When will we stop taking Christopher Monckton seriously?

by

It is mind boggling that some people without any expertise in climate are given megaphones to spout their strong but wrong beliefs about climate change.

Internationally, Christopher Monckton is a prime example (even giving congressional testimony in the US), while in Holland Hans Labohm immediately comes to mind (frequently seen in news media and invited by the Dutch ministry of environment).

Scientists are starting to turn the tide on this kind of sophistry.

From the press release, via Barry Bickmore:

A group of five scientists solicited responses from more than twenty world-class climate scientists to the May 6th testimony by Christopher Monckton to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.  These climate scientists “…have thoroughly refuted all of Mr. Monckton’s major assertions, clearly demonstrating a number of obvious and elementary errors,” the report says. “We encourage the U.S. Congress to give careful consideration to the implications this document has for the care that should be exercised in choosing expert witnesses to inform the legislative process.”

The rest of the press release is available at the same link.

John Abraham, who thoroughly debunked Monckton’s claims, and was treated with venomous language and threat of legal action by the ‘potty peer’ as a result, put a lot of work in this as well.

The complete report: “Climate scientists respond”.

Coverage by the Guardian.

Apparently, Monckton responded in his typical fashion, calling the scientist’s response “prolix, turgid, repetitive, erroneous and inadequate”.

Well, being repetitive is hard to avoid when responding to Monckton’s long debunked talking points. This guy is a real piece of work. I hope the day is near that the public, politicians and the media (as the providers of the megaphone) stop paying attention to the likes of him. Then scientists can turn their energy to more productive things again rather than slamming down zombie arguments.

On a somewhat related note, George Monbiot has a nice column (h/t Stoat) in which he cites how some of these characters (Christopher Booker in this case) view science:

“I spent a fascinating few days in a villa opposite Cap Ferrat, taking part in a seminar with a dozen very bright scientists, some world authorities in their field. Although most had never met before, they had two things in common. Each had come to question one of the most universally accepted scientific orthodoxies of our age: the Darwinian belief that life on earth evolved simply through the changes brought about by an infinite series of minute variations. The other was that, on arriving at these conclusions, they had come up against a wall of hostility from the scientific establishment.” (…)

“We have seen a remarkably similar response from the scientific establishment to anyone dissenting from that other dominating theory of our time, that rising CO2 levels caused by human activity are leading to runaway global warming.”

Monbiot concludes:

To dismiss an entire canon of science on the basis of either no evidence or evidence that has already been debunked is to evince an astonishing level of self-belief. It suggests that, by instinct or by birth, you know more about this subject (even if you show no sign of ever having studied it) than the thousands of intelligent people who have spent their lives working on it. Once you have taken that leap of self-belief, once you have arrogated to yourself the authority otherwise vested in science, any faith is then possible. Your own views (and those of the small coterie who share them) become your sole reference points, and are therefore unchallengeable and immutable. You must believe yourself capable of anything. And, in a sense, you probably are.

Robert Grumbine explains how people’s (mis-)perception of science can feed these kinds of strange beliefs:

I think a crucial part of that error is a failure to understand how science works.  While you and I (and others) look at it and see masses of scientists from different areas and reach a conclusion, others don’t.  The extra piece of knowledge we have is that science has to hang together as a coherent picture.  If climate people were seriously wrong about the radiative properties of CO2, then CO2 lasers would not work.  And so on through a very, very long list.  Conversely, if climate types were seriously wrong about CO2’s radiative properties, laser specialists would look at the climate work and point to the errors and that’d be the end of the wrong climate CO2 work.

Instead, they take the view that science is story-telling.  Laser physicists go along with the climate people because the climate folks are telling a story that the laser folks like, not because there’s any particular evidence in favor of it.  The “It’s a liberal conspiracy”, or “They only say this because they want to impose one world government” responses are part of this.  The he said — she said journlistic line is exactly this, as the science is presented as two stories the reader is chosing between.  They think the scientists are doing the same thing.  (How would they know differently?)

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , ,

105 Responses to “When will we stop taking Christopher Monckton seriously?”

  1. Herman Vruggink Says:

    Skeptics allways take other opinions serious, beleavers don’t, because they can’t

  2. Bart Says:

    I believe in applying critical thinking across the board.

  3. jg Says:

    Thank you. The link to the Climate Scientists Response is very helpful for a project I have this week. Good timing for me.
    jg

  4. toby Says:

    Unfortunately, denialists are given such prominence by their politician and media allies, that their spin must be combatted.

    If the US Congress want to be taken seriously as a deliberative body, they need to work on the type of people they invite to give evidence. It is only right that should be pointed out.

  5. adelady Says:

    That CO2 thing always gets me. What do these people do when a family member reports that they’ve got an exciting job working with lasers. What! CO2! Get another job, they can’t possibly work.

  6. Scott Mandia Says:

    Monckton is either ignorant or lying. The misinformation that he keeps expousing has been thoroughly refuted by many different people who are experts, unlike Monckton. Keep in mind that he spouted this nonsense under oath in front of a US Congressional panel.

    Monckton should be investigated to consider if his comments amount to perjury. Furthermore, those Congress people who called on him to testify should be held accountable. They need to stand up and say they were wrong about Monckton, or they need to stand with him as dishonest/ignorant people.

    When 2+2 = 4 and somebody keeps telling us that 2+2 = 5, that person is either extremely ignorant or a liar. Monckton is telling us that 2 + 2 = 5. Take your pick here.

    One can contact their elected officials at USA.gov. Ask them to look into Monckton’s testimony.

    Monckton should volunteer to take a polygraph but he never would do so. He knows he is wrong because he is too smart to be that ignorant.

    Where are Monckton’s supporters? The silence is deafening.

  7. SteveF Says:

    Roy Spencer is a creationist:

    http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

    What’s interesting about his “testimony” is how utterly bog standard and unsophisticated his attack on evolution is. It’s not even up there with the relatively more sophisticated (but still wrong) examples of creationism. Spencer, irrespective of his views on AGW, is undoubtedly a smart guy. Yet despite his intelligence he is clearly incapable of rationally evaluating evidence.

  8. jyyh Says:

    I haven’t taken Monckton seriously for quite a long time… but as he’s a clown, it is clear his actions are emulated by the audience childish enough.

  9. Scarface Says:

    Some day you will thank Monckton for his role in exposing the fraud of the CAGW-movement.

  10. Paul Kelly Says:

    The “we” in the headline reminds me of when the Lone Ranger and Tonto were surrounded by Indians. The Lone Ranger said, “Looks like we are in for it now!”. Tonto said, “What do you mean we, Kemo Sabe?”

  11. Dwight Says:

    So I can reason from all your posts that you also don’t believe a word that Al Gore says on the subject too, seeing as he isn’t a climate scientist either.

