monckton’s lecture) the university is lending its hard won credibility to Monckton. </p>
<p>Notre Dame has a responsibility to preserve the integrity of academic and scientific research by standing with other Australian universities in condemning figures such as Monckton. These figures misrepresent and undermine the work of those who uphold academic standards. </p>
<p>It is grossly inappropriate for a university to provide such views with a platform. Christopher Monckton enjoys the freedom to speak his mind as we all do, and I do not challenge this. What I do challenge is the propriety of a university lending its authority to Monckton who, as Malcolm Turnbull pointed out last week, is little more than “a vaudeville artist”. </p>
<p>Mr Turnbull noted further that Monckton “has no credibility, politically or scientifically, particularly in The United Kingdom and … is a professional sensationalist.”</p>
<p>Would a reputable university invite someone who denied the link between HIV and AIDS or smoking and lung cancer to speak to medical students? Would a reputable university invite an advocate of creationism speak to biology students? Would a reputable university invite a climate change denier with no scientific qualifications to speak to geophysics students? </p>
<p>The answer to each of these questions must be no, and likewise Notre Dame should say no to Christopher Monckton.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/2069/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Latter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>On June 30 Notre Dame University intends to host a lecture by Lord Christopher Monckton, one of the world’s most flamboyant climate change deniers. On learning of this I wrote an open letter to Notre Dame…Natalie Latter, PhD Scholar, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/19842011-06-23T06:18:36Z2011-06-23T06:18:36ZMonckton watch: interrogating the Lord’s science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1835/original/Don_Irvine.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We're putting Christopher Monckton's scientific claims to the test. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Don Irvine/flickr</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Christoper Monckton has <a href="http://landshape.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/LORD-MONCKTON-TOUR_white_background3.pdf">returned to Australia</a> where his unique brand of climate contrarianism is expected to get another good run in the media. </p>
<p>At The Conversation, we’re giving him a run too, but of a different nature. Every time he makes a climate change claim, we’ll test its validity with one of the many atmospheric and marine scientists, geologists, physicists, engineers and economists working in Australia.</p>
<p>What follows is a rolling blog, which we’ll update as Monckton’s Australian talkfest unfolds.</p>
<hr>
<p>“<strong>In Europe we have already got a carbon trading scheme, which in the last two days has now collapsed for the third time in its history with prices heading right down to rock bottom so it makes no difference to anyone as to how much carbon dioxide they emit. If you look at the current economic state of Europe, that’s a pointer to what could happen to Australia if you adopt policies as extravagantly expensive and entirely pointless as far as the climate is concerned.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/much-ado-about-monckton/20110630-1gspr.html">2UE</a></em>, Thursday 30 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/judith-mcneill-2462">Judith McNeill</a>: ‘Extravagantly expensive’ fiscal policies, whether they arise because banks are rescued or for any other reason, may indeed lead to debt levels that cannot be repaid without economic disruption. But such difficulties have very little do with climate policies.</p>
<p>Far from being pointless, raising the cost of carbon-intensive production will improve the competitiveness of less harmful economic processes. <a href="http://theconversation.com/economists-open-letter-calls-for-carbon-price-1639">Appropriately designed and compensated</a>, a price signal will work its way through markets, stimulating new ideas and business innovations that will gradually reduce the emissions intensity of the economy. There is also a <a href="http://theconversation.com/ethics-beats-self-interest-in-carbon-tax-debate-14">strong ethical case</a> for Australia not to free ride.</p>
<p>How much of an immediate economic impact will introducing a price on carbon have? <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-effects-of-a-carbon-tax-some-harmony-amongst-the-discord-1865">Economic modelling</a> suggests it will be manageable.</p>
<p><em>Judith McNeill is Research Programme Director at the Institute for Rural Futures, University of New England.</em></p>
<p>“<strong>One of the things I’ve costed is windmills. They are just about the least cost-effective ways of spending taxpayers’ money, except solar panels. They don’t actually solve anything. Solar will have a future as the panels become more efficient. The problem now is they degenerate very quickly in the sunlight.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/much-ado-about-monckton/20110630-1gspr.html">6PR</a></em>, Thursday 30 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/patrick-hearps-78">Patrick Hearps</a>: Wind power is the cheapest form of large-scale renewable energy, and as coal and gas prices increase, can be directly competitive with fossil power in Australia as it already is in some parts of the world. The global wind energy market has just reached 200 gigawatts of installed wind power capacity – if it “didn’t work” I doubt the electricity utilities would be buying the electricity the turbines produce. Companies like General Electric, Siemens and AREVA wouldn’t be rapidly expanding their wind power sectors, not to mention the booming Chinese wind industry. </p>
