Tim Lambert to debate some British denialist

Tim Lambert is debating a Mr. Monckton this Friday - not clear whether the debate will be put online.  I hope so, it would be interesting to watch.  I think cutting edge research scientists haven't done well debating PR types who are willing to lie or deceive.  Tim's climate expertise isn't cutting edge research, it's in refuting climate denialists and their garbage at his website.  The question is whether he can translate the excellent work he does in blogs into the soundbites you need for a debate here.

Tim gets tons of advice in the comments at the link above and again here.  I strongly disagree with the commenters who say Tim should carefully explain the science.  Much more promising are suggestions to use an honest version of the Gish Gallop, something I called the Behar Canter.  A reasonable alternative would be to take one or two attack points against Monckton and don't give up when he won't answer or lies (but be ready to move on if he makes some kind of maybe-it's-a-problem acknowledgment).

The only general argument I'd make is this one, "a take away theme in the debate. Mainstream scientists look at aggregate data to make their case. Skeptics use local and anecdotal data to sow doubt."

UPDATE:  Couldn't get the live video to work.  Hopefully it'll be available some time.  Comments here suggest Tim went with the straight science approach.  I think maybe even more important than the tactic is repetition.  Monckton gets a lot of practice, so I hope Tim has repeat opportunities to get the same.

Mostly hilarious Monbiot-Monckton exchange

Via Deltoid, here's a great email exchange between George Monbiot and climate denialist Lord Monckton where Monckton appears to have completely made up a lie about being paid damages by the Guardian for an article that Monbiot wrote about him.

It's only "mostly" hilarious because Monckton's obvious lying seems pathological. I hate the trend of psychoanalyzing one's opponents, but it might be appropriate here.

Anyway, Monckton won't bet, so we know he's not completely delusional.

One more in the Misinterpretation of the IPCC Parade

Stoat notes Viscount Monckton (who won't bet) has incorrectly claimed the IPCC just reduced its estimate of our effect on climate by one-third.

RealClimate found the Wall Street Journal making the same mistake.

I just thought I'd add that National Review Online also repeats the talking point:

The new IPCC report has also reduced its estimate of the human influence on warming by one-third (though this change was not flagged for the media, so few if any news accounts took notice of it).

It appears this type of "knowledge" is continuing to circulate through that side of the blogosphere.