  12. Scott Mandia Says:

    Dwight, that is like saying that if Al Gore states that there is a link between smoking and lung cancer we should dismiss him because he is not a medical doctor.

    Monckton is calling just about every climate expert and every international scientific body a bunch of ignorants and liars. Gore is presenting the consensus view. When one claims to know better than all of the world’s experts, then his credentials should be considered.

    The burden of proof is on Monckton and he is failing miserably.

  13. Bart Says:

    Scott, well said.

  14. Eli Rabett Says:

    Monckton is into very Red Queen territory, and seeing him at work is simply .

    There are two ways to attack his malicious self promotion. The first is what John Abraham has done, go through his nonsense in detail. You can do this on the web where cyberspace is broad, but in person you either have to find a single sharp point to puncture his bag of wind, or simply make him an object of derision. Given his pompous self regard, that should not be very hard, just a bit of watching his performances on video.

  15. kkloor Says:

    Bart, who takes Monckton seriously, except the hardcore on his side? Sure, some journalists still quote him. But the problem there is that if he’s seen as a de facto spokesperson for the skeptic community, then some journos believe (reasonably so) that he can be quoted reflecting that community’s perspective.

    But let me make a larger point about Monckton: he’s so gonzo out there that he makes his side look ridiculous. So if you belonged to the climate concerned community, and you wanted to be strategic about this, then I would say the more Monckton appears in the public eye, the better he makes your side look.

  16. Pascvaks Says:

    Much valuable time and energy is wasted on ‘Political Climate Science’. Scientists who worry about the waves and currents of the public policy debate vis-a-vis their concentration are not concentrating on their science. Scientists have better things to do than to waste time in the politics of anything. (Or they should.) They’re like fish out of water and helping no one, especially themself.

  17. Marco Says:

    Keith, the Republicans apparently take this guy seriously. A whole frikking political party that may well get a majority in the next elections.

    Another problem with Monckton is that he can tell a lie very convincingly. We’ve had quite a few of those people in the history of humankind, and there are several examples of these people that still have considerable influence. For example, regardless of how many times James Randi shows Uri Geller is a fraud, Geller STILL gets his own TV shows with millions of viewers. In fact, I would not be surprised if many more people know Geller than know who James Randi is.

  18. Barry Woods Says:

    gore presents the consensus view!!

    seriously, I thought he was an embarrasemnt now for the AGW scientists.

    20 foot (implied soon) sea level rises, and he buys by the beach in florida..

    when his carbon footprint is only merely 10 times mine, I’ll stop laughing.

    agree,Monckton is a sideshow, that the ‘warmists’ (Richard Black BBC word)love, he is a much more easy target than seriously sceptical scientists

  19. TimG Says:

    grumbine’s repsonse implies this is a debate about the radiative properities of CO2. It is not. It is about the magitude of these effects on a complex chaotic system and data from lasers tells us absolutely nothing about that. I am sure grumbine is perfectly aware of that but he has a POV to push and is happy to play fast and loose with the facts in order to advance his POV. IOW – he is no different from Monkton.

  20. TimG Says:

    Also – Monkton has no monopoly on conspiracy theories. I have lost count of the number of so called climate scientists who claim that climate sceptism is nothing but the result of a nefarious plot funded by big oil.

    There used to be a time when scientists simply reported the science without pushing a policy agenda (i.e. science says smoking increases the risk of cancer – it does not say tobocco should be banned). If scientists want to be treated as scientists instead of yet another group of political lobbists they have to start keeping their opinion on climate policy to themselves.

  21. Scrooge Says:

    So it looks like some in here don’t think scientists can be citizens. Its their world and families that are at risk too. Why would anyone put up with the crap they go through. They have found out that being a good citizen is not the easiest thing in the world.they are asked to do a job, they do it well, and then attacked by the nutters. I like to think I would be as strong faced with the same adversity as climate scientists. Keep up the good work.

  22. TimG Says:

    Scrooge,

    Holy red herring batman!

    Scientists have a choice. They can either speak as scientists which means they must have no opinion on policy. Or they can speak as political activists which means they give up any authority they might have had as objective scientists.

    The bottom line is one cannot simulateously choose to be involved in political activisms while demanding to be repected as an objective scientist. Frankly, I don’t understand why so many cannot comphrend this.

  23. Marco Says:

    Barry, that supposed “beach-side property”, as the Wattsians try to sell it, is high up the mountains that even a 20 foot sea level rise won’t reach (which gore never claimed was imminent).

    Barry, you’ve been duped (again) by the echo chamber.

  24. Scrooge Says:

    Hard to find any human that is not subjective. Lucky that science is objective. Fake science like Monktons is subjective. So what do deniers do? Say that those that really understand the problems have to forfeit their right to speak. Its the same old worn out agenda, Can’t attack the message, attack the messenger.

  25. harry Says:

    @Scott,

    Why should Lord Moncton be “Monckton should be investigated to consider if his comments amount to perjury.”

    Why should you not be investigated to consider if your comments amount to perjury?

    Who has checked your credentials, found them acceptable so you can judge anyone else?

    Please, this post is quite hypocritcal.

  26. harry Says:

    # Eli Rabett Says:
    September 24, 2010 at 14:25

    Monckton is into very Red Queen territory, and seeing him at work is simply .

    There are two ways to attack his malicious self promotion. The first is what John Abraham has done, go through his nonsense in detail. You can do this on the web where cyberspace is broad, but in person you either have to find a single sharp point to puncture his bag of wind, or simply make him an object of derision. Given his pompous self regard,

    @Eli,

    I think this a very accurate observation from the mirror. Bag of wind, pompous does really fit you.

    I assume you are not the alter ego of Lord Moncton?

  27. MapleLeaf Says:

    I love the straw men being argued here and red herrings being floated by devout Monckton supporters. This post is about Monckton AND his cohorts/affiliates, not Al Gore or anyone else for that matter.

    Let me be perfectly candid. Monckton is deceitful, a liar and a cheat. It is really quite that simple and those facts has been objectively and quantitatively demonstrated time and time again by independent people, scientists and groups. Most recently by the 21 eminent scientists. Worse, when errors are pointed out to him he simply continues to perpetuate them.

    And anyone who supports Monckton (e.g., Watts, Morano, Plimer, Nova) is just as guilty as Monckton, and, like Monckton, a joke too. Watts has seen the repeated eviscerations of Monckton’s ‘work’– so he knows the truth…yet he gives Monckton a grandstand to threaten others and spout yet more lies. Talk about aiding and abetting criminal behavior.

    Monckton committed perjury and should be charged, as should those who invited him to speak to the US congress.

    The double standards and hypocrisy of the ‘sceptics’ is truly mind boggling.