<p>Denmark and South Australia already produce more than 20% of their electricity from wind, Denmark has learned how to integrate it so effectively they have plans to reach 50% wind power by 2025. The <a href="http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/">Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan</a> showed with detailed modelling that wind power could supply at least 40% of the energy in a 100% renewable energy grid.</p>
<p>Standard silicon-based solar panels usually come with a lifetime guarantee of 20-30 years. The technology is dropping in price rapidly and is widely expected to hit grid parity within 3-5 years, after which point it will be cheaper to get electricity from the sun than from the fossil fuel grid. </p>
<p><em>Patrick Hearps is a Research Fellow for Energy & Transport Systems at the University of Melbourne.</em></p>
<p>“<strong>Scientists are weighing in because it is politically expedient, socially expedient and above all, financially profitable.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/much-ado-about-monckton/20110630-1gspr.html">6PR</a></em>, Thursday 30 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/stephan-lewandowsky-685">Stephan Lewandowsky</a>: Mr Monckton’s pronouncements from the topsy-turvy zone are, as usual, the inverse of actual reality.</p>
<p>In the place called reality, there is a long and documented history of pressure being put to bear on scientists to downplay the truth about global warming. For example, NASA’s Inspector General has found that during the reign of George W. Bush, political appointees within the agency engaged in active censorship that “reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science.” Likewise, Bush White House staffers replaced assessments of the National Academy of Sciences with a discredited paper by two individuals with no expertise in climatology, while hundreds of scientists within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have indicated that they were subject to pressure to downplay the risks from global warming. In Australia, similar events likely occurred under John Howard but have so far largely escaped the public’s attention.</p>
<p>In the place called reality, scientists do not make a profit from their research. Mr Monckton’s contention of “profitability” is perhaps the most laughable of his utterances from the twilight zone. Unlike share holders of fossil-fuel corporations, scientists and public granting agencies do not have a vested interest in the outcome of research.</p>
<p>Unlike a mining corporation whose profits are tied to the discovery and sale of coal, a scientist’s reputation, promotion, and further funding is tied to the discovery of something interesting that advances knowledge, whatever that may be.</p>
<p>Public funding is for research in the public’s interest.</p>
<p>If there were a scientific case against climate change and its human causes, the world’s granting agencies and climate scientists would fall all over themselves to make it – for humanity’s sake.</p>
<p>The global situation requires engagement by mature adults and Mr. Monckton’s vaudeville act is best left for the circus.</p>
<p><em>Stephan Lewandsowsky is a Professorial Fellow at the University of Western Australia.</em></p>
<p>“<strong>So-called renewable technologies actually emit more carbon dioxide than simply burning coal would do.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://www.2ue.com.au/2ues-david-oldfield/20100621-yrig.html">2UE</a></em>, Monday 27 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/dylan-mcconnell-1602">Dylan McConnell</a>: Monckton’s claim that renewable energy sources emit more carbon that fossil fuels is completely ludicrous and nonsensical. Even when considering a full life-cycle analysis, the emissions from renewable technologies are a skerrick of those generated from burning coal, gas and oil. How someone can honestly claim that the carbon intensity of renewables is higher than the direct burning of carbon fuels defies belief.</p>
<p><em>Dylan McConnell is a Zero Carbon Fellow at the University of Melbourne Energy Research Institute.</em></p>
<p>“<strong>Prediction of future climate states is not possible.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://www.2ue.com.au/2ues-david-oldfield/20100621-yrig.html">2UE</a></em>, Monday 27 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-sherwood-272">Professor Steve Sherwood</a>: I think I can predict than in six months It’s going to be much warmer than it is now in Australia! Seasonal and greenhouse warming are both predictable, for similar reasons. You have an added heat input and it causes the temperature to rise. In one case it’s the change in the tilting of the earth ‘s axis relative to the sun, in the other, its a strengthening of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. In both cases we can measure and compare the heat inputs, and compare the predicted and observed warming rates. It is really not rocket science.</p>
