On the other hand I did fault his argument as it would seem he is basing his argument of climate sensitive/satellite measurements on Lindzen and Choi 09. This paper has now been shown to be wrong. Basing your entire argument on one paper that stands opposed to a vast body of scientific knowledge is risky, when that paper has been shown to be wrong, it’s deceitful.

Thinking he (as a non-scientist) is right while 40 or 50 scientists are wrong doesn’t mean he definitely is wrong (although it suggests it’s very likely), what is does show is incredible arrogance, which was what I was alluding too.

Monckton is so full of gibberish and scientifically incorrect statements though, picking apart every error is pointless and I thought Gareth enough of that just fine.

But if you are going to attack him, can you do better than;

“interesting that someone with no scientific training thinks they know better than one scientist, let alone 40 or 50″ – claiming that he is wrong cause he aint a scientist suggests to me you can’t fault his argument (which you probably could with a little effort)

“there’s something about those eyes that tells you he’s full of it” – again, really?! This is just childish. You can’t really get more ad hominem than attacking the way someone looks.

When he talks about the satellite measurement of sensitivity I can only assume he’s talking about the now falsified Lindzen and Choi paper. Guess Monckton hasn’t been keeping up with the literature. I wonder why.

And I agree with the breakfast host, there’s something about those eyes that tells you he’s full of it. Then again maybe his eyes bulge due to an overly tight neck-tie.

Btw: minor typo should be: “pleasure of interviewing him”.
[Fixed. Thanks. GR]