  28. harry Says:

    @mapleleaf,

    I assume I should also be charged? I do not have any double standards, hypocrisy is your party.

    But please, feel free to charge me.

    If you think you are flawless.

    Let the one without sins start the stoning…..

    How appropiate, regarding the immanent stoning of an innocent Iranian woman.

  29. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    Perhaps a more important question is:

    “When will we stop taking Anthony Watts seriously”

  30. MapleLeaf Says:

    Again, this about Monckton and those like Watts who aide and abet him.

    Harry you are arguing straw men. And what the hell has a poor and unfortunate Iranian woman got to do with this? Nothing. Please stop it, it is a pathetic defense on your part and smacks of desperation.

    Harry did you commit perjury before the US congress? I don’t think so– so no, you should not be charged.

    You and your ilk accuse climate researchers of fraud, scientific misconduct et cetera, yet you are here defending Monckton’s blatant fraud, misconduct and lies. That IS hypocrisy and IS a double standard.

  31. harry Says:

    @Maple,
    I think you answered your own question by posing it.

  32. MapleLeaf Says:

    “I think you answered your own question by posing it.”

    Please elaborate…which question?

  33. harry Says:

    @Maple,

    You are losing yourself in exxagerations. Please calm down, you might hurt yourself.

    But I stand to my convictions, which are obviously different from yours.

    Which is my right versus yours.

    I do not believe your reasoning,

    you do not believe my reasoning.

    That makes it even.

    If I should be tried for my convictions,
    so should you.

    I am not accusing climate researchers of fraud,
    I am only asking them for the release of data and protocols.

    Until they do so, I will be accusing them of hiding the decline, based on flawed data.

    And they are: Flawed data.

    Moncton has nothing to do with this, it is not his data.

    Once data quality has been verified, I will go and have a look.

    But I assume that you are not willing to guarantee the quality of global average gridded temperature data, be it version 2 or version 3 or version 1.23456?

    Maple, you are trying hard, but you are figthing a Don Quichote fight.

    Which, by irony, is the fight I would like to do.

  34. MapleLeaf Says:

    Harry,

    Wow, talk about projecting. And yet more straw men arguments.

    “Moncton has nothing to do with this, it is not his data.”

    Monckton fudged the graphs, misrepresented teh science and distorted the scientific findings……the data was OK until he started tampering with it.

    “I am only asking them for the release of data and protocols.”

    Uh, huh….sure. Anyhow, go here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

    Go here:

    http://clearclimatecode.org/

    Go here;

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html

    Go here;

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2010/pr20100513b.html

    I could do this all night….more data than you would ever know what to do with.

    Now, how about you go back to defending Monckton….

  35. sod Says:

    But I stand to my convictions, which are obviously different from yours.

    Which is my right versus yours.

    I do not believe your reasoning,

    you do not believe my reasoning.

    That makes it even.

    If I should be tried for my convictions,
    so should you.

    great reasoning.

    so i think that 2+2=4

    you think that 2+2=5

    both things are even!

    great!

  36. Bart Says:

    Keith (kkloor),
    As Marco also points out, apparently Monckton is being taken seriously by many, including important figures in the political arena and in the media. I kind of agree with your second paragraph (though it’s a bit at odds with that he is taken seriously), but perhaps I’m not so strategic about these issues.

    (thanks Øystein)

  37. MapleLeaf Says:

    Keith,

    In view of your comments here I can only assume and hope that you no longer take a great many “skeptics” seriously, “skeptics” who openly support Monckton.

  38. Rocco Says:

    Bart, you need some troll control here.

  39. Barry Woods Says:

    I am a catastrophic man made change sceptic, happy to be lukewarm on AGW
    Yet, Monckton is as much a sideshow to me as Al Gore is… Monckton is an easy target, thus gets lots of attention, I think he even relishes it..

    I for one would never have paid him that much attention or been really aware of him, whilst someone like Judith Curry is much more of a different propostion, happily discusses on her blog that AGW is still at the hypothesis stage..

    And the carbon footprint of one of Al Gore’s homes is? And Al Gore’s carbon footprint, don’t tell me he lives like a hermit, barely consumes any electricity and never flies. Oh and only has a 2 bed shack somewhere…

    Whereas my family have not been on a plane for 9 years. I’ve even bought a JP Morgan Climate Care carbon offset for posterity for the lifetimes mileage of my car. Something to frame and show the grandchildren.

  40. harry Says:

    @SOD,

    As usual,

    you are trying to derail the discussion with non-arguments, strawmen, handwaiving, wailing.

    Great job!

    Please do something constructive.

    @Maple,
    You must be aware of the most recent developments, and the links to RC will not solve this. They are trying to repair the hole in the hull, after a Titanic strike with ice.

    Monckton is very successful with his efforts.

    And he may be not acurate with data, but who else is?

    Who will throw the first stone, since he or she is without sin?

    (BTW, OT, that was the reason for mentioning the poor Iranian lady)

  41. sidd Says:

    Perhaps more people would ignore Monckton if you stopped mentioning him.

  42. harry Says:

    @Maple,

    Face it:
    NOAA needs 100 million to get the temperature grid up to nowadays standards,

    The Metoffice will recalculate the entire HadCRUT data set, with new funding,

    BOA will redo their historic temperature registration,
    KIWA has to redo their historic temperature records,

    models have to be revised because scientists have forgotten to include albedo, water vapour, ozone and solar influences?

    Data are unreliable, models are flawed, models are treated as being data and weather is treated as being climate.

    And then you find it strange and/or despicable that someone like Lord Moncton uses these flaws to spit the AGW community in the face?

    Please, stop the warmongering, get to work and release reliable data and procedures, with abundant meta data. Much more meta data than we have now. And do not hide behind the massive volume of data, since it is not massive, it is a ridicously miniscule amount that has to be curated and tended. But make the process transparent, and do not lose algorithms, note books or any other relevant information.

    It is beyound me that I should have to buy the CD’s with the scanned manual registrations on paper of the long Island Light house to be sure that they have been properly transcribed and coded into the GHCN database. But that is what is currently the situation. Unfortunately.

  43. MapleLeaf Says:

    I’ll second that Rocco.

  44. Eli Rabett Says:

    FWIW, CO2 lasers and the radiative properties of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are tightly linked through, among other things, the relationship between spontaneous and stimulated emission and absorption of radiation, as well as collisional energy transfer in gases.

    If, for example, the folk who were disputing the existence of a greenhouse effect with Roy Spencer and Roger Pielke Sr., were right, there would be no CO2 laser.