<p><em>Steve Sherwood is co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW.</em></p>
<p>“<strong>Communists and socialist are profiting everywhere from action on climate change.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://www.2ue.com.au/2ues-david-oldfield/20100621-yrig.html">2UE</a></em>, Monday 27 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/rick-kuhn-42">Doctor Rick Kuhn</a>: The real profiteers are the carbon-intensive corporations which are generating climate change. The skepticism of Monckton and like-minded Australian Liberals and Nationals serves their interests. He is also a beneficiary. His Australian tour in early 2010 ostensibly <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/13/climate-scepticism-talk-lord-monckton">netted him $20,000</a>.</p>
<p>Market oriented responses to climate change, like the one operating in Europe, can also generate massive corporate profits through speculative trading in carbon credits, without doing anything to promote the scale of investment in renewable energy that the planet and its inhabitants need. The logic behind the Labor/Greens carbon tax in Australia, also a market oriented non-solution, is similar. </p>
<p>Socialists deserve a hearing precisely because they identify the connection between climate change and capitalism, a system that puts profits before human needs, including our need for a healthy environment.</p>
<p><em>Rick Kuhn is a Reader in Politics at ANU.</em></p>
<p>“<strong>The planet is not warming at anything like the rate predicted.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://ten.com.au/watch-tv-episodes-online.htm?movideo_p=44795">The Bolt Report</a></em>, Sunday 26 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-sherwood-272">Professor Steve Sherwood</a>: You have to look at time scales of at least 2-3 decades to make any meaningful test of climate predictions. If you look at those time scales it’s clear that warming has matched predictions. There has been a slight warming slowdown over the last 10 years, likely due to the unusual solar minimum or other temporary influences. This has not been enough to change the big picture. </p>
<p><em>Steve Sherwood is co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW.</em></p>
<p>“<strong>It’s economically more sensible to let climate change happen and adapt to any consequences where and when they occur.</strong>”<br>
- <em><a href="http://ten.com.au/watch-tv-episodes-online.htm?movideo_p=44795">The Bolt Report</a></em>, Sunday 26 June.</p>
<p><a href="http://theconversation.com/profiles/anna-skarbek-971">Anna Skarbek</a>: A <a href="http://www.climateworksaustralia.org/ClimateWorks%20Australia%20Low%20Carbon%20Growth%20Plan%202011%20update.pdf">recent report</a> found that if we delay reducing our emissions until 2015, we will lose $1.5 billion of energy savings that are currently available, and the cost of meeting the bipartisan 5% reduction target would rise by $5.5 billion per year.</p>
<p><a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf">The Stern Review</a> found that if we don’t act on climate change, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. </p>
<p>If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. </p>
<p><em>Anna Skarbek is Executive Director at Climate Works Australia, Monash University.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1984/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Christoper Monckton has returned to Australia where his unique brand of climate contrarianism is expected to get another good run in the media. At The Conversation, we’re giving him a run too, but of a…Megan Clement, Deputy Editor, Politics + SocietyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/15552011-06-22T20:50:56Z2011-06-22T20:50:56ZThe chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1426/original/aapone-20100203000217465644-climate_change_christopher_monckton-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Christopher Monckton deliberately misleads the public on climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><strong><em>CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Associate Professor John Abraham puts Christopher Monckton’s climate claims to the test.</em></strong></p>
<p>This summer, the people of Australia will yet again be treated to a circus tour. It will make light of one of the most pressing problems facing this planet. </p>
<p>That problem, climate change, will not go away even though an orchestrated group of contrarians wishes it would.</p>
<p>The most outspoken leader of this troupe is Christopher Monckton, a person with excellent credentials in speaking but no credentials in real science (he has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on any scientific topic). </p>
<p>Christopher Monckton presents himself as a fair and accurate interpreter of the science, but a careful examination of his views shows that he is anything but fair and accurate. </p>