    And Harry, take off your big red nose and stop clowning around

  45. Marco Says:

    Amazing, so much armwaving by Harry. More amazing how he defends Monckton making up data and analysis. All’s fair in love and war, eh? At least we know what part of Schneider’s so-often-abused quote Harry has chosen:
    the ‘effective’ side. No need being honest.

  46. Barry Woods Says:

    maple leaf and rocco – seem to think different view points ‘should not be allowed’….

    of course here, Bart decides that and runs an intelectually honest blog..
    But elsewhere?

    Maple Leaf seems to suggest – ‘guilt by association’ ! –

    To what level will you take this, worked in the same university, on a project, commented on Watts Up blog, Or Jo Nova’s, or wrote an email to? ….

    I’ve met Steve Mcintyre once ! George Monbiot and Sir John Houghton, so should they be concerened?

    I’m also a good friend of someone who was a scientist involved in the IPCC working group 1, (‘hockey stick’ report) should they be concerned that their friend is a ‘sceptic’, and worried for their career?

    Labelling people, guilty by association is going to win few friends and is not going to persuade anyone, to the causal outsider it just looks like an agressive tactic to close down a debate.

    What about Joe Romm, biting the BBC hand that has been openly fully on board the AGW consensus for years, that was not very smart can he be taking seriously?.

  47. Eli Rabett Says:

    Labeling people by casual association is wrong. Labeling people who have long established associations with each other on policy issues is not. Confusing the two is an attempt to avoid the latter.

    Romm points out where he believes the BBC to be wrong. That is honest. Barry Wood’s conclusion about why he should not do this? You decide.

  48. Barry Woods Says:

    For the record, please don’t malign me, ROMM can do whatever the hell he likes, but Climate Progress is not honest. It is intolerant of other points of view.. The BBC allows them.

    you decide……….

  49. Barry Woods Says:

    For the record again…

    Point out where I make this assertion?

    Eli:
    Barry Wood’s conclusion about why he should not do this?

    Absolutely, I did not say he should not do this, I merely stated it wasn’t VERY smart.. He can keep it up as far as I’m concerned……. it makes him look foolish

    Eli’s honesty?

    you decide…..

  50. Bart Says:

    Barry,

    You’re welcome to voice your opinion here irrespective of how far removed from mine it may be, but this is not a clearinghouse for deleted comments at another blog, esp not if it’s merely a rant.

  51. Barry Woods Says:

    Sorry.. don’t want to hog your blog.

    We were making a point about honesty….

    Mine was questioned… (I didn’t pick up on it straight away, it only makes sense if you allow the comment in moderation though, ie Romm’s dishonesty, deleting comments))

  52. MapleLeaf Says:

    “maple leaf and rocco – seem to think different view points ‘should not be allowed’….”

    Absolute and utter BullS@t. A complete straw man.

    We are dealing with troll-like behaviour here. McIntyre does not tolerate it, John Cook does not tolerate it, Anthony Watts does not tolerate it.

    e are dealing with at least one person who does not wish to look at data from international agencies because they are linked through a RC portal, for example. They do not even understand.

    Anyways, this post is about Monckton. I would like readers help draw up a list of people and groups who take Monckton seriously. If I am wrong, and someone can demonstrate why, then we can strike that person/group from the list:

    UKIP
    US Republican Party
    Tea Party
    Inhofe
    Heartland Institute
    Anthony Watts
    SPPI
    FOX news
    Beck
    Limbaugh
    CEI
    Jo Nova
    Plimer
    Friends of Science
    Marc Morano
    Delinpole

    Can anyone please confirm whether or not these groups/individuals have openly stated that they DO NOT support Monckton’s antics and/or his agenda?

    Koch Industries?
    Montford?
    Judith Curry?
    McIntyre?
    Singer?
    Lindzen?
    Spencer?

  53. Barry Woods Says:

    why do people care about Monckton so much…
    He is irrelevant to me as Romm is…

    People have to go round making statements on record, that they DO NOT support him.. what sort of environment is that..

    But for the Guardian, hating him so much, I doubt that I would have even heard much of him.

    Does Bart have to state whether he supports or DOES NOT support, Romm, or Al Gore, or someone similar…

    Does Bart have to state whether he supports or NOT by Judith Curry, if he does, does that make him associated with her. It sounds all very political rather than scientific.

    Is Monckton really getting a lot of attention in the USA?

    He is largely ignored in the UK, where the entire political establishment and the opposition have a pro AGW consensus position..

    I guess, in the UK and Europe will just have to sit back and wait and see what happens in America (and China)

    A cold winter might make the elections interesting there.. (rightly or wrongly, what do the US public think?)

  54. Barry Woods Says:

    Rocco Says:

    September 26, 2010 at 00:20
    Bart, you need some troll control here.

    MapleLeaf Says:

    September 27, 2010 at 00:59
    I’ll second that Rocco.

    How is that a straw man, that is my perception of what they said.

  55. MapleLeaf Says:

    Any scientists who enables or supports Monckton is damaged goods. Monckton’s actions are the antithesis of acceptable scientific protocol. That is why I would like to know where Judith Curry and other scientists stand on Monckton, as their position speaks to their scientific practices and ethics.

    There is a difference between Monckton and some of the people being listed here by Barry and Harry. Gore and Romm have, to my knowledge not committed perjury before Congress like Monckton has. Nor have they threatened and/or attacked climate scientists. The list of transgressions by Monckton goes on and on.

    I hope that Barry also now considers McIntyre and Watts to be dishonest for enforcing their blog rules (e.g., McIntyre frequently ‘snips’/edits/censors posts). I hope Barry agrees that Watts is not being honest or ethical when Watts investigates the IP addresses of people challenging his views and then releasing the information publicly.

    Barry, CP did not allow your comments through, booh hoo. Really, you seem to think that the world revolves around you or that there is some global conspiracy to silence you and your ilk. Going by your rants here, I can see why CP perhaps did not want to clutter his blog with your diversionary content.

    And now I see that you are, IMHO, abusing Bart’s blog.

  56. Barry Woods Says:

    that is for Bart to decide. go to Judith’s blog ask her directly, if it matters so much, I do not care for monckton, myself, to me he seems hyped up by his opposition, imho

  57. MapleLeaf Says:

    “that is for Bart to decide”

    Indeed. And Bart has already warned you here:

    September 27, 2010 at 16:15

  58. Barry Woods Says:

    Indeed..

    Do you consider Romm diishonest for delting people, in a discussion that was on topic, but merely a different point of view.
    I was actually defending Richard Black, someone who I have been highly critical of.

    Why not ask Judith directly of your ‘concerns’, rather than talking behind her back…
    I see a lot of people running her down all over their blogs, but no one brave enough to go directly…

    Each blog, takes a while to adapt to, I will do my best….

    Not to be off topic, I have no time for monckton, but just because of that. It does not mean every other sceptic is wrong.

  59. MapleLeaf Says:

    “It does not mean every other sceptic is wrong.”

    That is a rather vague statement–I assume you mean being wrong about climate science. Anyhow, but is does mean that the huge number of “skeptics”, bloggers, lobby groups and politicans who do support him (as demonstrated above) are in the wrong and are anti-science…so if you strip away all those groups and individuals, the ‘skeptical’ movement (like the creationism movement) practically vanishes.

    “but no one brave enough to go directly…”

    Stop generalizing. Michael Tobis has engaged Judith on her blog, as have several others. With time, others will too…

    “Do you consider Romm diishonest for delting people, in a discussion that was on topic, but merely a different point of view.”

    I am not going to take your word for it. I’d have to see your exactly what you intended to post in order to voice my opinion on that.

  60. harry Says:

    @Eli, Marco, Maple,

    I will do some more armwaving. Why do you not respond to me on the content, rather than ridiculing me? I do not mind to be ridiculed, I am a joker, and want to see people happy. But I also try to raise some serious concerns, which nobody seems to take care of. AGW, climate science is nonexistent, it is based on flawed data.

    Until the data are verified and certified, you do not have a case. A global temperature increase of 0.6 deg Celcius is well within the error margin of the measuring devices. Let alone that this marginal. errorprone increase can be related to global CO2 emissions.

    Lord Moncton can only exists by virtue of the obvious gaps in knowledge. And he uses them artfully and skilled.

  61. MapleLeaf Says:

    “Lord Moncton can only exists by virtue of the obvious gaps in knowledge. And he uses them artfully and skilled.”

    No, wrong. Anyone can lie about anything anytime– liars do it all the time, kinda like you seem to be doing here right now (see below). Christopher Monckton is responsible for his own actions and choices (don’t try and lay the fault elsewhere); the same holds true for people who support and aide and abet him.

    “AGW, climate science is nonexistent, it is based on flawed data.”

    Well, when you come up with whoppers like that it is no wonder some people ridicule you. Either you are completely ignorant of climate science and radiative transfer theory (and history thereof) or you are lying– Arrhenius et al. formulated the ground work for the theory of AGW long, long before we had global SAT records. So the radiative forcing of GHGs is not based on the allegedly seriously “flawed” SAT data that you are so obsessed with. Also, please then tell those people using CO2 lasers that their instruments are a figment of their imagination.

    And where do you get 0.6 C warming from? Even the satellite data (RSS; TLT) show that globally (well almost, the satellite data do not include the high Arctic and Antarctic) temperatures in the lower troposphere have warmed by over 0.5 C since 1979 (0.0163 C per year), never-mind the warming observed since pre-industrial times. The error bars on the GISS graph or CRU are much smaller than 0.6 C. More like plus/minus 0.05 C, currently, or plus/minus 0.1 C early in the record.

    “errorprone increase can be related to global CO2 emissions.”

    I have no idea what you are trying to say. Errors in the data are because of CO2 emissions?

    Actually, please DO stop your arm waiving, pontificating and dare I say, trolling.

    Alternative points of view are one thing, healthy even, but they are not so when presented as you and Barry are trying to. Allowing alternative points of view, IMHO, also does not mean opening up the floor to every crackpot idea out there. Bart probably disagrees, but this is his blog, so I guess we have to entertain the whole gambit of ideas and then try and sort the substance from the chaff.

    Right now I’m seeing very little substance form the “skeptics” but rather lots of chaff. But that fact is nothing new then is it? ;)

  62. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart,

    If I may very humbly make a suggestion for your blog. How about having open threads from time-to-time? There people can post and debate to their heart’s content (within reason), but then there has to be at least some moderation going on the main threads. Sometimes ideas for main stories are “born” on OT threads, so they can be useful.

    They apply a similar approach at CA (with vigorous moderation mind you) and it seem to work at CA. Want to rant? Sure, go do it on open thread, but this thread is about “X” and only relevant contributions will be considered.

    Just an idea….

  63. harry Says:

    @Maple,

    Please calm, down, you will hurt yourself. You have a family to care for. Please.

    I am not completely ignorant of climate science or radiative transfer. I have my own ideas about radiative transfer, but that aside. I am aware of the laws of thermodynamics, I can even do some calculations on it (understatement). Arrhenius admitted his error within 10 years and revoked his first calculations, as we all know.
    But what about your strawmen? The proof of the effect of greenhouse gases has not yet been delivered. Let alone the fact that these greenhouse gases were released by us, humans.

    The proof is not there.

    No way. Start shouting, you do not have anything. You cannot prove that the global average temperatures of GISS, Crut, whatever have anything to do with a global temperature average (they doubt it for themselves). You are running after spooks and ghosts you created yourself,

    I pity you.

  64. MapleLeaf Says:

    “Please calm, down, you will hurt yourself. You have a family to care for. Please.”

    Google “projection”. That is what you are doing, again. If anything, I’m rather worried about you old chap. Now I am going to have a very pleasant picnic with my family and friends. It is balmy out today, must be AGW ;)

    “The proof is not there.”

    You continue to show your ignorance about the scientific method. Regardless, in science, one cannot “prove” anything.

    A waste of time providing you these links, but maybe someone following this thread actually wishes to learn and is open minded:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-Scientific-Guide-to-the-Skeptics-Handbook.html

    “I pity you.”

    LOL, that is your opinion and a rather lame ad hominem, not to mention that it does not speak to the facts about AGW. Besides, like I really care what an internet troll thinks, not :)

  65. harry Says:

    @Maple,

    Thanks for returning the sincere hopes. I am wondering about who would be the troll.

    I just finished my BBQ session with my family.

    I know the scientific method, I use it every day. It is just that I do not see how “climate scientists”can use the scientific method. They seem to assume that the outcome of models is equivalent to the outcome of an experiment.
    A model is a fiction. Nothing less, nothing more.

    I despise people who cannot show anything more than model outputs.

  66. adelady Says:

    Not all science is experimental, surely.

    Vulcanology, glaciology, astronomy, seismology, archeology, geology, palaentology and dozens of others are all observational fields leading to theories leading to, horror of horrors, models. The modern world has given us computers to allow speedy compilation of observed data and to do calculations at speeds unimaginable to those previously limited to pen and ink.

    To say it’s not science because it’s not done in a laboratory is a very limited view. Much like the naive views of the schoolchildren I deal with.

  67. MapleLeaf Says:

    Sorry to be off-topic, this is the stuff that open threads are for, but have your school children seen this adelady?

  68. Marco Says:

    Harry, more armwaving from you: Arrhenius corrected his initial calculation, but STILL predicted significant warming. At 1+ degrees per doubling, pretty close to the value determined much later.