<p>He was most recently seen comparing Ross Garnaut, the Australian government’s climate change adviser (and author for this series) <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2765990.html">to a Nazi</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1823/original/Screen_shot_2011-06-23_at_10.48.41_AM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1823/original/Screen_shot_2011-06-23_at_10.48.41_AM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1823/original/Screen_shot_2011-06-23_at_10.48.41_AM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1823/original/Screen_shot_2011-06-23_at_10.48.41_AM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=335&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1823/original/Screen_shot_2011-06-23_at_10.48.41_AM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1823/original/Screen_shot_2011-06-23_at_10.48.41_AM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/1823/original/Screen_shot_2011-06-23_at_10.48.41_AM.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=422&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Monckton succumbs to “Godwin’s Law” and compares Ross Garnaut to a Nazi.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Real scientists have never taken Mr. Monckton seriously. This hasn’t stopped him from traveling the world, presenting his views on science to anyone who will listen.</p>
<p>Mr. Monckton has been shown to have his science wrong on many occasions. Many real scientists have spent untold hours of effort to carefully document his scientific nonsense. </p>
<p>The documentation is critically important because in Mr. Monckton’s speeches, he cites study after study which give the impression that either climate change is not happening, or if it is, we don’t need to worry about it. </p>
<p>Mr. Monckton artfully mixes self-deprecation and humour among slides laden with graphs and scientific images that seem convincing to his audience. </p>
<p>I wondered, what does Mr. Monckton know that 97% of the world’s leading climate scientists don’t? </p>
<p>Is he some Galileo shouting truth from the rooftops? </p>
<p>I had to find out. Last year, I performed a little investigation. I actually read the articles that Mr. Monckton used as evidence against the concerns of climate change. </p>
<p>What I discovered was astonishing. </p>
<p>None of the articles I read supported the claims or inferences that Mr. Monckton was promoting. Just to be sure, I began to write to the authors of the papers. Of the 16 authors I wrote to, all of them agreed with me: Mr. Monckton had misrepresented or misunderstood their work.</p>
<p>So, where does Mr. Monckton’s science go astray? Nearly everywhere. </p>
<p>Here are a few highlights of his mistaken understanding:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Mr. Monckton claimed that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) had a symposium wherein they declared that recent warming was caused by the sun. I wrote to officials at the IAU and they stated that they made no such declaration. Mr. Monckton has twice admitted that he was in error on this claim.</p></li>
<li><p>Mr. Monckton claimed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) uses canvas buckets to measure ocean temperatures because more accurate methods are “not convenient, they go the wrong way”. I wrote to Sydney Levitus at NOAA and asked if this was true. He wrote back, “Mr. Monckton’s statement to the effect that NOAA uses temperature measurements gathered by dragging canvas buckets through the ocean are completely false. In fact, I know of no scientific group that would even think such a technique could supply useful measurements.”</p></li>
<li><p>Mr. Monckton claimed that “the medieval warm period was real, global, and warmer than today”. He showed a number of papers which reportedly support his claim. Well, I wrote to a number of these authors and they all agreed that Mr. Monckton had not accurately presented their work. For instance, Dr. Anil Gupta told me, “You are right, we never said the medieval warm period was warmer than today”. Another researcher, Dr. David Anderson, stated, “Your interpretation (of our work) is more correct”. Dr. Lloyd Kiegwin said that I was “absolutely right,” and Dr. David Frank stated, “temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than during medieval times”.</p></li>
<li><p>Mr. Monckton also wrote that Arctic sea ice is fine, it has been steady for a decade. Monckton used information from a research group called IARC-JAXA. I wrote to two scientists there, Dr. Larry Hinzman and Dr. John Walsh. They both agreed that Monckton had not correctly presented that data. Just to be sure, I wrote to Dr. Mark Serreze from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. He emphatically stated, “Monckton is wrong”.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I could go on and on … but we get the picture. Monckton’s science is wrong and Monckton’s interpretation of others’ work does not agree with the originators of the data. </p>
<p>He makes mistakes on polar bears, claims that the ocean is cooling, claims that the planet is cooling, claims that ocean rises will not be significant, claims that ocean acidification is not a concern, claims that recent global warming is caused by cloud changes, and so on.</p>
<p>It would be one thing if Mr. Monckton just gave speeches to partisan audiences. </p>
<p>It is an entirely different matter when he testified to the US Congress as an “expert” on climate change. </p>
<p>That testimony, in May 2010, presented nine key assertions that were without merit. Mr. Monckton’s assertions were so misleading that a group of 26 scientists (myself included) wrote a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal. </p>
<p>Scientists are generally a reserved group. </p>