    Regarding all the other armwaving: you do not provide any factual evidence for your claims. You just make large claims. Take for example this:
    “models have to be revised because scientists have forgotten to include albedo, water vapour, ozone and solar influences”

    Your evidence? If I’d show this to a modeler they will read it, read it again, then a third time, look at me and ask “who’s this ignoramus?” GCMs DO include albedo, water vapor, ozone and solar influences. It’s my experience that people who make the large claims you make without any evidence (and of which several are so easily refuted) don’t learn anything from being refuted. That is, they’ll gladly repeat the same claim over and over, despite being shown wrong over and over. It reminds me of Tim Ball telling a group of climate science students that GCMs do not include the Milankovitch cycles. Despite being corrected by a student (who was working with a GCM), he later repeated that same false claim to the same group of people.

  69. Barry Woods Says:

    I would like to show eli what posted at Romm’s, Eli has requested it, if our host would allow it?

    Having a different point of view that people disagree with is not trolling..
    repeated accusations of it, could be perceived as trying to ‘shoot the messenger’ could be considered ‘trolling’ as well.

    In my past experience the trolls usually hide (but not every one) behind ‘blog names, and do not use there real names, i do not know who is who from the characters here yet, so I have to make my choices on behaviour. I only use my real name, at RealClimate, Deltoid, Bishop Hill, Climate Progress, the BBC, Collide a scape and here.

    Our host welcomes different views. I make mine sincerely, as I hope Bart can testify, from my comments at Collide a Scape. My observation, is that monckton seems to get more attention, form the pro side of the debate than the sceptical.

    I sent Richard Black, the deleted post at Romm’s, he thanked me, and said he appreciated my contributions at his blog (even though I am one of his biggest critics), courtesies that Romm seems to lack. So im my mind both Monckton/Romm destract from the debate, they do NOT define it.

    Judith Curry’s latest post on consensus , is much more interesting, for example.

  70. adelady Says:

    Mapleleaf – I don’t teach in schools, I tutor children with learning problems. But I have put that one on my husband’s list of useful stuff for his teaching resources.

  71. Marco Says:

    Barry, Monckton was used as a witness in the US congress by Republicans. He’s an advisor to several thinktanks (EIKE, SPPI, and ICSC are the three I know of, there may well be more). He’s deputy leader of UKIP. Seems to me the ‘skeptics’ gladly use him, and give him prominence.

  72. Barry Woods Says:

    may i offer an explanation…. In the UK monckton is ignored ‘politically’

    UKIP are a JOKE!!!!

    Did you see the performance of thei leader, they did not even get ONE MP, their best shot Nigel Farage, lost handosmely, not even close, unaposed by the conservatoives, liberal, and the labour party ( aconvention, as the sitting MP, was the speaker of the House) the sitting MP was mired in scandal, UKIP still LOST

    In the UK, even the GREEN party got their first MP, which perhaps shows the politics are different than the UK around AGW.

    He may have more atrraction in the USA…
    Ie he was a prominent advisor to Margaret Thatcher.

    Similary, Romm was Acting Assistant Secretary, during the Clinton administration..

    So perhaps, it is no ‘surprise’ that these political animals, get more of a hearing, as politicians are more comfortable with their own..

    In the UK, the LIberal Democrats, the conservative party and the labour party, are all very much part of n AGW consensus, for a long time, as is the EU. David Cameron is ‘green’,( ultra green ‘rich boy’ Zac Goldsmith, is now a tory MP), Chris Hulne , ultra green ideas, is now a minister) The labour party, 13 years in power, introduced the Climate Change Bill (only a handfull of politicians, of all parties voted against)

    So Monckton in the UK, has very little attention.

    in the USA, it appear to me (is this broadly correct?) that AGW is split across political lines… (ie democrats for, republicans against?) Even though there may be sceptics on both sides even then, this is a simplification..

    To me, in the UK, i do not even bother with Monckton, he is a sideshow to me. Thus, perhaps in the USA, the debate is even more complicated by the partisan politic.

    So I might say why does everone go on about Monckton, not understanding, the USA.

    Others might say, why am I ignoring what he does, what are my motives, not understanding, in the context of the UK, he is irrelevant (a sideshow that actually puts back any debate, ie he is a political showman, as is Romm)

    What do you do if you are a pro-AGW republican, or a sceptical democrat…. Party or AGW stance.

  73. Marco Says:

    Barry, Monckton’s role as a “prominent” adviser to Thatcher is yet another example of where you have been duped. Monckton’s role was so ‘enormous’ that autobiographies of relevant people, most importantly Thatcher’s, do not mention him at all. He was involved in housing and parliamentary affairs, as one of many.

    Moreover, you’ll be hardpressed to find any evidence of Joe Romm lying or overstating his credentials, while that is a pattern for Monckton. There simply is no comparison.

  74. Barry Woods Says:

    well defiently a showman…. and self publicist.

    I did say, that I’m not that aware of himand no doubt loves all the attention he is getting. If you want some advice, treat him like a politican that he is, deserves a good bit of laughter, or just ‘ignore’ him he will really hate that. ;)

    I personally think he is detrimental to the ‘sceptical’ voice.

    I appreciate your comments regading what he is up to in the USA. I did not know that. Do you take my points about the political animals….

    As for Dr J Romm, well:

    I appear to be permanently BLOCKED at Climate Progress.

    Imagine that a ‘nobody’ like me, one of Richard Black’s biggest sceptical critics (at least on Richard’s blog) I’m so unacceptable, that I am now permanently blocked, at Climate Progress – tried a few couple totally innocous,on topic comments, since yesterday)

    Curious, to what was so awful, ask Bart to send you, my comment at:

    Barry Woods Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    September 27, 2010 at 15:38

  75. Marco Says:

    Barry, I can’t go into a lengthy discussion on why you are not allowed to post on climateprogress. I can only speculate: I know that you have a knack of citing discredited sources, and I know that does not go down well with Romm. In this case you probably cited Judith Curry, who in Romm’s book (and quite a few others) is no longer credible.

  76. MapleLeaf Says:

    Barry Woods,

    Pretty much all my comments go into moderation at CP, and I am a regular there. Most of them (not all) do eventually appear.

  77. Barry Woods Says:

    I merely defended Richard Black and the BBC (who I usually criticise!) my words, no links

  78. MapleLeaf Says:

    Bart, this Romm stuff is all irrelevant to the post at hand. He really needs to let it go. This will be my last comment about him and Romm.

    The fact that he had no links in his post does not, by default, mean the post was OK. Also, would his comments stay on topic and remain innocuous? Going by what I have read here, the likely answer is no.

    The owners of blogs have the right to moderate as they see fit. Does that always make their decisions right? No, of course not. But he needs to at least try and apply some perspective– I have informed him what Watts does, what CA does, and what others do.

    It could be, and this is just a hypothesis, that Romm also read the comments at BBC and quickly saw how Barry Woods had made many posts on that thread making inflammatory comments about Romm and other “warmers”, while at the same time defending/promoting some people who are known to have ulterior motives. That may have been enough to convince Romm to block Woods from his site, if he has indeed done that.

    The lesson here, if any, is that who own what you write and what you write on the internet is there for everyone to see ….

    There is no need for Woods to feel “censored”, because there is nothing stopping him from starting his own blog, starting a dedicated FaceBook page, or from writing a book……

  79. Barry Woods Says:

    Maple Leaf… If anyone else spends time on the BBC thread, I am criticising RICHARD BLACK and the BBC for being ‘unquestion’ advocates of AGW, with examples and my reasoning…

    is that the ‘climate science response’ just delete criticism out of hand…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#comments

    Whilst at Romms I was defending the BBC, with being honest enough to allow all comments. Now, I did criticise someone called mapleleaf at Romm, who had at least 10 comments at Romm’s attacking the BBC.

    Are you the same mapleleaf, as you might be said to have a vested interest, in this discussion, as the mapleleaf at Romm’s is the person that told Romm about Richard Black’s criticism of Romm. So perhaps you are not neutral, in Romm’s intellectual honesty debate, ifyou are the same mapleleaf?

    Matters to me, both sides need to allow criticism.

    To be on topic ( I could not let the above pass)

    Ignore moncton, or treat him like a politician, I’m sceptical I don’t take him seriously, he seems to relish the attention he’s getting, a self publicist.

    I do not like monckton his politics and think he does a lot in his own sel interest. Yet, I would defend his right to be heard, and of course if he says anthing rubbish, then peeol are then very able to counter him…

    This is Bart’s blog, so I do wish to stay on topic, but it is easier to discuss, when all act in good faith..

    I likened Monckton to Romm, in my opinion, and suggested taking neither seriously, with my reasoning, and tried to give an example, of my perceived lack of good faith on Romm’s part.

  80. MapleLeaf Says:

    MapleLeaf Says:
    September 28, 2010 at 17:23

    “This will be my last comment about him and Romm.” Understood?

    I think that we more or less agree about Monckton, so that is that then, no need to keep rehashing it.

  81. Barry Woods Says:

    I think I have explained my mistrust of Romm, reasonably..
    I do understnd Bart’s intent not to get into who deleted who at what blog debate…

    Seriously, how seriously do US politicians take monckton, is it a few republicans, many?

    Do any democrats pay him any attention.?
    It is very easy to become insular in your own country’s politics..

  82. Bart Says:

    All: No more discussions of Joe Romm; those and other off-topic comments should be directed to the open thread. And don’t keep repeating yourself. See also my comment policy.

    Repeat offenders will be put on moderation.

  83. harry Says:

    @adelady,

    Citation:
    Not all science is experimental, surely.

    Vulcanology, glaciology, astronomy, seismology, archeology, geology, palaentology and dozens of others are all observational fields leading to theories leading to, horror of horrors, models.
    end citation
    These are not observational fields. A lot of experimental research is also involved, to ascertain that observed processes have a basis in actual science. They use long time observations to tune their models, whereas climate scientists only use a short time interval to train their models, and go predicting, extrapolating on times far outside the training period.

    @ marco,

    citation:
    Your evidence? If I’d show this to a modeler they will read it, read it again, then a third time, look at me and ask “who’s this ignoramus?” GCMs DO include albedo, water vapor, ozone and solar influences. It’s my experience that people who make the large claims you make without any evidence (and of which several are so easily refuted) don’t learn anything from being refuted. That is, they’ll gladly repeat the same claim over and over, despite being shown wrong over and over.

    end citation
    Being an ignoramus, as you state, I would like to make certain that I do not have any idea about the status of your comments. You could be another ignoramus, or the Nobel-prized scientist on climate. I cannot value you. For me you are as ignorant as I may be.

    But nobody has so far countered my objections.

    Get factual in stead of armwaving or strawmanning.

  84. Barry Woods Says:

    harry sounds a bit off topic….

    Marco has enlightened me on Monckton’s USA activities…
    Are they taking him seriously there.
    He is a bit of a showman, does that style go down well with US senators?

  85. harry Says:

    @Barry,

    No I am not, read the former comments to know why.

    And to answer your question: yes, and not only senators. The US loves showmen, especially with an aristocratic heritage that is impossible in the US. Lord Moncton, Vicecount of Brenchley. What about that? Any US senator would like to have such a title on their bussiness card. You can buy them on internet, by the way. (the business cards, I meant)

  86. J Bowers Says:

    Re. Mapleleaf’s list

    Don’t forget SPPI. My favourite final paragraph has to be at the end of this:

    http://sppiblog.org/news/what-is-science-without-religion

    Dark Ages anyone?

  87. Marco Says:

    Harry, I already countered your objections. You claimed models did not include albedo, water vapor, ozone and solar influences. I point out they do, and you can easily find that information in the scientific literature.

    Funnily enough, this turns into a Q.E.D.: I predicted you would ignore the rebuttal, and you did.

  88. Shub Niggurath Says:

    It is pretty clear why Monckton is attacked. An election is coming up in November.

  89. JMurphy Says:

    Shub Niggurath wrote : “It is pretty clear why Monckton is attacked. An election is coming up in November.”

    I believe it is very clear why Monckton is being debunked (not attacked, unless you believe he has scientific views which can be defended), but I’m not so clear as to why a British citizen is relevant to elections in America – if that is what you meant by referring to November ? What is the connection ?

  90. harry Says:

    @Marco,

    since you are so prescient, what will be my next move?

    Simply claiming that you already did counter my objectives does not enhance them. You did not.

    Fact: Metoffice has decided to redo the HadCrut global temperature homogenizations.

    Not because they feel so confident about the current version.

    But because they feel unconfident about them. It will cost them a lot of money, and at least two years of time.

    All in order to reestablish the confidence in climate research.

    There has never been any confidence in climate research with me.

    You can spin this, either way, but the fact is there.

    Not rebutted by you or anyone else with dubious qualifications.

    NOAA has asked for 100 million to get the national temperature grid up to current day requirements.

    You have not rebutted this, since you can’t. They implicitly admit that their current network is bunk.

    Two major contributors to the data on which global warming is based admit implicitly that their data are not trustworthy.

    And then I am the ignoramus?

    Let me conclude that I at least am not as stupid as the average donkey.

  91. harry Says:

    @Bart,

    Are you putting me on moderation? Why not the obvious Trolls on your blog?

    What was my offense? Being honest?

    You really are dissapointing me.