<p>Despite this reservation, statements used to describe Mr. Monckton’s testimony included, “Mr. Monckton’s assertions on acidification are remarkable … the basics of this subject have been understood for a long time”. </p>
<p>Another scientist stated, “Monckton’s reasoning and calculation is incorrect … the remainder of his statement is simply chemical nonsense”. </p>
<p>Still another reported, “The submission from Monckton … is profoundly wrong … This is simply a red herring”.</p>
<p>What motivates scientists like myself to spend untold hours of time, without pay, to carefully document Monckton’s false claims? </p>
<p>The reason is simple. </p>
<p>We have a serious problem facing us. In order to make wise and informed decisions, we need accurate information. </p>
<p>Only with good information can we decide which pathway offers us the cheapest and most effective means to deal with climate change.</p>
<p>This is why CSIRO recently <a href="http://www.climatespectator.com.au/news/csiro-drops-sponsorship-conference-featuring-monckton">dropped sponsorship</a> from an <a href="http://amec.org.au/events/convention">Australian conference</a> at which Monckton will be speaking later this month. It’s also why Monckton was <a href="http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2011/06/22/326191_gold-coast-news.html">dumped from a private school networking event</a> on the Gold Coast.</p>
<p>When people like Christopher Monckton misrepresent science, with an obvious agenda to delay action, they make our decisions more difficult and more expensive. </p>
<p>Instead of making light of the issue of climate change, instead of vilifying people who are genuinely concerned, instead of presenting inaccurate science, we should find ways to work together in a civil manner to collectively choose a path forward. </p>
<p>What Mr. Monckton doesn’t tell people is that the technology to deal with this problem is available right now. Enacting solutions now would provide many benefits. </p>
<p>Aside from addressing climate change, it would create jobs, improve national security and diversify our energy supply. Who can be against that?</p>
<p>Instead of fighting science and demeaning climate scientists, we should focus on solutions. </p>
<p>We really don’t need more Moncktons in this debate. </p>
<p>We need people who are respectful, scientifically literate and focused on solutions. </p>
<p>We need people who are not afraid of trusting in our own ingenuity to solve this problem. </p>
<p>We need people who have the courage to take action now for the sake of our future generations. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t that be a breath of fresh air?</p>
<p><strong>This is the tenth part of our series <em>Clearing up the Climate Debate</em>. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Part One: <a href="http://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808">Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community</a>.</strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Two: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515">The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why</a>.</strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Three: <a href="http://theconversation.com/speaking-science-to-climate-policy-1548">Speaking science to climate policy</a>.</strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Four: <a href="http://theconversation.com/our-effect-on-the-earth-is-real-how-were-geo-engineering-the-planet-1544">Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Five: <a href="http://theconversation.com/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550">Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Six: <a href="http://theconversation.com/climate-change-denial-and-the-abuse-of-peer-review-1552">Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Seven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/when-scientists-take-to-the-streets-its-time-to-listen-up-1912">When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up</a>.</strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eight: <a href="http://theconversation.com/australias-contribution-matters-why-we-cant-ignore-our-climate-responsibilities-1863">Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Nine: <a href="http://theconversation.com/a-journey-into-the-weird-and-wacky-world-of-climate-change-denial-1554">A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Eleven: <a href="http://theconversation.com/rogues-or-respectable-how-climate-change-sceptics-spread-doubt-and-denial-1557">Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Twelve: <a href="http://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553">Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality</a></strong></p></li>
<li><p><strong>Part Thirteen: <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558">The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change</a></strong></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1555/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Abraham has no conflicts of interest related to this story.</span></em></p>CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Associate Professor John Abraham puts Christopher Monckton’s climate claims to the test. This summer, the people of Australia will yet again be treated to a circus tour…John Abraham, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering, University of St. ThomasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.