    Harry

  92. harry Says:

    @Bart,

    Maybe my language triggered a WordPress filter. Sorry for that.

  93. Marco Says:

    Harry, nice moving of the goalposts. I showed you wrong on the models, and you start talking about the surface stations.

    Of course, those paying attention know that the Met Office is redoing the analysis to a) improve trust in HADCRU (a trust that was unfairly reduced), and b) set up a daily reporting scheme. That is, an improved and faster reporting system. Don’t be surprised if the end result is the same as HADCRUT. It is NOT a redo of HADRCRUT! Gee, Harry rebutted. Again.

    NOAA has indeed asked for money. After all, when people criticise the siting, give money to improve the siting of the surface stations. However, that by no means is an admission that it is bunk. Believing so is typical of you, as you openly admit: you never trusted climate research, and I will predict that you never will, unless it produces results you like.

  94. Bart Says:

    Harry, Marco,

    Please take the discussion of the temperature record to the open thread.

    If you save your comment in a word processor before posting, you can at least recover it to re-submit to the open thread, in case I’ll disapprove it for being off topic.

    Harry,

    You guessed right; your comment was automatically disapproved. I don’t think anyone here is interested in hearing that you hate models and those who produce them. It doesn’t add anything to the discussion. Say something substantive without repetition or don’t say it at all.

  95. J Bowers Says:

    Shub says — “It is pretty clear why Monckton is attacked. An election is coming up in November.”

    Not only is Monckton **not** a member of the UK’s House of Lords, he is not running for election in the USA this November, either.

  96. harry Says:

    @Marco,

    You have not shown me that I am wrong on models, you have not shown that I was wrong about the Metoffice, you have not shown that I was wrong about NOAA. I will not like the outcome of any research when it complies with my ideas. I need facts. You do not give me facts, you give me distorted views.

    Bart wants us to move to another tread, I will do so. See you there.

  97. harry Says:

    @Bart,

    You are wrong: I do not hate the people who make models (Some of my best friends are involved in model making). I do not hate anyone. Please accept that. I may disagree, but I do not hate the people for their ideas. If I ever did make any such suggestion, please accept my sincere apologies. I do not hold any grudge against anyone for their ideas. But I want to have the right to disagree.

  98. Bart Says:

    Harry, I quoted from your not-approved comment at 1:30 at night, where you wrote:

    “I hate models. And the ones producing models.”

    If that’s not how you actually feel, then I suggest you count to ten next time before submitting a comment.

  99. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Robert Grumbine, Bart’s favorite and propagandist, tries to talk about CO2 lasers and from there, to infer what,…that the climate scientists are ‘right’ about the overall role of CO2 in the global ocean-atmosphere-land-ice-etc system?

    That’s right, keep hiding away in your ‘radiative physics of CO2′ cul-de-sac, and from there pontificate.

    Atleast Monckton tries to talk about more real stuff like why the IPCC projections might be wrong or why there is no disaster in the offing. Sure, he is offering his own independent interpretation and opinion about the climate, so then attack the interpretation and the opinions that he is putting out, instead of attacking Monckton because he is Monckton.

    In climate science, it is “everyone fall in line, or else it is headshot time”.

  100. Bart Says:

    Shub,

    Grumbine brings up a very important point often forgotten by critics of mainstream science: coherence. Also read some of Tom Curtis’ comments at Curry’s blog. You do the same that you accuse critics of Monckton of: You ignore his main point and focus on the example he gave (which is still valid, though naturally, being an example, it doesn’t encompass all possible cases of incoherence (which are virtually infinite, as is often demonstrated).

    Did you read the linked document at all, where 21 scientist thoroughly debunk Monckton’s claims? I.e. they did exactly what you say people should do.

    In climate science, it is “how do we keep up with ignoramuses bringing up zombie arguments?”

  101. Shub Niggurath Says:

    Bart
    I looked at the responses to Monckton. What I did see, was a thorough attempt to not see the point. They are indeed trying to debunk, but it is not working. Sure it puts dents in what Monctkon is saying, but that is not a thorough debunking.

    CO2 lasers are not self-evidently coherent with present climate change theories. Most certainly, they are not coherent with some of the junk printed in the pdf you linked to.

    Regards

  102. Shub Says:

    Let us sample the responses from scientists to Monckton:

    Gavin Schmidt responds to Monckton about whether there is an unusual rate of temperature rise recently. This is on page no. 12.

    “. But the point is not the absolute temperature today, or in 2100,
    but in the rapidity of the change…”

    “…with a rate of warming that is indeed exceptional.”

    So according to Gavin, the rate of present warming is something ‘unusual’, ‘exceptional’. Is this acceptable?

    Warming has been steady in its rate, through the entire period of the instrumental record. Look at this graph. Where is the exceptional rate of warming?

    The ‘rate of warming’ is at odds only with paleo-reconstructions which have the same problem that Briffa’s graph did, during the TAR, which was discussed extensively by Mann’s team during the writing of the TAR.

    If we look at a proxy that captures the possible temperature maxima and minima, like ECS2002, the temperature rise is constant and steady even in the paleo record, coming out of the little ice age right up to the present day.

    Gavin has written this entire passage, the purpose of which is a ‘thorough’ debunking of Monckton, but provides no citations.

    On an aside, in paleo-climate, where there is a lack of coherence the inconvenient details are deleted. Is that OK then?

  103. Leonard Weinstein Says:

    Bart,
    I read the response to Monckton refutations. I agree with some and clearly disagree with others. My take is that 20 “world class” climate scientists added together about match the skill level of Monckton. Also the original Monckton paper had many more claims. You down selected only a few you thought poor. You should be ashamed. There was no thorough debunking. The responses varied from fairly good to weaker than what they were claiming to refute, and gave a poor showing.

  104. Potty Training Christopher Monckton « Greenfyre’s Says:

    […] When will we stop taking Christopher Monckton seriously? […]

  105. J Bowers Says:

    Shub — “So according to Gavin, the rate of present warming is something ‘unusual’, ‘exceptional’. Is this acceptable?”

    Yes. Part of the “exceptional” is due to there being no natural explanation for the warming. Unless you’d like to define and explain the natural forcings and how their mechanisms have worked? But I suspect that’ll result in the usual ‘crickets chirping effect’, or a reference to Lindzen. If the latter, then you need to declare that the NIPCC are wrong.

    Shub — “Warming has been steady in its rate, through the entire period of the instrumental record. Look at this graph. Where is the exceptional rate of warming?”

    Oh dear, you’re eyeballing. Go to Wood For Trees and plot them instead, using linear trends over decadal periods with 5 year overlpas. See how the trends increase their incline over the period.

    Alternatively, go to Hot Topic and use the interactive tool:

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/keep-out-of-the-kitchen/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: