This is a response by Christopher Monckton to the comment on the Nurse anti-science thread yesterday by anonymous commenter “The other Brian” who in typical troll style, tries to distract away from the post and point being made with noise.- Anthony
==============================================================
By Christopher Monckton
I seem to get more than my fair share of ad-hominem attacks from trolls. One such has recently posted up a lifetime list of my supposed “errors”, and has made some nasty allegations. May I for once reply? The troll’s allegations are in bold face: my replies are in [italics].
Monckton said he advised Margret Hatcher on climate change – HE DIDN’T.
I have never met anyone called “Margret Hatcher”. However, like it or not, I did advise Margaret Thatcher on many scientific and other matters, including climate change. However, it was my successor, George Guise, who helped her to write the speech that announced the funding for what became the Hadley Centre for Forecasting. At that time (1988) she predicted that the world would warm at 1 C/decade. I certainly wouldn’t have gone that far.
He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – HE DIDN’T.
In the summer of 2008 Jeffrey Marque, the then commissioning editor of Physics and Society, which at that time advertised itself as publishing “reviewed” papers, asked me to write a paper about climate sensitivity. As was usual for Physics and Society at the time, the journal’s review editor, Professor Alvin Saperstein, reviewed the paper. After my revisions (chiefly to explain the derivations of several new equations) both editors strongly endorsed the paper. It was published and Dr. Marque wrote a supporting editorial. Within days, the usual suspects Remote-Sensinged me. Both editors resigned, and a mendacious disclaimer was added to the online version of my paper, saying it had not been peer-reviewed. Besides, has Al Gore written any peer-reviewed papers?
He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.
In 2008, I said the Earth had been cooling since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001. So it had, at that time: do the linear regression for yourself and see. Recent warming, however, means there has been little change in temperature since 2001.
He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.
Johannessen et al. (2005), whom I cited, reported a substantial net accumulation of snow, firn, and ice on Greenland from 1992-2003. In 2009 Johannessen published a further paper saying that since 2003 some 273 bn tonnes of ice had melted in Greenland. A simple calculation shows this represented one-quarter of the ice that had accumulated over the previous 12 years, and it raised global sea level by 0.7 mm, restoring a quarter of the 2.8 mm drop caused by the previous ice accumulation on Greenland.
He said there has been no systematic ice loss in the artic – THERE HAS.
One assumes the troll means the Arctic. In 2009 I reported that the summer sea-ice minima in 2008 and 2009 had both shown greater ice extents than in 2007. The same also now applies to 2010 and (on most datasets, and subject to final confirmation that the summer sea-ice minimum has passed) to 2011 as well. Arctic ice has certainly declined ever since the satellites have been watching, but there is some evidence that there was less Arctic ice from the 1920s to the 1940s (and even into the late 1950s in Northern Greenland) than there is today.
He says there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – YES, THERE IS.
There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – but repeated reanalyses of the data have shown that it was temperatures that changed first and CO2 concentration change that followed. Though it is possible that the additional CO2 concentration reinforced the original warming in each of the past four interglacial warm periods (all of which were warmer than the present), it plainly did not trigger the warming, because the warming occurred first.
He says a pre-Cambrian ice planet shows that CO2 has no effect on the climate – SHOWS THE OPPOSITE.
In the Neoproterozoic era, some 750 million years ago, sea-level glaciers a mile high came and went – twice – at the Equator. There are no sea-level glaciers anywhere near the Equator today. At that time, CO2 was 30% of the atmosphere: today it is 0.04%. The reasonable point that I made, quoting Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist who has made a particular study of the period, was that even allowing for the fact that the Sun was 5% fainter in the Neoproterozoic than today, and for the fact that the planet’s albedo was much greater then than now, equatorial sea-level glaciers could not have come and gone twice if CO2 had the very large warming effect that is now imagined. Of course CO2 has some warming effect. The central question, however, remains how much warming CO2 will cause. My best estimate is 1 Celsius per doubling of CO2 concentration.
He says there has been no change in Himalayan glaciers for 200 years – THERE HAS.
Professor M.I. Bhat, of the Indian Geological Survey, whom I consult regularly and cite on the state of the glaciers, has consistently said that except in areas of local geological deformation the pattern of advance and retreat of the glaciers is much as it has been over the past 200 years since the Raj first kept records.
He says only one Himalayan glacier is retreating – NO, LOTS OF THEM ARE.
The Ronggbuk glacier has disappeared altogether; the Gangotri glacier has been receding for 200 years; and many other glaciers are receding. Merely because I mentioned one glacier as receding, it is not legitimate to infer that I said or implied that only one glacier was receding.
He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.
A finding of low climate sensitivity in Lindzen (2007) suggests that the warming exercised by CO2 is equivalent to assuming a forcing of 1.135 W m–2. In saying that, I explicitly referred to the forcing of 3.7 W m–2 at CO2 doubling that is the IPCC’s current estimate (interestingly, down from 4.4 W m–2 in its first two assessment reports).
He confuses forcing with sensitivity.
A radiative forcing is a change in the net (down minus up) flux of radiation at the tropopause resulting from some perturbation of a presumed pre-existing equilibrium in the climate object, such as a doubling of CO2 concentration in the air. The resultant warming, or “climate sensitivity”, is the product of three parameters: the radiative forcing, the Planck or no-feedbacks sensitivity parameter; and the overall temperature-feedback gain factor (Monckton of Brenchley, 2008). Dividing any one of the three factors by, say, 3 to take account of an important discrepancy between models and observations, such as that which Lindzen identified, has precisely the same effect as dividing any of the others by 3.
He says a leading climate researcher found a loss of cloud cover is responsible for recent warming – SHE SAYS IT SHOWS NO SUCH THING.
The researcher in question had demonstrated that the loss of cloud cover between 1983 and 2001 had caused a very substantial radiative forcing, which, I hypothesized, was the main reason for the rapid warming between 1976 and late 2001, since when there has been no warming. Many papers (e.g. Tsonis et al., 2006) note the links between the Pacific and other oceanic oscillation indices, variations in cloud cover, and variations in global temperature, on a timescale of approximately 60 years. This cyclicity – which long predates our influence on the climate – is startlingly visible in the global instrumental temperature record. In an invited presentation to the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies in 2011, I drew some legitimate conclusions about climate sensitivity from the researcher’s observations. I did not, of course, ascribe these conclusions to her: I merely used her result as an input to a determination of climate sensitivity. My paper has now been published in the Proceedings of the seminar, and separately in a book of scientific papers about climate sensitivity.
He misquotes scientists to mislead his audience.
No instances are given to support this libel, so I cannot comment. This unpleasant allegation was originally made by an associate professor in a non-climate-related field at a Bible college in Minnesota: however, he had repeatedly misquoted my words and had put then his misquotations to third-party scientists, using their understandably furious responses against me. He will be dealt with firmly in due course. Serious academic dishonesty of this kind, wilfully persisted in, is not something to be encouraged.
He says planets with a high albedo are cooler than planets with a low albedo – WRONG.
If all other parameters be held constant, increasing a planet’s albedo (for instance, by covering it with ice) will act as a mirror reflecting more of the Sun’s radiation back into space, rather than allowing the radiation that reaches the ground to be displaced from the visible spectrum to the near-infrared, where – on its way out – it can interact with greenhouse gases. Or has the troll decided that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect? Since there is, ceteris paribus a more reflective surface makes for a cooler world.
He gets information in peer-reviewed science papers wrong.
Not a single instance is cited. This is pure yah-boo.
He says some planets are warming because of the Sun – NO THEY’RE NOT.
There has indeed been evidence of simultaneous warming in many planets of the Solar system, and I have mentioned this. However, given the difficulties of reliable measurement and imaging, I have not sought to draw definitive conclusions about the role of the Sun in “global warming” from such observations.
He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.
I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr.
Abdussamatov’s name. Dr. Abdussamatov, like other researchers in the field (e.g. Solanki, 2005; Shaviv, 2008, 2011; Svensmark, 2011; Kirkby, 2011), offers evidence to the effect that the role of the Sun may be rather greater than is found congenial by those who would like to blame nearly all recent warming on CO2.
###
The moderators should perhaps be more vigilant in banning contributions from trolls who state in terms, as this one does, that I “misquote scientists to mislead [my] audience”. One understands the trolls’ increasing desperation as their scientific and economic case collapses: but lying about those of us who have long seen through the nonsense is not going to help them now.
The science is in, the truth is out, the game is up, and the scare is over. Get used to it, get real, get a job, and get a life.
==========================================================
And now a response from Anthony to the second to last paragraph about moderation.
As Mr. Monckton knows, I don’t always agree with him.
That said, it is an unfortunate truth that people that haven’t the courage to use their own full names when publicly criticizing others (“The other Brian”) spend so much time trying to beat down others while not having to worry about consequences. Unfortunately, that is the reality of the Internet today. The best choice is dealing with such individuals is to take their claims head on, which you’ve done.
WUWT does not approve a few comments that fall outside of our commenting policy, but as a recent analysis by Ian Rons Further Down the “Bore Hole” shows, we do in fact publish the vast majority of comments compared to other blogs, even some that are not necessarily fair. This is by design, because having a debate with opponents is something other blogs refuse to have. Otherwise, we’d be no better than RealClimate, “Tamino” aka Open Mind, or Joe Romm, all sites which heavily censor opposing viewpoints. [Update: Another example is Skeptical Science, which invoked a grade school level tactic (strikeout) in attempting to refute Dr. Roger Pielke Senior – see here]
While there’s always something in an endeavor that can be criticized, the fact is that our moderation policy is one of our best strengths, and why WUWT consistently outperforms these other blogs in traffic, reach, and total number of comments. Therefore I think we’ll keep the policy that has worked so well. Besides, if those comments had been deleted, we’d not be having this entertaining discussion now.
Nicely answered, as always.
Potholer54 hides his identity? Please Anthony, potholer has made a video detailing who he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMxpqYEjyo
And he has referred to his identity and what his job was in a multitude of videos.
I find it also very interesting that, if I’ve read it correctly, that Monckton still insists he has published a peer reviewed paper. Which he simply hasn’t, pointing this fact out is not trolling.
REPLY: I wasn’t aware of the other videos, I’ll remove the claim then- Anthony
Monckton is hated because he is effective. People will stop hating him when he stops being effective – but they will never stop attacking him. Since pretty much all of his detractors are cowards that hide behind pseudo names or otherwise refuse to talk to him face to face or debate live in public, I think their actions speak for themselves.
I don’t always agree with Monckton either, but thats how we are on this side of the fence. Differning views are welcomed because we value freedom before all else, rather than place all our faith in one single untestable iron clad ideology. We tend to be extremists in that way 😉
I agree with Anthony as long as trolls are civil they should be allowed to speak. As part of the discourse they will have a response. It is unfortunate that this forum which has such a wide following can be used to potentially libel someone. The moderators do a tremendous job in keeping this forum open and the discourse civil. WUWT has set a very high standard for scientific communication that includes the common man and scientist as well.
For clarity, ‘Potholer54’ is journalist Peter Hadfield.
‘The other Brian’ (whom Christopher Monckton labels ‘a troll’) merely gave a summary of Hadfield’s devastating critique of Lord Monckton.
Hadfield’s YouTube account is here…
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
And the videos (1-5) are as follows…
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
Trolls are a sad fact of life on the internet. Most serious commenters simply ignore them, once it becomes obvious what they are. However, I am pleased to see that Monckton has taken this troll head on. I wish more of those who are maligned by such trolls would do so as well.
Engaging with trolls is always a useless pursuit — however, “The other Brian” is not a troll. Trolls post pointless and inflammatory comments purely for the sake of getting a rise out of someone. The other Brian, on the other hand, is merely misinformed and obnoxious, and in that respect is little different from David Suzuki or Al Gore. By thus countering TOB’s vehement rantings, Monckton has done us all a great service, since we are now all better informed on how to answer such attacks on him in the future. For that, much thanks, Lord Monckton.
As for better moderation — please don’t change the policy. By all means, snip real trolls as fast as they try posting, but it isn’t enough to simply hear the facts and analyses of a controversy, it is imperative that we also get to hear the lies and distortions and the answers to them. This is one of the greatest strengths of Watts Up With That — the ability to listen in on, and occasionally take part in, the give and take of information. This even includes intermittent slaps on the wrist for Anthony, such as the general response to his recent post concerning diamonds and the carbon cycle.
As always, Lord Monckton has done a bang-up job of answering a critic. What “The other Brian” posted may have been ignorant and bordering on calumny, but it is something that one could easily read on a number of other climate sites. The difference is that on the other sites no rebuttal would have been allowed. Here we get to hear both the lies and the truth.
Ultimately, that’s why I come here.
Mr. Monckton should be appreciative of the commenter who verbally attacked him. By so doing he gave Mr. Monckton the opportunity to once again put his intelligent views before the public. A public that is becoming more knowledgeable and understanding of the issues as a result of the continued exposure provided by WUWT and other internet sources. I agree with your policy concerning comments Anthony , please don’t change.
Thank you for addressing these.
IMO When trolls go unanswered…It’s not fair to kids trying to understand this mess caused by such, and as some claims made by IPCC – and others. 🙁
Many thanks to Monckton for all his dedication and insight.
As to moderation – I think that the current system works well. People want to understand the character of the debate and debaters and this comes through, even with anonymous comments.
Anyone who has read and posted on realclimate and read and posted on WUWT understands the difference in character between the sites.
As to peer review – I’m not sure why anyone would place any stock in peer review in climatology. Dessler 2010 tried to make much of regression coefficients close to zero in Science, no less. No wonder peer reviewers like to maintain their anonymity, right Eric Steig?
My Lord Monckton has the knack of retaining and recalling facts, and the ability to use them in a succinct way to make his points clearly. I envy him.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:12 am
For clarity, ‘Potholer54′ is journalist Peter Hadfield.
‘The other Brian’ (whom Christopher Monckton labels ‘a troll’) merely gave a summary of Hadfield’s devastating critique of Lord Monckton.
So, the troll known as “the Other Brian” was merely parroting the disinformation of Peter Hadfield.
Thank you for clarifying that for us, Mark.
Having entered the Climate Debate and the blogosphere just around the e-mail revelations from UEA less than two years ago, I understand the tendency towards impassioned outrage; I have evolved, I’d like to think, a bit myself, having had my initial share of indignant responses. Each medium of communication has its weakness as well as its strengths. The internet appears to encourage emotion as well as reason by its nature. We do not have a dialogue, but two time-separated monologues. It is easy to do so when there is no immediate feedback to moderate one’s views, while the immoderate feedback we have in our minds as we type supports our feelings of being diminished or abused.
The internet discussions as developed by WUWT, though, have a huge benefit for all those involved, even the “other Brians”. Despite its weakness in the feedback area, there is a learning going on about your own views as well as those of others. Strong statements that are untenable are obvious once you read what a) you wrote, and b) what others think of what you wrote. I can’t recall who said, when asked what he thought about something, “I don’t know. I haven’t heard myself say it yet,” but he was spot on when it comes to the internet discussion. I cringe at some of what I wrote in self-righteous rage early on in my climate education. Not that I disagree in principle with my earliest feelings that a politicized agenda under the mantle of science was being pushed on us, but that I was reacting in a black-or-white way to an uncertain and subjective situation involving socially driven people.
I don’t always agree with my fellow skeptics; that should be the case, as no one with more than one thought is likely to be “right” or right enough, all the time. I find, in particular, the defence of Arctic non-melting to be a tad disingenuous at times (there has been a large sea-ice loss since the late ’70s, and were it to continue, it would be alarming/significant), a sign that this one point is an awkward reality for those who do not see CO2 as the IPCC-Gore villain claim it to be. But the skeptic sites, and especially WUWT, have far more of a tolerant, reasoned approach than the warmist sites I cruise. But when you are not on the team that is “saving the planet”, I suppose facts have less inherent threat to them.
Trolls are not an important part of an internet discussion, but I suggest that the access of trolls to the internet discussion is an important part. I have been told that there are two aspects to coming to a new truth: the awakening, in which you become aware that something is off in how to viewed things, and the trigger, in which you incorporate and act upon the new truth. Troll-speak is an awakening event, possibly to other trolls, if not to themselves. Thrashing around in public is an obvious way to let others know that you are probably reacting to your own mind rather than the world around you.
Anthony, you (and others) do a great job. As long as solid ethical or legal lines are not crossed, I’m fine with seeing what trolls or troll-lights say. Somewhere in their sputterings might be a point, and I certainly need to know what the Others, even the fringe Others, feel, if not think, about the most important non-war subject of our times.
Thanks.
To be fair, Monckton has done his fair share of trolling too, like saying John Abraham looks like an overcooked prawn, among other oddities.
We have some out and out trolls and others who are sometimes called trolls because most here do not agree with the,
R Gates (for example) falls firmly into the latter category but he is always polite and well informed and from my viewpoint is most welcome otherwise we end up singing from the same hymn sheet.
Its a shame that such people as Scott Mandia and Joel Shore don’t appear as often as they used to and I also miss Brendan. That’s not to say I often agree with ANY of them but the cut and thrust of debate is much improved by the prsence of intelligent people with a different viewpoint.
tonyb
I agree fully with Mr Watts’ comments on moderation and like this site precisely because it DOES promote vigorous and open debate..
I can state, with a matter of scientific exactitude, that the following supposedly reputable UK brands exhibit political-based censorship of blogs:
http://www.bbc.co.uk
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
http://www.independent.co.uk
All regularly defend ‘Press Freedom’, when what they actually mean is that they must be allowed to say what they want but their critics mustn’t. The difference between that and Communism in China or Russia is unclear to me……
Mr Watts may, however, at some stage face censorship if he seeks to become dependent on major advertising revenues from those with defined political positions.
It never ceases though to amaze me how partisans on any side of a debate use the word ‘troll’ to their debased opponents whilst allowing absolutely shameless trolling by their own supporters.
The following subjects have fanatical trolls:
1. Islam and its role in the West.
2. The EU and its implications for Britain.
3. The mantra that competition is the only thing that is good for human beings, as opposed to the subset of human beings who thrive under it.
4. Christianity is benign and good, whereas other religions aren’t.
5. Grammar schools are the sole route to restoring education in the UK.
I guess those still so unsure of the reasons why they feel the way they do have not yet reached the maturity to understand the assumptions they make about life and the fact that others may make different ones.
One can but hope that a victory in cliamte science will be a prelude to similar victories for rational approaches in broader areas of society.
Christopher Monckton writes: “I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr. Abdussamatov’s name.”
That is not a satisfactory reply.
As can be seen in Potholer54’s fifth video (4:42) you also claimed “the International Astronomical Union in 2004 had a symposium on it [i.e. the Sun is responsible for recent warming] and they concluded that was the case.”
A typing error does not help explain why you made the same mistake elsewhere.
otter17,
As the lawyers say, truth is an absolute defense. Have you ever seen Abraham?☺
Besides, Lord Monckton promptly apologized, putting him in a class far above the Team. He’s only human, and he simply got mad at Abraham’s constant pot shots from the safety of his Ivory Tower.
Abraham is still too cowardly to accept Monckton’s debate challenge. And I notice Phil Jones never apologized for his dancing with joy comment over John Daly’s premature death. And Santer’s impotent threat against Pat Michaels. I could go on and on. But if course, you have access to the Climategate emails and can see for yourself. Where are their apologies?
JohnWho wrote: “So, the troll known as ‘the Other Brian’ was merely parroting the disinformation of Peter Hadfield.”
I strongly urge you to watch Peter’s Hadfield’s videos (above).
Just for once, try listening to the other side of the argument.
Lord Monckton deserves the space to refute the closet hate mongers who as he states so eloquently clear: “The science is in, the truth is out, the game is up, and the scare is over.get used to it, get real, get a job, and get a life.”
Gary Krause
WUWT does a very effective job of “troll control” – to limit but not eliminate. I find it fascinating to see how effective trolls can bait people into a discussion that rapidly derails. On occasion, it’s a fun read.
Colinmaessen, Viscount Lord Monckton’s paper WAS reviewed, by the then Review Editor and that was endorsed by the then Commissioning Editor. The fact that these gentlemen were then forced to resign and their Review “lost” by the new Editor does not alter the fact that a review was done, changes and corrections the reviewer required were made.
Frankly, in terms of the process the “pro-AGW” papers get of “review” by panels selected for their sympathetic (possibily sycophantic) views, I would suggest that Viscount Monckton is correct. He has published a “Peer Reviewed” paper.
collinmaessen says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:00 am
……….
I find it also very interesting that, if I’ve read it correctly, that Monckton still insists he has published a peer reviewed paper. Which he simply hasn’t, pointing this fact out is not trolling.
=======================================================
What part of reviewed and then published do you not understand? Collin this isn’t a tricky concept.
Anthony —
The lines
“He says planets with a high albedo are cooler than planets with a low albedo – WRONG.”
“He gets information in peer-reviewed science papers wrong.”
REPLY: Fixed, the MS Word import to WordPress feature is broken these days, and lots of formatting got dropped. – A
should be broken out as paragraph heads, and bolded.
I read “the other Brian’s” comments last night but was too weary to address them. The comment thread was polluted with troll dung by the time I quit reading. The name Monckton surely brings out the most odious of the WUWT regular trolls.
I had to chuckle, however. I’m always amused when “intellectual” trolls cite Wikipedia, opinion articles from the NYT or the Guardian, online propaganda pieces from NOAA or NASA/GISS websites or “informed” editorials from Greenpeace or the Sierra Club as the source of their deep wisdom. But “the other Brian” has raised the bar. He’s the first troll I’ve seen who has composed an entire list of libelous ad hom attacks based on watching 5 whole YouTube videos!
I wish to thank Lord Monckton for responding to this. It was incredibly entertaining. I most certainly hope that Associate Professor of undergraduate engineering (air conditioning, heat transfer) at the no-name Bible college up in northern nowhere is indeed, dealt with harshly.
Since one should never trust a man who purports to be a member of the House of Lords, it is worth a critical look at Monckton’s reply. Since I am familiar with Johannessen et al (2005), so I will focus on that.
Monkton wrote “Johannessen et al. (2005), whom I cited, reported a substantial net accumulation of snow, firn, and ice on Greenland from 1992-2003”. This quote neglects a central aspect of Johannessen et al (2005) – it only measures ice accumulation in the interior of Greenland, not over the entire ice mass. This is obvious from the title of the paper: “Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland”, and is explicit in the concluding section of the paper
“First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes—let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change—for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig. 1). It is conceivable that pronounced ablation (e.g., 10, 11) in low-elevation marginal areas could offset the elevation increases that we observed in the interior areas.”
It is simply not possible to deduce changes in the mass of the entire icesheet by just examining the interior portion of it. This has been pointed out to Monckton several times, yet he ignores it, much like he ignores the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Next Monckton writes “In 2009 Johannessen published a further paper saying that since 2003 some 273 bn tonnes of ice had melted in Greenland.” This appears to refer to a paper by van den Broeke et al titled “Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss”, of which Johannessen was not an author.
Christopher Monckton wrote: “I did advise Margaret Thatcher on many scientific and other matters, including climate change.”
To what extent? Please be specific. There is no record of you ever having done so.
Sitting down with a cup of tea and expressing a personal opinion is not the same as receiving guidance from someone with expertise.
Furthermore, when people introduce you (as often they do) saying you are the “former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher” why have you not sought to correct them?
I am in 100% agreement with Anthony’s position on WUWT moderation policy and practice. That policy is unique in my experience and is in my opinion one of the distinguishing features that has made WUWT such a dazzling success. Editorial fealty to such a policy means sometimes letting things through that leave the moderators heaving over a toilet. That can’t be easy duty and I applaud them for it.
Thank you Mr. Monckton. And thank you Mr. Watts for allowing both sides to be heard.
Without dissent a debate becomes propaganda. I think we have all had altogether too much of that over the past 20 years of climate debate.
I like Monckers. It’s true that he might have over-egged the peer-reviewed paper stuff, but at least he never claimed to have invented the internet
With due respect to Lord Monckton, when you publish on the internet, your writings are susceptible to challenge from both the intelligent and the mentally handicapped. I believe the internet should be open and free, and sometimes you have to answer both idiots and mavens.
I am glad WUWT allows both the publication of controversial articles, and replies to the same.
It saddens me to read both the previous thread and this one.
Such lot of effort and energy is absorbed in both delivering and defending ad hominem attacks.
Surely that intellect, effort and energy would be better spent on developing and extending our understanding of the issues concerned.
I was taught that resorting to ad hominem was an admission of the weakness of ones intellectual stance. Other failures in logic and argument were regrettable but ad hom was always pitiable.
Lord Monckton, If you read this, I find it easy to respect your reasoned responses to your critics whether I agree with them or not. However some of your responses border on the disdainful and sarcastic and don’t sit so easily with me.
Please set the level at one of respect and patience.
Thanks for your efforts
Christopher Monckton wrote: “No instances are given to support this libel [i.e. misquoting scientists] so I cannot comment.”
Let me be of assistance.
Peter Hadfield’s fourth video (above) catalogues a number of examples where you appear to misquote people.
His evidence is compelling. Care to address them?
Please Anthony, stay the course on your current policies. After all, if you start blocking the trolls, who will I have left to make fun of other than myself?
As others have said in this thread, the trolls provide a certain value. They expose the utter nonsense that goes unremarked in the bulk of other forums, and, provided that they are effectively responded to, there is much value brought to the debate by the resulting exposure to the trolls themselves of the actual facts, as well as to those who read their comments and also the rebuttals, those rebuttals being something they will see in few other forums.
I disagree with tonyb about the status of R. Gates, but certainly agree that Joel Shore and Scott Mandia brought some intelligent commentary to the table.
It has been an interesting, and informative, back-n-forth. Thank you Anthony for allowing the “troll’s” comments to post, and thank you Lord Monckton for your clear and concise response to its accusations.
I think it a real disservice to society that the internet in general has favored, if not reenforced, an almost total lack of civility and good manners by allowing personal attacks and ad-hominem without requiring the poster to identify him/herself. There now appears to be an entirely new class of people that are what I would call ‘internet socialized’. These are people that appear to perform most of their social interaction on the internet rather than face-to-face and use pseudonyms to hide their identity. They are thus never held accountable for their actions, where, in a normal society, they would either be ostracized (normally), ‘cold-cocked’ (in a bar), shot (in the old West), or challenged a duel (in the old South).
While I do understand the need for anonymity in some, special cases, I think that the almost universal acceptance of it on the internet should be discouraged. There are people that I have know for years with whom I now find it imposable to carry on an intelligent conversation.
For the love of everything that is worshipped by human beings… This “troll” is on our side. It’s reverse trolling; an act which makes the other side look stupid by your stupid actions.
How about instead of feeding loathsome trolls you concentrate on the real science. That’s the only place the debate will be won. Gore et al HATE real debate. That’s where you’re better off concentrating.
Smokey, I’d like to judge this “truth,” please post a pic of this John Abraham to support your argument.
Well done Christopher in dealing appropriately with matters which had caused me some concern whilst viewing some of the propaganda tirade against him.
It is useful to bear in mind that climatology is an infant science with many of the most important parameters simply unknown at present.
Because of that we are all shooting in the dark and gaining experience as we go along. The image I have is of a large number of individuals shooting blindlyand only the last man standing (in the light of real world climate events) is the ‘winner’.
It is a shame that the alarmist mindset is whollly blinkered to that reality.
I have been constructing a new climate model (or description) for three years now and in the process have said some daft things and adapted accordingly. It is actually helpful to hear from so called trolls because their initial objections alert one as to how one’s own opinion or judgement could be better expressed to appeal to the majority readership.
The trouble with climatology is that it is a multidisciplinary science potentially involving every aspect of physics chemistry and the biosphere yet what we see is latecomers to the subject making pronouncements based on the narrow specialisms in which they have trained and earned a living.
In an infant science such as climatology it is better to have a lifetime of experience and study (even if on an amateur basis) rather than to have come to it at a late stage of life and better to know a little about a lot rather than a lot about a little.
I find it helpful to have personally observed the different climate regimes of the cooling mid 20th century. the warming late 20th century and the plateau (so far) of the early 21st century. Believe me, the differences are far more stark and clear than I have seen expressed anywhere other than in my own writings.
For those reasons I like to feel that I have an advantage over Al Gore (a politician) and Lord Monckton (a political journalist) or James Hansen (an astrophysicist) and many others all of whom have acquired an interest in weather and climate late in life.
The real world is what it is and it will not change what it is to fit an agenda.
I think I have a workable hypothesis set out elsewhere which accommodates the observation of a cooling stratosphere when the sun is active and a warming stratosphere when the sun is inactive.
I have the only hypothesis that fits such observations.
Let the cards fall where they may.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:52 am
JohnWho wrote: “So, the troll known as ‘the Other Brian’ was merely parroting the disinformation of Peter Hadfield.”
I strongly urge you to watch Peter’s Hadfield’s videos (above).
Just for once, try listening to the other side of the argument.
Let me ask you a question, Mark.
If someone finds an error in anything Hadfield says or writes, you’ll then disregard everything he says, right?
The reaction to Monckton is typical to those in a state of “fear”. Those who react in anger are often scared to death that their value system is under attack.
For the AGW’ers, it is certainly dark days ahead as the world has definitively moved on and labelled them as “Manics” – not unlike “Truthers”.
Edit note:
Some of Monckton’s cites of toB’s assertions aren’t bolded and para-separated from the surrounding text.
Christopher is almost unique in the degree to which he invites attack and rebuttal, since that pretty generally winds up with generous distributions of egg on said attackers’ and rebutters’ faces.
Oh, re Abraham: he writes like one, too.
Dissenting, contrary, opposing, rebuttal comments and views must always be allowed, if civil. However, NO anonomous ad hominen attacks should be allowed.
This enables an injured party to seek relief from the assault. Only fair!
This in no way impedes the flow of information, data, and ideas, which is the only thing, of importance, concerning editor control.
Assuming everyone agrees, that it is OPEN, HONEST discussion, that most of us, want to write and read. A honest man can be corrected. A dishonest man is trying to deceive you and cannot be corrected. GK
Regarding Lord Monckton’s advising Lady Thatcher on climate change, Mark S says:
“To what extent? Please be specific. There is no record of you ever having done so.”
Mark S is a troll – and I very rarely label anyone a troll. Mark S is clearly implying that Lord Moncktonis lying, based on absolutely no evidence. If there was any discussion at all regarding the climate change issue between Monckton and Thatcher, even once, then Monckton is correct.
Mark S is deliberately bearing false witness, a vile characteristic of many in the alarmist crowd. Disgusting, shameful and dispicable troll behavior. Mark S should go back to tamino where he belongs, with the rest of the trolls and misanthropes.
Lord Monckton:
I was the moderator who approved TOB’s comment. I had to think about it a bit, but there were several considerations, not the least of which is that WUWT prides itself on being open while maintaining civility. The other is that we have seen all of these “refutations” at one time or another, but never so many in one place and lamentably lacking any form of documentation… mainly assertions. I was sure that other commenters would take on these allegations but didn’t think it would be you personally. I believe getting your responses on the record, sort of a one-stop-shop, can only be a good thing. I am a personal admirer of yours and regret any distress such comments may occasion – since I’ve been moderating here at WUWT I’ve had to approve comments responding to comments I’d made in my persona as a regular commenter that were harsh and even derogatory. Wish I could fault the moderator for allowing those to go through!
Thank you for your efforts and your participation here.
Best wishes,
REP, mod
Correction:*****anonymous******
GK
Dear REP, mod: – I’m most grateful for the work that you and all the moderators at this splendid and valuable site do. And of course I was not suggesting that the entire heap of drivel from the cowardly, anonymous troll in question should be deleted. However, I do think it would be right for you and Anthony to consider whether the occasional snip to remove the more serious allegations would be appropriate. I’m very much a supporter of letting all sides have their say, which WattsUp does and the climate-extremist sites don’t: but perhaps just a little editing now and again to remove the more grievous libels would not be a bad idea. – M of B
[REPLY: Your Lordship, frankly, I have a very difficult time deciding which are the most outrageous and grievous. There is so much to choose from. You seem to have a talent for releasing the inner-rabidness of those of the true faith. Well done, sir. -REP, mod]
I feel Monckton was correct to reply. It is perhaps pointless arguing with a real troll – but in this instance, the predominantly ad hom nature of the attack warranted a defence.
I am sure Monckton has overplayed some of his CV, but it is hardly important – and those that seek to make it so, are largely trolling!
What matters is the subject and it is largely evident that Monckton is sufficiently eloquent and dilligent when he makes most of his presentations. Looking for pedantic reasons for complaint is somewhat pathetic in my opinion. Put it this way, if the peer review process of some of the published climate science BS had been a millionth as pedantic, we would likely not have had the hockey stick paper, at least half of the IPCC ‘productions’ and indeed, AGW may have long since been half abandoned!
To those honest scientifically based advocates of AGW (and I don’t mean the fanatical ‘believer’ types) I am sure that they would not act in such a trolling manner as to try and provide a discrediting presentation based on what are effectively pure semantics/pedantics and ad homs.
Smokey says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:35 am
Agreed in principle! But at least he provides us with good ole belly laughs – at his own expense – which is nice!
These troll types are being recorded within the annals of blogging history (I hope?) and will hopefully be exposed one day for the cowardly charlatans that they are.
I’m glad you aren’t moderating out every stupid thing people say, otherwise noting I’ve written would be posted.
You would think that the Warmistas would decide to pretend that Monckton doesn’t exist, every time they try to engage him intellectually, they just get mauled Even their argumentum ad hominem don’t get any traction because he simply doesn’t get side-tracked into a personal defense and stays laser-locked on the issue at hand. Dudes, Monckton is a world-class debater, baiting him has in the past and will likely continue to result in your being humiliated.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:08 am
Christopher Monckton wrote: “I did advise Margaret Thatcher on many scientific and other matters, including climate change.”
To what extent? Please be specific. There is no record of you ever having done so.
=================================================================
Mark, what do you want him to do produce notes from 30 years ago?
Then, the question really becomes, why does this matter to you? There’s plenty of evidence that he served as an advisory to Thatcher and the he advised on many largely varying subjects. Why would you think he didn’t advise her on global warming?
Monckton is an unusual personage: he’s a scientist of sorts, but outside the scientific academy, and not a master scientific layman like S. McIntyre. Plus, he’s a Lord, but outside the House of Lords. I think it’s ok for his opponents to try to drill down and see if what he states is legitimate. I believe that he would be more effective if he did try to publish a few papers or blog articles beyond his powerpoint presentations. I do appreciate that WUWT takes challengers, even when not fully diplomatic. It’s a touchy topic, so people get emotional.
Personally the comments are one of the reasons I like WUWT so much. The articles are fantastic too, don’t get me wrong, but the comments always expand on the articles so much. Those comments with views opposing the article simply provide more education–and often an insight into what arguments you’ll be facing if you bring the information to AGW advocates.
This is exactly what happened in this case, and as always the comments are further expanding on the whole issue. I love it. This is why WUWT is my favorite climate blog.
“JohnWho wrote: “So, the troll known as ‘the Other Brian’ was merely parroting the disinformation of Peter Hadfield.”
I strongly urge you to watch Peter’s Hadfield’s videos (above).”—-
Just for a little different perspective here. I NEVER “watch so and so’s videos”… here is why. I’m blessed with the ability to read at about 1500 to 2000 WPM. In skimming material looking for data, it can go as high as an effective 4000 WPM.
Verbal communications are limted to about 100 to 150 WPM. There is also the “inherent emotional content” of the “verbal communication” (think Con men, demagogs, dictators, various other tyrants! Who LOVE A PLIABLE CROWD and mindless minions who will LISTEN to them. Give me emotionless Text any day all the time.)
Thus, I looked in a cursory fashion at Lord M’s videos. Perhaps 10 minutes total. That for me is a “Stretch”.
But when someone tells me, “Oh…you should look at this video…” I say, “No thanks, I have a LIFE with LIMITED time, I don’t throw it away.” I think this is almost a “litmus test for rational thinking”. If it needs a video, it must be either Maddona or Weird Al, certainly not a place for serious exchange.
Max
JohnWho wrote: “Let me ask you a question, Mark. If someone finds an error in anything Hadfield says or writes, you’ll then disregard everything he says, right?”
No, I wait to see how the person accused of making an error responds to reasonable criticism.
In Peter’s case, when a genuine error is pointed out to him (normally something minor) he promptly concedes the point and is happy to update the video description with an accurate or more fuller explanation, so not to mislead his visitors.
Lord Monckton, on the other hand, appears reluctant (or unwilling) to correct the record. The fifth video (5:57) includes a great example of this. Even when Christopher is confronted with a verbatim transcript of his remarks, he refuses to accept ever making them.
Smokey wrote: “Mark S is a troll – and I very rarely label anyone a troll. […] Mark S should go back to tamino where he belongs…”
Tamino sure has some interesting posts up today, doesn’t he?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/
You should venture out more. 😉
Mark S;
Lord Monckton’s title (if memory serves me correctly) was “Special Advisor on Policy and Science” from 1982 to 1986. While I may have possibly erred in the exact wording, his role in that regard is more than sufficient to allow for his claim to be a “former science advisor” to have merit.
As to the balance of your criticisms, they appear to be minor errors in accreditation or minor misquotes, and that’s the worst you’ve come up with. You fail to mount a direct challenge to Lord Monckton’s presentation of the SCIENCE ITSELF.
If you could be so kind as to present a statement of scientific fact made by Lord Monckton and dispute it from a purely science perspective….show your work, data, formulas… that would be ever so more usefull to the debate.
Count down to silence….three…two…one….
Mark S asks:
“To what extent? Please be specific. There is no record of you ever having done so.”
Mark surely without your Prophet’s own words to quote – anything at all you say is but babble!
I believe this would constitute wailing and gnashing of teeth on the part of the agw trolls.
I agree with Smokey @ September 18, 2011 at 11:35 am –
to argue that Lord Monckton didn’t “advise” Lady Thatcher on climate change shows an absurd level of desperation and doesn’t reflect well on the person making the claim.
Unless one can prove that Monckton and Thatcher were never together and never spoke on an official level about anything, it is simply impossible to either prove or disprove whether climate change was discussed.
I’m glad to hear that M of B will be publishing a further rebuttal to John Abraham’s presentation in future. Abraham’s seemingly wanton misrepresentations are a classic of the genre, and the lavishly uncritical reception by other AGW proponents is, in my view, worthy to be highlighted for the intellectual dishonesty that it is. However, I have to agree with a previous commenter who expressed some discomfort at some of the jibes that have been thrown their way, since it does expose one to criticisms concerning style and tone, thus providing an easy escape route for detractors who would be unable to respond to the serious points at issue.
A Troll is someone who provides no fact, or even a refutable or debatable opinion. Rather it is someone who enters the conversation to simply lob ad-hominem attacks and liables at people, races, religions, or generalizations in the worst degree. They say thinkg like “F^#% the _____” where the ____ is whatever you want it to be.
Trolls have no intellect as they are incapable of holding an intellectual discussion about facts. This person at least presented something to be discussed. Wrong, or at least in most cases misunderstood. Like for instance I personally believe that CO2 does cause some warming, just not the Catastrophic amounts that I am told. This means I disagree with people who advocate we have to ‘do’ something as best I can tell there is little reason to change based on the modest growth in warming that I see coming. Actually if anything I feel that this warmth will be an overall boon to the world elongating the growing season for the vast majority of the world.
For this I am labeled a ‘denier’ because I am skeptical of the outrageous claims that I am presented with and the scientists all agree about CO2. Anyway, this man was not a troll, I would suggest changing the title lest we come to misunderstand what a troll really is.
According to Mr. Telford we should not trust Moncton because his claim to be a member of the House of Lords has been rejected. My brief research suggests that perhaps Viscount Moncton has a valid claim, not unlike an inventor’s claim being legally denied perhaps legally but falsely. Should we also dispute that he is a Viscount?
We all know that these things are red herrings and do not matter in the debate.
One fact is that rising CO2 levels do lag temperature rises and never in the past have higher levels of CO2 prevented an ice age. Neither have rising levels led to run-away global warming, obviously. It is pretty clear to most which side is dishonest, but let’s put it to a vote so we can test this hypothesis neo-scientifically.
MarkS
Since you won’t believe The Lord himself or even Smokey, perhaps you will believe the Guardian?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatechange
Monckton was undoubtedly a science policy adviser to Thatcher and one of those briefs was in climate change. This is an entertaining interview
tonyb
I consider that the answers given by Lord Monckton appear to be reasonable, although I myself do not consider that there has been good correlation between CO2 levels and temperature either in the geological past, nor the more recent past covered by the intrument records. That said, I am sceptical about the accuracy of measurents over geological time (and I consider that proxy evidence to be no more than a general indicator of trend upon which no qualative or quantative conclusion can be drawn).
I have not checked but is the statement “At that time, CO2 was 30% of the atmosphere” correct?
The figure of 30% sounds rather high to me.
Whilst I accept that it is very probable the sun was cooler in the early periods of Earth’s formation, I do not consider that we know enough about the workings of the sun to put a definite figure on it. One should also bear in mind that there is a ‘minority’ view (and we all know about the worth of consensus), that postulates a very different scheme to the formation of the sun and how it works.
I’m thankful for YouTube, because I can hear Christopher Monckton speak and he’s always interesting. One of my favorite videos shows him at his best:
IF anyone know of a link, where I can see his speaking schedule, I’d love to get that link. I live in Southern California, so I’m not sure if he’ll ever come to our area, BUT if/when he does, I would love to hear him talk live.
I object to the vilifying of trolls in this article. Trolls are very intelligent and objective and also lucky. I do however agree with Moncton’s reply to his critic. He explained the ‘peer reviewed paper very well and I am not sure why his critic continues to misunderstand him on that point. I find Monctons points about climate change very interesting and I am wondering why this person has attacked him.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:08 am
Christopher Monckton wrote: “I did advise Margaret Thatcher on many scientific and other matters, including climate change.”
To what extent? Please be specific. There is no record of you ever having done so.
LOL I do believe the onus is on you – you are making this claim. Please provide YOUR evidence 🙂
Isn’t this how logical debate works? 🙂
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:19 pm
JohnWho wrote: “Let me ask you a question, Mark. If someone finds an error in anything Hadfield says or writes, you’ll then disregard everything he says, right?”
No, I wait to see how the person accused of making an error responds to reasonable criticism.
LOL
Yeah, like you’ve demonstrated here.
Lord Monckton has responded to Hadfield’s (and your parroting) absurd accusation regarding his advising Thatcher and has done so in a reasonable manner. Even so, you refuse to accept it and demand proof.
You’ve made the accusation that he didn’t advise Thatcher on the climate – the burden is on you to show that he did not.
LOL
Maryn Roy says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I object to the vilifying of trolls in this article. Trolls are very intelligent and objective and also lucky.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++===
Mamma Says , “Km don’t play under brides – Trolls eat kids” 🙂
May I add to those who like to see both sides of any debate.
The fact that this site has a liberal approach to publication is one reason why I like this site. It is always interesting, and i would say essential, for any objective person or sceptic to see and reflect upon both sides of any argument. One should always be challenging the views that one holds to see whether those views are truly sound and seeing opposing arguments helps to do this and assists in distilling issues that are raised.
May be I am old fashioned, but I do consider that those commenting should not be rude to others; rudeness adds nothing to the debate, nor does it assist in getting an argument accross. That said, I think that people should just ignore attacks of a personal character nature.
Anthony, keep up the good work
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:12 am
For clarity, ‘Potholer54′ is journalist Peter Hadfield.
‘The other Brian’ (whom Christopher Monckton labels ‘a troll’) merely gave a summary of Hadfield’s devastating critique of Lord Monckton.
###
I think you mean LAME critique.
Corrected, Sorry…
Mamma Says , “Kim don’t play under bridges – Trolls eat kids” 🙂
WOW, the propagandists are out in force on this story!
James Sexton wrote: “[W]hy does this matter to you? There’s plenty of evidence that he served as an advisory to Thatcher and the he advised on many largely varying subjects. Why would you think he didn’t advise her on global warming?”
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.
Why would Margaret Thatcher seek guidance on the science of climate change from somebody with zero expertise?
Unfortunately, Christopher Monckton occasionally leaves his audience with the impression that he offered Thatcher science advice (not policy advice) hence why some people introduce him as a former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Nor does he seem interested in correcting the record.
There exists a lingering suspicion (real or imagined) that he likes to inflate his credentials. I am inviting Christopher to resolve the matter. That’s all I’m doing.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.
++++++++++++++++++++++++=
IMO……..From it’s inception, AGW has been more about policy than science.
At 11:34 AM on 18 September, G. Karst had written:
Nope. Anonymity has always had benefits in public discourse. In 1993, New Yorker cartoonist Peter Steiner observed that “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” G. Karst and others who insist on the obliteration of online anonymity miss the point of that observation.
That point is simply this: On the Internet (in a forum such as this one) the only quality brought to a dispute by a commenter is the intrinsic validity of his assertions.
People with well-established academic and scientific credentials – like Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Jeff Glassman, the Doctors Pielke, Junior and Senior, and Mr. Monckton – scrupulously avoid even the appearance of speaking ex cathedra on the basis of nothing more than their own education and experience. They either explicitly support their statements with references that can be pursued and confirmed, or they are prepared to provide (as Mr. Monckton above has done) detailed information on the sources from which they derive their observations and conclusions.
What kind of bloody idiot expects any lesser standard of validation from those who post online without similarly identifying themselves?
G. Karst contends that the destruction of anonymity in fora such as this one:
This is purest crap. We are all witnessing efforts being openly made by the criminal regime of “Harrison J. Bounel” (or whatever in hell that Kenyan Keynesian’s name really is) to identify and punish any American who would dare to oppose our TelePrompTer-fixated Fraudulence-in-Chief’s program of political tyranny and economic devastation through the online articulation of such observations and opinions as have been conducing to lawful resistance against his coterie’s program of unlawful misgovernment.
The ability to participate in “OPEN, HONEST discussion” with the protection of anonymity – no matter how tenuous that protection might be in the surveillance state imposed upon us especially since the establishment of the federal Heimatsicherheitsdienst – is one of the greatest values imparted by the Internet.
Indeed, it is one of the qualities of this medium most thoroughly hated by the megalomaniacs who have always rammed tyranny down the throats of their neighbors under the guise of “government.”
I would admonish G. Karst and his ilk to bear in mind that philosopher Dr. John Locke would not have published his Two Treatises of Government in 1689 without the protection of anonymity in spite of the fact that the Stuart monarchy (against which the Rye House plot – in which Dr. Locke had been implicated – had been concerted) was overthrown. England was still a monarchy, and both of the Treatises (from the second of which our own Declaration of Independence was in large part cribbed) were beyond doubt attacks upon the ethical and political foundations of such a form of government.
Hell, Thomas Paine didn’t publish Common Sense in 1776 until after he’d filed off the serial numbers. That incredibly important incendiary pamphlet went forth anonymously, too.
With it understood that even if identified an online disputant in a forum such as this one must always be received with skepticism – and obliged to support his claims in matters of alleged fact – there is nothing to be gained by any requirement to post over one’s own IRL name, G. Karst is blatantly blowing it out his butt in his desire to breach the protections of anonymity in venues such as this one.
What the hell does G. Karst conceive to be beneficial in opening anyone to the practices of Nixonian “ratf-cking” and character assassination so viciously perpetrated by los warmistas (and confirmed in the Climategate e-mails) over the past two decades and more?
I’ve been trying to figure out a precise definition of “troll.” As a new slang term without an exact historical origin (such as “dowdification” or “jumped the shark”) it’s not likely to be precise. Still, based on the top Google results, I’d guess that an on-topic reply that is refutable, is not trolling.
I’d recommend that we avoid the term unless it is flagrantly justified. One of the sad aspects of the global warming debate (and lot’s of other topics) is the over-the-top rhetoric used. This incivility stimulates deviation from pure academic debate.
I greatly treasure the comments here by those who disagree with the point of view of the host. Without them, this site would lack something essential.
We should pride ourselves on a high level of civility — even hospitality for those visitors who are not like minded.
Mark S:
Since you remain anonymous, why should Lord Monckton respond to your anonymous accusations. You question was asked and answered! Either provide evidence to the contrary or take a hike! Put up or shut up. GK
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.
But either might discuss or “advise” someone in an official capacity on either general topic. Fairly easy to understand.
Why would Margaret Thatcher seek guidance on the science of climate change from somebody with zero expertise?
“Zero expertise” knowledge level is not a fact in evidence. Also, she may very easily have discussed many different matters with her trusted advisors.
Unfortunately, Christopher Monckton occasionally leaves his audience with the impression that he offered Thatcher science advice (not policy advice) hence why some people introduce him as a former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Nor does he seem interested in correcting the record.
Perhaps he doesn’t “correct the record” because he knows that the record is correct. Unless, as has been pointed out, you can prove otherwise?
There exists a lingering suspicion (real or imagined) that he likes to inflate his credentials. I am inviting Christopher to resolve the matter. That’s all I’m doing.
And he has resolved the matter. Accept it and troll on about something else.
At 12:50 PM on 18 September, Bob Diaz embedded a YouTube video recording of Christopher Monckton’s National Press Club (Australia) debate with Dr. Richard Denniss (19 July 2011) over the subject of the “man-made global climate change ” fraud.
What I particularly enjoyed about this exchange was the fact that Mr. Monckton was careful to keep focus on the economics of climate change, offering, for example, decisively effective information on the relative cost-effectiveness of adjustment to the putative adverse effects of anthropogenic global warming compared against the far higher costs and undeniable cost-inefficiency of the extortionately punitive measures proposed by the Gillard government in Australia aimed at impoverishing her constituents and destroying industrialized civilization in her country.
I hadn’t realized until viewing that debate a few months ago that Mr. Monckton (who is also not credentialed as an economist) had such an impressive grasp of “the dismal science” as well as the understanding of mathematics and the “hard” sciences he had already so eloquently demonstrated.
Tucci78:
You need to read my comment, NOT just quote it. I have nothing against anonymous postings. They ARE essential for certain individual commenter(s) ability to comment.
I specifically and exclusively referred to “ad hominen” attacks which cowardly hides behind anonymity. If you are going to attack someone personally… then have the balls to do it personally. If that means you should shut up, then by all means… please do! GK
We have collected a lot of Lord Monckton’s speeches and lectures,and radio & TV appearances at the Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science website. Check it out now by clicking the name “Axel” at the top of this posting. Lord Monckton has had these climate crooks pegged from the start.
These shills use all the tricks of false logic and ad hominem, & etc. Even some of these comments, seem more concerned about who did what, and when (or if they didn’t),and so on. Nobody in the Global Church of Goreism even wants to acknowldge the empirical facts and evidence, let alone discuss them. This was a tactic dreamt up, by the Club of Rome, when they originally started Global Cooling/Warming/Climate/Change/Disruption (score out at random).
Visit The Fraudulent Climate soon to see hundreds of arcane videos, on this and related subjects.
Thank You 🙂
Moderator: I skipped a slash in a blockquote tag and it prevents clear reading of the post…
One of the most effective means of debate is to mock. Another is sarcasm. These can backfire, but done well they are generally effective. Frankly I grow tired of people so polite that they will not mock someone who is goading them, or who politely responds too often to falsehoods. I might not agree with everything Monckton says, but he is an effective debater. And as regards correctness of views, I believe he is dead right about not trying to correct the problems of Global Warming, or whatever label one uses these days, if the correction is more expensive than the problem, itself. Good point not emphasized often enough.
This business of peer review has become a red herring. I have published work that was reviewed by an editor alone. It still qualifies as peer reviewed. Some of my best work, in my opinion, was never reviewed at all, and will likely never be published except in informal ways–it is still worthwhile. In a few instances I could not get reasonable work through the peer review process because a reviewer, or an editor, was willing to jump on a grenade to stop it if possible. It turns out these works were always regarding observational data about “global warming” or processing of such data. I have never experienced similar behavior in any other field–obviously there is something special about global warming.
On the other hand, works are published by special persons that get reviews by mates, or expedited one-day reviews and so forth, and these are considered peer reviewed. I simply cannot abide by the double standards here. If someone with passing acquaintance to the topics involved gave an objective look at a paper–then, by god it is peer reviewed, and science in the future will sort out its value. I’ll be willing to bet that A. Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity would have had a terrible time getting through the sort of peer review process we have today.
@Anthony & others …. a tip
About the scored out text on blogs like pielkeclimatescience. When you simply highlight the text, then (although negative) the score lines become almost invisible and the text is easily read. Furthermore, if you copy & paste the text into a simple application like Windows Notepad, which has no style attibutes, then the text appears as normal.
😛
🙂
Mark S says: September 18, 2011 at 10:52 am
Mark, your comments reveal you as a nit-picker. In my books that is a species of troll. You miss the generosity of the overall justification of Monckton. Details are important, but not when they are used out of context to derail.
I would guess that many here, Mark, DO listen to “the other side of the argument”, not once, but regularly, until they want to heave up. Perceived distortion of truth can make people feel physically sick.
Monkton’s genius is to turn such moments into fencing matches which abide reasonably by rules of good sportsmanship – another Scarlet Pimpernel.
I wonder if anyone other than Watts and Monckton remember this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%e2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/
I’m betting Mark S hasn’t read it.
🙂
It seems to me that most of the points Brian made are a determined effort by many amateurs and perhaps a few scientists to denigrate Monckton as if that proved AGW. It is a group effort of some sort. The misspellings are somewhat indicative of the author’s lack of in depth knowledge, yet his intensity of his misbeliefs are telling.
I find interesting that Pielke Senior is now on the hate list radar. If anyone was providing measured responses and analyzing scientific content it is Pielke Senior. This move by the green lobby suggests that science and scientific discourse worry them. Good as it suggests desperation from them. Keep it up Roger Pielke sr!
Mark S;
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.>>>
Correct. His title was “Policy AND Science Advisor”. Two roles. Count ’em. Two.
davidmhoffer says:
September 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Mark S;
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.>>>
Correct. His title was “Policy AND Science Advisor”. Two roles. Count ‘em. Two.>>>
And I’m still waiting for an answer to my earlier challenge. Put aside your griping about his credentials, let’s see if you can pick out some actual SCIENCE he presents and show that it is wrong….
Countdown to additional silence following my first challenge…. three… two… one…
Max Hugoson says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I’m with you on the whole video thing. While not coming near your speed of reading, I am quite fast, and even a decent reader can absorb much more information at a far faster rate by reading it in print than sitting there waiting while a single idea in a video slouches its way to be born. The same is true, only more so, with documentaries. An hour documentary generally provides about five minutes of actual information, none of which can be skimmed. This is why I have resisted my colleagues effusive praise of video use in the classroom (other than using them to show the astounding number of Video News Releases that are pawned off as news items).
Give me text any day. You can pack in more information into it, and I can go through it much faster. Videos may be high-tech, but in effect they’re a throw-back to the stone-age storyteller.
Mark S wanted to destroy Lord Monckton but has now been reduced to quibbling over what the meaning of ‘advise’ is. How pathetic. Take Lord Moncktons advice – get a life Mark.
davidmhoffer wrote: “His title was “Policy AND Science Advisor”. Two roles. Count ‘em. Two.”
Who told you this? Let me guess: Christopher Monckton.
Are you aware that he also claims to be a member of The House of Lords when in fact he is not?
davidmhoffer wrote: “I’m still waiting for an answer to my earlier challenge. Put aside your griping about his credentials, let’s see if you can pick out some actual SCIENCE he presents and show that it is wrong”
Peter Hadfield has already done this. Please see the information I provided earlier.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/#comment-746234
Tucci78:
If you are going to quote my comment then have the courtesy to read it!
I specifically and exclusively referred to anonymous ad hominen attack comments NOT any or all other kind of comment. Anonymity is essential to enable some commenters to participate in these conversations. However, they forfeit the right to attack anyone personally.
If you want to attack someone personally, then have the balls to do so, personally. To do otherwise, is just a cowardly, back-shooting, run to your mama and hide behind her anonymous dress, kind of attack.
If that describes you, then perhaps you should also remain silent (STFU).
Again, anonymity IS important and IS essential. Next time read the comment! GK
I applaud Christopher Monckton for facing these attacks head on…it is the correct and honorable thing to do. I do disagree with some of his perspectives on some things, and actually agree with him on several issues (mainly policies) as well.
But I also applaud Anthony for his continued rather broad censorship policy. More than once I’ve come back to see that one of my so-called “warmist rantings” has passed the mods, and have been both surprised and pleased. And yes, I’ve been put in “time out” more than once– and probably deserved it. Having been labelled more than once as a “troll” here in WUWT (much to my dismay by the way) I can appreciate that my viewpoints don’t see eye to eye with the majority of those who frequent here. But I try very hard not to deal in ad hominems (despite myself being frequently attacked), unless pushed the the edge. I’m glad to say WUWT has prompted many hours of fruitful research and education on my part and has, over the several years I’ve been coming here, given me pause and reason to change my perspective on a good many things. Yes, I’m still a “warmist”, but I think a good deal more open-minded and educated one for being a regular participant of WUWT.
“there is some evidence that there was less Arctic ice from the 1920s to the 1940s (and even into the late 1950s in Northern Greenland) than there is today.”
Since there is considerable evidence that there was more ice in the 1920s to 1940s (see Walsh & Chapman 2001), it would be interesting to know what Monckton believes to be evidence that there was less.
No, I wait to see how the person accused of making an error responds to reasonable criticism.
Let’s put you aside. What’s going on is an effort by other warmists to discredit Monckton’s good thrusts (90%, or something similar, of his content) on the basis of the 10% that is (or seems to be) overstated or weak, and to marginalize or banish him entirely on that basis. It’s an over-reaction.
Anonymity is a pretty pointless thing to quibble about. How does anyone know the name attached to my post is my real name?
@REP (Sep 18th 11.37am),
I definitely think you did the right thing. When somebody passionately disagrees with something that seems “obvious” to me, they can SEEM irrational, stubborn, pigheaded and “trollish”. But, I always try to remember that if somebody seems like a troll to me, I probably seem like a troll to them. 😉
So, I try to assume that the other person is as genuinely passionate about their view as I am about mine.
P.S. Doug Proctor’s comment (Sep 18th 10.43am) is quite insightful, and I agree wholeheartedly with Richard Verney’s (Sep 18th 1.01pm).
P.P.S. …But then again, maybe The other Brian is just in “Lord Monckton denial”? 😉
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lord_Christopher_Monckton_denial
@Lord Monckton: Kudos on your response. 🙂 I don’t always agree with your approach, and I think you tend to be too prepared to treat almost any “skeptical” analysis as fact, just because it’s sceptical (there’s a lot of rubbish on both sides of the debate – it pays to be discerning in what analysis you promote). But, there are far more people doing the same on the “believer” side, e.g., Al Gore’s 24 hour campaign from last week. So, the intense hatred and villification you seem to recieve seems unjustified.
All in all, I’m glad you’re out there letting people know that there are other viewpoints than Al Gore’s out there, even if sometimes you get some things wrong.
So, keep at it :), and remember Oscar Wilde’s advice:
“Always forgive your enemies – nothing annoys them so much.”
Richard Telford says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:05 am
Since one should never trust a man who purports to be a member of the House of Lords,
end quote
The good lord has replied and refuted this calumny many times viz :
His Passport is issued to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – by the British Government’s Passport Agency.
So he is recognized by the UK government as being entitled to the courtesies and dignity of the title. Further he is explicitly the 3rd Viscount; his Grandfarther having been made an hereditary peer; which makes his title hereditary.
Is he a member of the House of Lords ?
Well since Blair and Brown failed to change the constitutional basis for membership of the House of Lords when they gerrymandered the still incomplete trashing of our constitution; being an hereditary peer automatically makes him a member of the House of Lords. One whose voting privileges have been (possibly illegally) removed. Note that this is true of all hereditary titles that were eligible to sit in the House of Lords; they remain explicitly members of the House of Lords. It will take primary and specific legislation to remove that membership; even then such a bill may prove invalid under the 1689 Bill of Rights (the UK’s written constitution; on which the US constitution is based)
So I am afraid there is nothing ‘purports’ about his membership of the House of Lords.
Score:
“the other Brian”: 1
Monckton : 0
Mark S. how does any of the claims your clinging to invalidate the Science of Monckton? You seem to think that if you can draw any question about minor irrelevant things you don’t have to address the real questions. Because then you have just brushed them off and can ignore any science they may have brought up.
Oh and under what ever title if Monckton gave any advice on climate from a scientific perspective then he gave science advice. Completely blowing Hadfield out of the water.
I agree Jeff and anonymity is pointless to quibble about. I put my name out there and my professional designation and a link to by web site. I someone and that means anyone can not or will not stand behind his or her comments I simply ignore them, even the ones I agree with.
Monckton is a big boy and he has demonstrated that. Anthony is correct, censorship is wrong headed and anti-science. That said, politeness and civility may have little to do with science but a lot with communications.
Roger Knight has touched on this, but it should be repeated clearly for everyone to understand. It is a logical fallacy to say “since person A is wrong about X then anything they say about Y is also wrong”. Arguments on a subject must be taken on their merits and not dismissed by unrelated statements just because they came from the same source. I believe Lord Monkton does his best work when he talks about government policy, bureaucracies and their decision processes as he was deeply involved in that area. For the hard science stuff, I tend to go elsewhere as Lord Monkton falls for the same “greenhouse gas” fallacy that most people in this area do (on both sides of the argument).
Anthony, the man with experience proven by results, runs his site formidably well without gratuitous advice from vanity wounded sorts who beseech him to censor the playground fellows being mean.
Dayam, Mr. Monckton – crying to daddy is not for grownups. After all, if you have a serious issue with libel – you can sue and win! Perhaps you can explain why you did not do that when you had a clear win and were whining about it publically? Instead, you importune a third party whose job it is not to protect your tender sentiments?
We needed a head on a post, sir – you had the scimitar and the head on the block – and chickened out. Are you interested in winning or sponging sympathy? they are very different goals.
I’ll charitably leave out any discussion of who helped maggie start the co2 scare in the first place if you can manage a reply to why you failed to sue last time.
I love His Holy Lordship. I wish he could be the president of every country in the world. We would all be so happy. Thank God for his presence. In fact, I suspect he is the new Messias who has come back to Earth to save us from the antichrist Al Gore. He has cured people from AIDS! Thanks to His Holy Lordship, we now know conclusively and without ant doubt that the Earth is cooling, Arctic sea ice is rapidly increasing, sea level is stable and many other truths. God bless you, Lord Monckton! I pray for you every day.
At 1:27 PM on 18 September, Frederick Michael had written:
The use of the slang term “troll” in the context of contumely is hardly “new.” I can personally recall its use in 1970s science fiction fan publications (particularly in amateur publishing association [APA] distributions), almost always with an element of duplicity and ambush. The Wiki-bloody-pedia article on Internet trolling currently alludes to a practice employed by U.S. Navy combat aviators in strikes over North Vietnam which was characterized by the tailhook types as “trolling for MiGs,” employing fighters to simulate bomb-laden strike aircraft formations in order to sucker enemy interceptors into coming aloft and attacking. USMC fighter ace Gregory “Pappy” Boyington had employed this same kind of deception (flying his deadly Corsairs in bomber “vees” rather than fighter “finger four” formations) to entice the reluctant Japanese into air combat with his squadron over Rabaul during World War II.
To this kind of purpose, the practice of the modern online troll is more specifically that of a commenter masquerading as the advocate of a position which he wishes to deceitfully degrade by voicing weak and/or odious simulacra of argument on that position’s nominal behalf. Such is now commonly being attempted, for example, in the desperate efforts against the TEA Party movement by “Liberal” fascists of the MoveOn.org persuasion.
Thus it is inappropriate to call someone a “troll” if his practices, in fact, consist of nothing more than confrontational address of other disputants, even if his posts are filled with expressions of contempt and hatred.
To return to the usages of stefnal fanspeak, that’s “flaming,” not “trolling.”
Frederick Michael concludes:
Nope. Once the purposes of posters are discerned with reasonable reliability, if they are determined to be averse to the preservation of intellectual integrity and/or individual human rights – again, we’ll use the MoveOn.org mamzerein as our example of malignant bastiches who must always be treated with napalm whenever they spew – hammer them!
Think of it as a public health measure.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
James Sexton wrote: “[W]hy does this matter to you? There’s plenty of evidence that he served as an advisory to Thatcher and the he advised on many largely varying subjects. Why would you think he didn’t advise her on global warming?”
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.
Why would Margaret Thatcher seek guidance on the science of climate change from somebody with zero expertise?
Unfortunately, Christopher Monckton occasionally leaves his audience with the impression that he offered Thatcher science advice (not policy advice) hence why some people introduce him as a former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Nor does he seem interested in correcting the record.
There exists a lingering suspicion (real or imagined) that he likes to inflate his credentials. I am inviting Christopher to resolve the matter. That’s all I’m doing.
===============================================================
You didn’t answer my question. Why does it matter to you if M. Thatcher sought council C. Monckton about climate change or not? As to your assertion about “zero” expertise, recall, if your old enough, there wasn’t a large body of people wailing about climate change. We’d just got through with the looming ice age idiocy. So, there wasn’t a lot of people then that you would consider today as an expert in the matter. Hope that helps towards your why, also. Regardless of your views of the man, C. Monckton has demonstrated that he’s a very intelligent person. Were I do have his benefit of his advice at my leisure, I’d seek it out often and in many different areas. I suspect that may have been M. Thatcher’s perspective as well. In the meantime, its been asked and answered. Again, why does it matter to you?
But, Mark, going beyond that, of the 17 criticisms listed by the mad video guy using you and Brain as proxy, I count 16 as ludicrous and the 17th as long been since addressed. But, I’d like to linger on some.
As to his advisory capacity, we’ve already discussed.
It turns out he did have a paper reviewed and published. This could have been confirmed by a cursory check.
The earth cooling and warming. Any person that has spent any time considering this knows that cooling and warming can be shown of the earth in many different time periods. That imbecile making the video knew or should have known the time frame in which Monckton was referring to. And, so should you and so should have Brian. If you still don’t believe and are unwilling or unable to investigate this for yourself, just ask and I’ll show you definitive cooling.
Greenland ice loss, again, you need to have the proper reference of time and context the statements before calling them falsehoods. For instance, I can state Greenland in total has an increased its total ice.
Total ice loss—— see the two prior points. Check since Sep 2007.
CO2 correlation a gadzillion years ago……http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif Draw whatever conclusions you wish from this. I don’t put much stock in much of anything stated about that far back, but again, a 10 min excursion would show that most opinions agree with C. Monckton.
The Himalayas——– at some point the warmistas will understand that they need to quit speaking about stuff they obviously know nothing about. Haven’t they embarrassed themselves enough over those glaciers? And the assertion of only one is absurd. And the accusation demonstrates the accuser’s lack of understanding of the nature of glaciers. But, that’s all too common with the warmista.
CO2 forcing——— Mark, in case you Brian and the moronic movie maker hasn’t noticed, there is no definitive number to it. It is what much of the climate debate is about. I’ve seen all sorts of figures assigned to CO2 forcing, but no one has proved it yet. So, to say CO2 forcing is 3 times this or that is simply an opinion. Again, anyone that has bothered to look would know this.
He clearly demonstrates a working knowledge and understanding of forcing vs sensitivity. I’m wondering, now, if the hating Hadfield can distinguish the difference?
But, speaking of distinguishing a difference, I’m wondering if petulant Peter understands that one can use the observations of others and come to different conclusions?
Misquoting scientists —– and you ask people watch a video? Present the facts. I’m not watching any more that nonsense. If the source did come from Abraham, then it is clearly an fabrication.
Albedo ——- are you kidding me? Did we find a rogue warmista group that argues against the importance of albedo? That’s fantastic. Just like I’ve stated for years, it doesn’t matter if the arctic melts or not. Turns out its even less important than I thought! And now I’ve got climate expert Peter picture taker to back me up on this!
The radical concept of the sun causing warming. —– K, prove that it isn’t. (Please quote Dessler) Understand, that if there is heat unaccounted for in the proof, then nothing has been proved. Again, this is a major subject in the climate debate.
Last criticism again, has been addressed. And addressed here……again.
After all of this. You still persist in wanting proof of his advisory capacity? You should be banging on your malicious movie maker’s door asking him about his assertions that were so obviously stated in a manner to skew the audiences perception.
Mark, stick around you may learn something about absolutes and opinions and data and conclusions and context.
James
[snip tone – down and resubmit – Anthony]
We should all know by now that when a troll posts “Christopher Monckton said X but he is wrong”, that 99 times out of 100, it is a misstatement of the facts and Christopher Monckton can back up what he actually has said or written.
If we try countering the trolls and the informed-but-still-wrong posters like R. Gates over and over again, the threads just turn into monster he said she said posts.
In studying for an economics degree I often had essay questions starting “Compare and contrast…..” If in the answer anyone did not consider views that were contrary to their own, or dismissed them out of hand, then they would be marked down. The reason is simple. People learn best by being challenged and debating their ideas. Science progresses by the same method. Wherever ideas get blocked, or deliberately misinterpreted, then there is weak or degenerate science. When the boundaries of science/non-science are decided subjectively by the stronger side, then there is dogma.
Central to the CAGW is not whether CO2 can cause warming. Lord Monckton, Profs Lindzen and Spencer, and most “sceptics” agree that a doubling of CO2 will, ceteris paribus, cause about 1 degree celsius of warming. It is the issue of feedbacks that they disagree with the consensus. So that is why the editors of journals that published peer-reviewed papers that questioned this assumption stepped down (Lord Monckton’s Paper on climate sensitivity and the recent Spencer & Bracewell Paper on cloud feedbacks).
If you wish to compare and contrast – to be challenged and be sceptical, then
1) Compare the comments on wattsupwiththat.com with those at http://tamino.wordpress.com/. Which has the more sycophants? (For instance about a recent paper on Australian Sea Levels at http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/tamino-on-australian-sea-levels/) or who has the most one-sided comments.
2) You may reject any attempt to redefine the language in support of as Orwellian Newspeak. For instance compare John Cook’s (of skepticalscience.com) definition of sceptic with any English dictionary. (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html) You may want to consider that; firstly his examples refer to past data and not to the rapid acceleration in warming predicted by climate models; secondly, that most of the conclusions are extremely controversial. For the latter search the internet for any subject area he cites with “wattsupwiththat”. One is example is to compare http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm with http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/27/antarctic-ice-%E2%80%93-more-accurate-estimates/ to see which peer-reviewed paper uses the longest data period; or best considers alternative method of measurement; or states in the abstract the uncertainties involved.
3) If your core argument is weak but popular, a secondary line of attack you will resort the opinion polls. (see http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract) Yet in a criminal court, if the prosecution’s evidence relied on the opinion of some experienced police officers that the accused is guilty because he “looks the type” and associates with “known characters of ill repute”, then most liberal-minded folks would agree the case should be thrown out.
I’m now wondering if Monckton is going to prepare an answer to Hadfield, now that “the other Brian” has kindly flagged him up for attention. A floor-wiping response like he did with Abrahams’ ignorant, slanted, libellous material. Monckton always does things thoroughly, once he engages. But he doesn’t engage with nitpickers unless they have done a nitpicking job big enough for heavyweigh warmists to flock to them. I started to look at the videos, as much as I could tolerate, ie enough to see strong evidence that it’s all garbage, and the usual garbage at that. For starters, Hadfield gives Monckton no space to respond… like Tamino, unlike WUWT… that’s always a giveaway. Hadfield equated no science degree with no scientific knowledge/ability – the usual ignorant fallacy about Monckton – yet Monckton’s APS paper was reviewed by two highly competent scientists in relevant disciplines – better “peer review” than Dessler, for starters. And MarkS thinks we haven’t seen all this before…
What does one do when, knowing Abrahams has been dealt with, the Medusa’s heads keep growing lots of Abrahams-clones? What libel laws extend that far – as they should?
[b]MarkS[/b], shouldn’t you be at school or something? Your arguments sound just like a high school debater. Lord, give me strength.
This is falling into the cult of personality.
Who cares about Monkton, Mann, Watts, Jones or any other politician or climate scientist…..These are people, not facts. Showing Mann had an ugly prom date in highschool doesn’t discredit his work, pointing out errors in it does. Attacking M & M and refusing to say their names didn’t make a single error they pointed out go away.
What has soured me on climate science, and I used to believe it was real, was when I started to read news stories quoting scientists that were saying things that clearly disagreed with the data.
Remember in the 2003-2009 period where everyone claimed it was still warming, despite temp graphs not rising? All the people who called us stupid for not believing them, are now starting to admit it hasn’t warmed since 1998, and trying new theories as to why it hasn’t…….but you still called us idiots and claimed it was still warming when it wasn’t and after that what credibilty do you have left today when you admit it wasn’t warming now?
Large snows and cold winters…….Now you claim you predicted that, but sorry you didn’t and history shows you didn’t. You can’t find the quotes from 10 years ago predicting it, just recent quotes from you saying you predicted it. We are not stupid and we do not forget what you said 5, 10 and 15 years ago. Pretending you said it destroys your credibility.
This “battle” is not going to be won by trolling WUWT, or by trying to slip comments into Realclimate without going to the bore hole. It is going to be won by long term data and prediction testing. Trying to discredit Monkton isn’t gonna make the “missing heat” reappear. Calling Anthony names isn’t gonna improve the quality of the surface stations. The people that read WUWT are not morons and we are not gonna change our minds based on if you can copy and paste personal attacks into the comments. You will not change a single mind without real proofs. One small fact at a time. We didn’t arrive at our positions based off of Monktons slide show and I would surely hope you didn’t arrive at yours from a slide show. So don’t insult our intelligence.
Brilliant move! Just, as I was giving up (on your sincerity), you say something sincerely redeeming! Now I have to give you the “benefit of doubt” again. Please don’t use it up on your next comment! :=) GK
popular climate science, like much of theoretical cosmology relating to the size of an (infinite) universe is full of erroneous assumptions. Cosmology tries to understand the other perspective. Climatology is an infantile science so far, even more basic than the earliest theories of aristotle. Naturally, the response to curiosity and scepticism is the one of galling rectitude, just like the papacy in the face of Galileo
In respectful defense of those who write under assumed names (though not trolls): There is a great deal of great literature which the world would never have seen if people were always forced to write under their true names. All the works of Jonathan Swift, for instance; or “Common Sense”, the pamphlet that clarified the reasons for the founding of our country. The fact is that many people, of whatever political stripe, have concerns that their ability to engage in free speech is constrained by their circumstances. Such sites as yours graciously provide an avenue where one might not otherwise exist. Thank you.
I think that WUWT is a fantastic website, it allows debate about a subject that has the potential to destroy the world as we know it, or the economy of the world as we know it, or both.
When I post comments here I do so using my real name, I do not have a problem with people who post comments with a “pen name” until they attack comments made by others and
those attacks are vindictive, I regard such attacks as cowardly. Lord Monckton has at least had the good grace (no pun intended) to put a name, voice and face to his opinions, which many of his opponents here have not. I think that WUWT should post comments that have been passed by a moderator, anonymous or not, but on the really contentious issues, personally I give much more credibility to the comments of those who provide a real name, especially if that name can be cross referenced on the Internet, Facebook or similar!
Back in the 60s, Dr. Cyrus Gordon came to Fuller Seminary in Pasadena to give a series of lectures on ancient Hebrew literature. His presentation was highly divergent from widely accepted views in his own religious tradition. During a Q and A session toward the end of the series he was asked about his own children–What does he tell them to do when presented with conventional views in Sabbath School? I regret missing that session, but as reported to me, his answer went something like this: “I tell them to listen respectfully and make sure they understand, because it is important to know what is current, as well as what is true.”
WUWT is to be commended for allowing free expression to those who honestly try to distinguish what is true from what is merely current.
To Rhys Jaggar
Hello, my name is Jordan Daniel Potoski (Spelled with an i; never a y). You made a list in which you say trolling is prevalent, and I was a bit curios as to your opinion regarding these matters. If I’m out of line for asking these questions, let me know and I’ll stop. First thing being first, I’ll ask about number one on your list of trolls’ favorite topics. If anyone would like to contribute, by all means, do.
To Monckton(Is it really “lord”?),
Bravo on your rebuttal to the troll. Very enjoyable to read, and I hope he reads it as well. It’s one thing to attack someone’s ideas with vigor and venom, it is another to make outright lies. That is classless. Can I read any of your works regarding global warming? If so, where do I go?
[REPLY: Yes, the correct title is “Lord” as he is a hereditary English peer. You might consider doing a Google search on “Christopher Monckton” – you’ll know you have the correct one if it mentions “Viscount of Brenchley”. You will also want to be aware that the Viscount is an exceedingly controversial figure, so you’ll want to check several sources and watch some of his videos before drawing any hard and fast conclusions of your own. -REP, mod]
That is too cool! Think for the information and the advice. I’ll do just that.
I meant “thanks”…
Anthony,
Your comment on moderation is a particularly telling one. I have tried to find common ground with the good folks (mostly well meaning) on “Warmist” sites but found that heavy handed “Moderation” destroyed any hope of a dialog at Climate Progress, RealClimate or Open Mind. The more rabid sites such as “Deltoid” and “Open Parachute” do not rely on censorship as they imagine that extreme “Ad Hominem” attacks are persuasive.
Skeptical Science was different. Initially there was no censorship except of things that were “Off Topic” or “Ad Hominem”. Consequently it was possible to discuss topics in a constructive way. Almost as good as WUWT. Wonderful!
Then I got the impression that John Cook was overwhelmed by the volume of comments on the site. He started to sub-contract the moderation tasks to “Daniel Bailey” and others. These guys became increasingly heavy handed until they were no better than Joe Romm. I was exchanging emails directly with John Cook so I appealed to him to restore the gentler moderation policy which made his site truly different. He declined to do so I no longer waste my time at Skeptical Science.
Another sad case is “Brave New Climate”. This site belongs to Barry Brook a professor at the University of Adelaide. Tom Wigley is one of his colleagues. For over a year, BNC tolerated me and even permitted this “Guest Post”:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/15/solar-power-in-florida/
I have the highest regard for professor Brook who does a fine job presenting the arguments in favor of a rapid build up in electricity generation from nuclear power plants. Over 90% of the posts on BNC are excellent even though I disagree with much of the detail. I tried to avoid arguments over motivations. My motivation relates to building prosperity and spreading it to the “Have Nots” rather than fighting “Global Warming” (something I would encourage if mankind had the power to do it).
Once in a while Barry Brook fires off wild and absurd statements. Here is an example that Lord Monckton would demolish brick by brick:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/
This was too provoking so I politely pointed out a few of the nonsensical statements. Sadly, academics generally don’t have much of a sense of humor when you disagree with them, so the little spat that followed caused an immediate change in the moderation policy at BNC that was later formalized. I can still post there as long as I don’t criticize the “Consensus”. For the moment I choose to post elsewhere.
I hope you won’t find my remarks offensive.
You can certainly tell Lord Monckton is getting under certain people’s skin… Hitting a few raw nerves I think.
I have read some of Lord Monckton’s work and it is all interesting and worth the time to look over. His presetantions are a delight to view. Thank you Lord Monckton. As for attacking him – This is what the AGW folks always do when confronted by facts. They get emotional instead of rational.
Just look at the warming trends over the past 12 years and you can see the AGW models are failing. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it; just look for yourself.
Mark S;
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 2:56 pm
davidmhoffer wrote: “I’m still waiting for an answer to my earlier challenge. Put aside your griping about his credentials, let’s see if you can pick out some actual SCIENCE he presents and show that it is wrong”>>>
Peter Hadfield has already done this. Please see the information I provided earlier>>>
If all that was needed to bring value to a discussion was to provide a link to someone else’s work, then EVERYONE would be an expert, on ANY topic, and on ANY SIDE of that topic. Do you really think that referring to a link you posted to someone else’s tirade gives you any credibility at all?
My challenge was for YOU to point out a mistake in Moncton’s science and explain why it is wrong. James Sexton has already shattered Hadfield’s video, but that’s beside the point. If you have no explanation of the science of your own, then what value are you bringing to the table?
The comments pro or con about how much ice is or is not melting in Greenland are irrelevant.
If the ice was melting, the sea would be rising.
For several years now, sea levels have been dropping.
Therefore the ice (overall globally) is not melting, but increasing.
So stop with the panic already.
It was clear from his scurrilous first assertion that the troll was a half-literate ne-er-do-well, who is probably living in his mother’s basement. It should have come as no surprise to anyone that he plagiarized all his accusations without giving credit to the original author.
That Lord Monckton had to respond is unfortunate for him, but educational for the rest of us. I for one enjoy a general refresher course every so often. Thank you, sir.
I am only one reader, but I’ll add my view.
This has been a good thread.
I am glad that Lord Moncton took the other brian head on. I find most of the time that critics of Lord Moncton arrogantly overestimate their own knowledge, and he does well in head-to-head debate.
As an anonymous writer, I support anonymity for anyone who requests it.
On the whole, I like the moderators. Like others, I have had some disappointing experiences over at RealClimate.
Mark S;
Are you aware that he also claims to be a member of The House of Lords when in fact he is not?>>>
I’m aware that he disputes the right of the British Parliament to strip him (and others who would otherwise inherit that right) of his hereditary right to sit as a member of the House of Lords. While I have to admit that I side with the British Parliament on that matter, Lord Monckton is free to dispute the matter.
None of which has anything to do with SCIENCE.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:16 am
“Peter Hadfield’s fourth video (above) catalogues a number of examples where you appear to misquote people.”
Mark,
In respect to the above assertion, referencing “the 4th video”, or throwing in a link does not make your point. I wish you and others would use some words and build your point, and not use links to make your points for you. I don’t go on link chases to figure out someone’s point, and I don’t expect others to, either.
So, in the future be exact when making your point, and then include a link or two in support your well structured case.
Tucci78,
“If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; …
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!” – Rudyard Kipling
To Monckton,
Just watched some videos on Youtube of you debating, and, I’ve gotta say, I didn’t disagree with a word of it. Loved the video where you were addressing the U.S. on what would be happening if we didn’t put a stop to Obama. I’m more keen on the political aspects of the debate myself. From the hippies to the greenies to the radical left wing media, I see the tendrils of communist control creeping into this country. What better way to disarm us than to cry over the evils of war and how evil we are for daring to defend ourselves? What better way to take control of private industry than to cry over how we are killing the world and a stop must be put to it even if it means Uncle Sam steps in to do so? What better way to silence any argument against your cause than to slander and label? C.S. Lewis predicted the liberal media before it ever really took root. The bad news is, as I’m sure you know, a lot of damage has already been done. The good news is is that there might be some real “hope” for a “change” comes 2012.
To the good moderators of this page,
I understand if this bit never sees the page.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
There exists a lingering suspicion (real or imagined) that he likes to inflate his credentials. I am inviting Christopher to resolve the matter. That’s all I’m doing.
=============================
Uh huh. And what are your credentials???
Thought so…
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Lucy Skywalker says:
September 18, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Love your ability to “see” the issue and evaluate. From my view Peter Hadfield is a science “sniper” who does exactly what he criticises, in carefully constructing his media to support whatever position he is choosing or cherry picking, with the prime purpose of giving his regurgitators something to hang an argument on. It is significant that here in Australia we feel bombarded with one sided political propaganda to the extent that we absolutely hang out for at least some scientific debate.
Christopher Monckton has always shown himself to be willing to engage in scientific debate in a face to face situation, to answer his critics and those that have always been reluctant to engage in debate, (but quite willing to snipe from the side lines) on the science they keep telling us is robust, but unwilling to show the data or robust reasoning that underpins their belief. Note a belief that is so strong that they feel they have the absolute right to use scurrilous claims for the greater good of promoting their beliefs and preventing intelligent discussion on the issues.
Quite puzzling really? and, one wonders why Peter Hadfield didn’t challenge Christopher Monckton to a face to face debate while Chris was available and in Australia. I’d like to have seen that, i.e putting your money where your mouth is!!
Thanks Anthony for providing us with a depth and breadth of information to make up our own minds one way or the other. Sadly our government in Australia is committed to stifling any debate unless they can control the outcome.
Bill Illis says:
September 18, 2011 at 4:43 pm
We should all know by now that when a troll posts “Christopher Monckton said X but he is wrong”, that 99 times out of 100, it is a misstatement of the facts and Christopher Monckton can back up what he actually has said or written.
If we try countering the trolls and the informed-but-still-wrong posters like R. Gates over and over again, the threads just turn into monster he said she said posts.
=============================
Repeated for effect. Extremely well said, Bill.
I would be tougher on commenters who make wild/sweeping/unsubstantiated statements.
I’d also omit those that don’t really say anything.
The only reasons to respond to trolls and other jerks is to:
– make points for the education of lurkers
– show them up for the jerks that they are
The day they stop attacking Lord Monckton is the day all these climate cultists have been taken to a remote village by Al Gore and made to drink something that will allow them to travel to a waiting UFO somewhere behind Nibiru.
Brandon Caswell says: September 18, 2011 at 5:14 pm
This “battle” is not going to be won by trolling WUWT, […]. It is going to be won by long term data and prediction testing. […] The people [who] read WUWT are not morons and we are not gonna change our minds based on [your ability to] copy and paste personal attacks into the comments. […]. We didn’t arrive at our positions based [on Monkton’s] slide show and I would surely hope you didn’t arrive at yours from a slide show. So don’t insult our intelligence. [emphasis added -hro]
Well said, Brandon. Seems to me that insults to the intelligence of those with whom they disagree is all that the alarmists have left in their “debating” arsenal.
Jordan Potoski says:
September 18, 2011 at 8:16 pm
To Monckton,
Just watched some videos on Youtube of you debating, and, I’ve gotta say, I didn’t disagree with a word of it. …………The good news is is that there might be some real “hope” for a “change” comes 2012.
To the good moderators of this page,
I understand if this bit never sees the page.
============================================================
Jordan, the moderators here, give a great amount of latitude in the comments. However, I would alert you to the fact that many that comment here do not share your political persuasions, and others still abhor political discussion at all. I believe they try to keep towards the science as best they can.
That said, it is impossible to keep all politics and economics out of the discussions, by the very nature of the CAGW issue. This is a really neat place to learn and engage. But, on the occasion that the conversations drifts towards highly charged topics such as religion, politics, economic theories, etc….. you should be prepared for some very aggressive dialogue. I would also note, there are a good number of …. alarmists, for the lack of a better word, that comment here often. They will challenge your assertions when they deem it necessary.
My way of saying “welcome”!
James
To James,
You.Are.Awesome, and thank you for the advice.
collinmaessen says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:00 am
Potholer54 hides his identity? Please Anthony, potholer has made a video detailing who he is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YMxpqYEjyo
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 10:12 am
For clarity, ‘Potholer54′ is journalist Peter Hadfield.
Just listening to the voice of this effete ponce Hadfield, makes one embarrassed to be British. Our trademark muddle-headedness springs from being so psycologically overwhelmed by precious self-importance and introverted self-awareness that we become unable to contemplate any fact or issue in its own right, we are only capable of contemplating what we look like addressing the issue and what others must be thinking as they look admiringly at us. This event horizon of narcissism results in paralysis of any semblance of logical analysis and clear thinking. This explains why practically the whole luvvy British elite are swept off their mincing little feet by the global warming scam. Get over yourself, wake up to reality!
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
“There exists a lingering suspicion (real or imagined) that he likes to inflate his credentials. I am inviting Christopher to resolve the matter. That’s all I’m doing.”
Lord Monkton has explained on more than one occasion U.K. law regarding his title. He has got a legal claim until the UK government repeal certain laws, something they are slow to do. You never know, as a politician you may be next in line to kneel before the Queen!
Myself, I tend to lean more to the “Dennis, the Constitutional Peasant” view in the Monty Python film, the Holy Grail film,,,,,,”Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.” 😉
Monkton and Gore have equal credibility as political ideologues pontificating about the science.
They are of ZERO interest to anyone interested in the science and signify to all but the dogmatists on either ‘side’ that anyone relying or approving of their input is an idiot.
Anthony Watts:
I’ve had a bit of stick over at Bishop Hill about this so I’m gonna use this opportunity to do exactly the same here!
One of the ironies is that my ‘real name’, the name with which I was born, is Richard Tyrwhitt-Drake. When I went onto the freelance programming market in London in 1982 I felt this decidedly posh but hard-to-pronounce name wasn’t going to help and became simply Richard Drake. Interestingly, my father had just begun a stint in Toronto as an exective for Inco and also went from Bill Tyrwhitt-Drake to Bill Drake. He didn’t think the hard-nosed North Americans would put up with the more high-falutin’ moniker. My brother and I were surprised and impressed at that. This alone puts me an interesting position vis-a-vis Christopher Monckton, who insists he’s a member of the House of Lords when his critics love to point out that, strictly speaking, he’s not. I always instinctively feel “Oh give it a rest, Christopher.” Thus I agreed with the second word of your first sentence, Anthony, more than you can know!
I’ve told you something that I find faintly annoying about Monckton. But it’s nothing to the irritation I feel when I hear anyone anonymous – or more strictly, pseudonymous – pitching in to agree or disagree about the very tricky WUWT moderation issues raised here. For to be pseudonymous is at best a priviledge. At worst it’s an act of cowardice. What it can never be is a badge of pride or, as some seem to think, the very embodiment of the first amendment.
I don’t expect that all Internet discussions will quickly change to adopt a ‘common names only’ policy – though it’s notable how LinkedIn, Facebook and now Google+ have established the principle elsewhere. There are reasons they have. The blogosphere will one day need to count the cost on this too.
There are of course benefits of the current system, such as when someone like ‘Bart’ on Climate Audit in the last ten days is able to teach the rest of us about control theory without divulging his identity to all and sundry. Before Bart there was bender. And so on.
But the use of pseudonymity spreads far wider than Bart and bender, to many cases where I’m sure I would judge that it would be much better for the persons concerned to either use their real name or not say anything at all.
“What?” I hear you cry. “You want to take away my free speech!” Far from it. I merely want you to pay the same reputational cost as those of us who use our real name, whenever you do so. That would indeed mean less contributions and greater quality and that’s my point.
The price we all pay for indulging indiscrimate and unnecessary use of pseudonymity is great. I won’t even try to illustrate. The evidence either hits you in the face every time you browse the blogosphere or you are insensitive to it and nothing I could say would ever change your mind.
Respect to the hard-pressed moderators of Watts Up With That, as always.
>>Mark S
>> Sitting down with a cup of tea and expressing a personal opinion is not the
>>same as receiving guidance from someone with expertise.
Actually, I think you perfectly described the manner in which scientific political advice is disseminated. Or do you think the prime minister is locked in a darkened room with a mad scientist, for 3 hours of incomprehensible equations?
This comedy clip about scientific advice to the prime minister was based around Margret Thatcher’s administration (yes, its about 20 years old).
.
Compairing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.
@- Russ says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:36 am
“Compairing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.”
They are both politicians, NOT scientists. They use their rhetorical skills to promulgate a ideological viewpoint, NOT explicate the science.
If what you want is their political take then pay them attention.
But if you want the science both are a waste of time. Two sides of the same coin….
izen, the main difference is that Monckton is happy to debate what he bases his position on and what scientists and papers he is quoting.
Al Gore on the other hand flees debate and expects people to just take his word for it even though he has been proven to make false statements.
If you look up recently for instance Monckton attended the press club in Australia for a debate with an AGW alarmist as well as answering to the usual ad-hom attacks and other insinuations.
It is therefore at least my view that Moncton is a mouthpiece for science but with a political twist (and thank God he is pro-democracy / anti-global government) whilst Al Gore is all political spectacle without even the debate.
Max Hugoson ( September 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm) said about
what Frank Lee MeiDere said on September 18, 2011 at 2:25 pm :
I’m with you on the whole video thing. While not coming near your speed of reading, I am quite fast, and even a decent reader can absorb much more information at a far faster rate by reading it in print than sitting there waiting while a single idea in a video slouches its way to be born. The same is true, only more so, with documentaries. ……….. Videos may be high-tech, but in effect they’re a throw-back to the stone-age storyteller.
——-
Axel comments:
The thing is you see that “modern man” is really just a “stone age” man with clothes on, living in some rather more salubrious caves than in the past. The brain works in a very similar fashion, and yes, unsurprisingly, the “story telling” narrative although perhaps imparting less “information” than a long treatise, is nevertheless more memorable, and of course the viewer is able to use innate sense to interprete the “body language” and mannerisms, facial expressions, tone of voice, and many other things which can either reinforce or expose the speakers agrument as being more or less likely to be truthful and believable.
This is why the Police, for instance, would wish to interview suspects in person, rather than just asking them to send in a letter or an essay describing their innnocence or suchlike.
Any person can (and they indeed do) copy & paste the words and phrases of others, and in this sense they are simply repeating ideas, and statements, and in a circular fashion then use this repitition as “proof” of a premiss, which is of course a peripatetic fallacy of logic. This may not be evident at first sight from a written text. We have no idea how hesitant the author was when he wrote such texts, and indeed where these juxtaposed segments may have originated from.
With a video, it is far easier to judge if someone may be not be genuine or whether they are sure of the facts which they are relying upon. Yes of course textual theses have their place, but Videos and Audio recordings are important tools for education,and not just in a formal sense.
Interestingly according to your website “probablydontlikeyou.wordpress…etc”, you “don’t give a damn”, and you quote Gavin Schmidt’s RealClimate website as an “info” source. “Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is interested in modeling past, present and future climate.” according to his own CV, yet I have yet to see a video appearance where he didn’t look shifty and evasive. I certainly wouldn’t buy a used car from G. Schmidt Autos.
I think that your education colleagues are correct in their assessment of the use of video, and that you have underestimated the strengths of such media.
@- peaknikmicki says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:37 am
“izen, the main difference is that Monckton is happy to debate what he bases his position on and what scientists and papers he is quoting.”
The main diffeence is that Gore is in step with the scienetific understanding of over 90% of the scientific community, and certainly with all those scientists actively engaged in the physical sciences associated with climate and the Earth sciences.
Monckton bases his position on quotes from scientific papers, which are then repudiated by the very scientists that wrote the papers….
either there is a vast global conspiracy and since the 1950s climate science has pursued a ‘Lysenko’ dellusion…
Or like continental drift AGWis a theory that was proposed many times over the last century, but until better data in the 1960, (sea floor spreading, CO2levels, plate tectonics, radiative transfer equations) was not fully accepted. Now both are well established parts of the overall scientific understanding of the world around us.
1.Monckton said he advised Margret Hatcher on climate change – Monktons previous employment makes no difference to his understanding of climate.
He did advise Margaret Thatcher as far as I can tell. However, this seems to be a moot point given his scientific claims are entirely verifiable as he is specific about his beliefs, his calculations and how he delivers other authors scientific work.
2.He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – He wrote a paper which received what he believes was peer review, to be staunchly reprimanded by the same journal and it’s reviewers
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
This is not a peer reviewed paper and is stipulated as being part of the newsletter, not part of a scientific review process. The reason for this is due to the heated dispute between the journal editor and the members of the board who did not approve of allowing what they perceived to be garbage science into the journal. The alternate explanation is conspiratorial, but again this doesn’t even matter — this to me is another moot point, as we can directly assess the scientific claims of Monkton, which are entirely verifiable. Monkton then queries, did Al Gore write any peer-reviewed papers? Again, we can directly assess any scientific claims that Al Gore makes as these are scientifically verifiable.
3.He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.
The claims are that between different time points you can claim anything is true but we know that a linear trend through a time series does not yield a proof e.g. pirates increasing and cyclones diminishing. However, if something has a logic basis in which it operates, then given a plausible model it can give some meaning to the result when correlated at a 95% CI i.e. the chance of seeing something happen which is not linked to what we expect to see is 5 in 100. When this is confirmed through multiple lines of evidence, this shows the scientific method at its current understanding and can only be discredited by new findings which are consistent and then also reproducible. If you show conclusively that the sun has remained consistent in it’s irradiance then assuming the sun is responsible for sudden changes in what was a ‘stable system’ means you require more complicated variables which are yet to be proven, hence it is unscientific to claim it. If we do find them, then that’s great, however, there would be no scientific merit to this claim because the proof to this concept does not meet basic requirements e.g. The sun could reflect solar radiation which could be producing clouds which could be producing negative forcing and cooling the earth… but in the last 150 years the sun has been in an 11 year solar cycle. This means you require extraordinary claims to how it works.
4.He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.. the Danish expert clearly rejects Monkton’s misrepresentation of his work.
The expert quoted disagreed with the way Monkton produced his work and even went to lengths to write about how he misconstrued his work. If you believe Monkton over the source of where Monkton got the information, that’s bizarre. At least on this one point you should not believe Monkton’s claims because I’ve watched his seminars many times and I know that the way he presents the information and the way he explains it above is totally inadequate. I would suggest you watch his presentation because it is very surprising that he would not concede this point.
5.He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.He confuses forcing with sensitivity.
6.He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.
It was one paper provided at a conference that Monkton then claimed to be the position of the entire IAU which he clearly stated. It’s simple, retract the statement, admit fault. When you say something, if you didn’t mean to say it then clarify, or if you were misled, or have henceforth fixed your errors then appropriately account for being wrong but explain how you abridge the problem. This again, isn’t even a big deal, except that you inappropriately try to say it was just a footnote, when you quite clearly state it is the position of the IAU.
And now a response from Anthony to the second to last paragraph about moderation.
Anthony I always gave you credit as an honest moderator and I really enjoyed your website for all the knowledge I gained. I also believe in freedom of information and have concerns with the political agenda of the climate debate. However, given the nature of how frivolous Monkton’s claims have been, his appalling calculations and attempts to hide his bad data, I can’t in good faith not say what I really believe about him. I think he is committing fraud and has quite seriously damaged the credibility of skeptics. To me, he is the Al Gore of the skeptics position and after watching the responses in this thread I don’t think half the people are as skeptical as they think they are. I trust you to continue your good work Anthony. I hope you continue to find a divide between your personal beliefs and those of Monkton because he seriously misrepresents, misquotes scientists and others whilst simultaneously claiming his victimisation.
Monkton states, “The moderators should perhaps be more vigilant in banning contributions from trolls who state in terms, as this one does, that I ‘misquote scientists to mislead [my] audience’.” I don’t claim to know Monkton’s motivations and it isn’t even important. The fact is he does misquote and he does misrepresent, and then when confronted, he denies it happens, even though it’s just confronting him with his own words. I hope the moderators don’t ban my contributions, and I don’t think they will. They’ve always been the place I trust to allow dissent, but I don’t expect them to allow verifiable dishonesty.
@- peaknikmicki says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:37 am
“izen, the main difference is that Monckton is happy to debate what he bases his position on and what scientists and papers he is quoting.”
The main diffeence is that Gore is in step with the scientific understanding of over 90% of the scientific community, and certainly with all those scientists actively engaged in the physical sciences associated with the Earth sciences.
Monckton bases his position on quotes from scientific papers, which are then repudiated by the very scientists that wrote the papers….
either there is a vast global conspiracy and since the 1950s climate science has pursued a ‘Lysenko’ dellusion…
Or like continental drift AGW is a theory that was proposed many times over the last century, but until better data in the 1960, (sea floor spreading, CO2levels, plate tectonics, radiative transfer equations) was not fully accepted. Now both are well established parts of the overall scientific understanding of the world around us.
izen:
More like Gore and Phelps are two sides to the same coin…
One’s an activist zealot and the other a religious zealot, NOT scientists – but they both preach and spout lies. They use their rhetorical skills to promulgate a ideological viewpoint, NOT explicate the science or true religious values. If what you want is their point of views only then pay attention to them only; but both are a waste of time. Two sides of the same coin to me.
Moncton is heads and shoulders above either of these two charlatans and anyone with a lick of common sense can see that.
An operating definition of troll that I like is:
Troll – someone who has, over a significant period of time, shown that their intent is predominantly to disrupt discourse on specific topics; topics which they are ideologically opposed to.
John
Accurate and polite riposte, typical Monckton, this guy is unflappable. Proud to be British on occasions such as this.
Regards to WUWT.
Richard Drake wrote: For to be pseudonymous is at best a priviledge. At worst it’s an act of cowardice. What it can never be is a badge of pride or, as some seem to think, the very embodiment of the first amendment.
Books are published by pseudonymous authors, such as George Eliot, and we have books named after pseudonymous authors, such as “The Federalist Papers”. Famous scientific papers have been published by pseudonymous authors, e.g. “student”: “On the probable error of the mean”. They are marks of pride and embodiments of the first amendment. I can emulate them without affecting to rank with them.
Anonymous behavior is interesting and discussions about it bring out a lot of energy and personal emotion on the topic.
I consider anonymity as purposeful intent to avoid identity; someone hiding something associated with themselves; for them identity is perceived to be problematical. Thus, in that perspective, in dealing with the topic of anonymity we are dealing with some aspect of avoidance behavior.
John
I wrote the longest comment I’ve ever written and it seems to have disappeared. This leads me to just leave my note that Monckton clearly showed himself to make many claims that he would later alter. He also repeats the errors in his slides which he has been already told are incorrect. The scientific papers that he uses (when he uses them) are shown to discredit what he says when put into context. The authors of the papers refute his claims, and he also made errors in his calculation which he can’t just undo.
Wouldn’t it just be too funny if Willis E did verification of Monckton’s calculations from his slides?
REPLY: It was in the spam folder, recovered. – Anthony
Richard Drake: I can appreciate your position vis-a-vis anonymity. I am fortunate enough that my name is common enough, that even with it, you would have trouble finding me in most middle to large sized cities. Assuming I were to tell you what city I live in.
I have had issues with those who disagree with what I have to say, trying to locate me in the real world in order to express their displeasure. I will not put my family through that again.
It is not just one’s reputation that is at stake, sometimes it’s ones job, sometimes it’s your personal safety, or that of your family.
@- ldd says:
September 19, 2011 at 7:25 am
“Moncton is heads and shoulders above either of these two charlatans and anyone with a lick of common sense can see that.”
Anyone with a lick of common sense would avoid BOTH of them as a source of credible scientific information.
izen says:
September 19, 2011 at 7:15 am
Or like continental drift AGW is a theory that was proposed many times over the last century, but until better data in the 1960, (sea floor spreading, CO2levels, plate tectonics, radiative transfer equations) was not fully accepted.
Still Waiting for Greenhouse.
“Truthseeker:
Roger Knight has touched on this, but it should be repeated clearly for everyone to understand. It is a logical fallacy to say “since person A is wrong about X then anything they say about Y is also wrong”.
+++++++
Thanks Truthseeker. This is one strange thing about Americans – perhaps having to do with their Calvanist past or something. “If I can show that the witness lied about attending a birthday party in 1971 then nothing they say about anything else is true.”
It is so desperately weak as to make on wonder what reality is – most likely the warmists have no rebuttal of substance. I always enjoy reading a distillation of criticisms of Monckton because the warmists so obviously have no answer to his science and economic calculations – they have to huddle in secret corners to talk about how he once picked his nose and ate it.
I see R Gates weighing in with his ego and ‘schooling’ (I won’t stoop to calling it ‘education’) adding at the end an ad hom against virtually everyone who follows WUWT. How interesting. Way to go RG. Boy that really stung! Better read up on Aristotle who was so full of himself he flattened the Earth and mis-led millions for centuries. He was famous, educated (well… ‘schooled’) and wrong.
You are claiming for yourself an above average dose of schooling, yet are beaten in argument to the point of having to regurgitate old saws from the annual troll conventions and warmist censorship sites. Gates, if you really are interested in the science, read the whole set of Moncktons papers at the Science and Policy Institute. There is more common sense and properly calculated science in there than in all of RC’s mindless rants, blocks, appeals to authority and insouciant arrogance. And eloquent to boot. I suggest first his paper on the hot spot over the equator that is palpably not there – one of the core claims of AGW is as hollow as any of your titles from the Kingdom of Names.
Can you imagine a debate between Gavin and Monckton? With Gavin unable to bin anything that disagreed with some arbitrary factoid he pulls out of thin air? With no appeal to authority able to divert the topic to some helpful blind alley? Can you imaging what Monckton would have to say about the peer review process Gavin is so fond of defending, as evidenced as recently as Aug and Sept this very year?
If you are so smart, RG, why can’t you see that this CO2-rooted CAGW is a load of hokum propped up upon a set of misrepresented, misunderstood, incomplete, malformed opinions of how the world works? The fact that so many similarly titled co-conspirators are on in the scam matters not a whit.
If Hansen-the-Shrill was right, and so far he has never been right, we would find some CO2 increase leading, not lagging, some warming. That is not nit-picking about his membership in some club or if he picks his nose. All the evidence to date shows he guesses wrong. Repeatedly.
Long may they live and long may they prosper, but not on my nickel. They should finance their own wind farms.
Vintage Monckton! The repostes that are accurate reveal that he has no case – a 3 year ‘recovery’ in arctic ice from a record-shattering low – and a 10 year flat trend at a record high, or else repeat the offence.
Greenland ice and Johannessen 2005: Monckton cherry-picks a study showing the expected result that the centre of the island will accumulate snow and ice as precipitation inceases and performs a ‘simple calculation’ to extrapolate to the whole land mass. This despite the fact that the very paper he cites says this is not legitimate:-
“First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes–let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change–for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig. 1).”
But this is exactly what Monckton did.
IAU: here’s the slide used by Monckton:- http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/abraham_solar2.gif
Fairly unequivlocal. And totally wrong. The head of the Sun and Heliosphere division of the IAU was understandably unimpressed: “there is no such formal position endorsed by the IAU let alone any claim from the IAU that suggests that global warming can be explained by solar variability. Please pass this information to whomever might have used the IAU name to claim otherwise”.
Peer review: Elsewhere Monckton maintains that his APS website post was peer-reviewed, and he has ‘published’ on the subject of climate sensitivity. (EG http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/sppi_press_release_monckton_paper_peer_reviewed.html , or at about 1.22 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o2sdqhDFWo&NR=1 ) Yet Al Saperstein, who Monckton tell us reviewed the work, differs …
“He stressed that that the article was not sent to anyone for peer-reviewing. Saperstein himself edited it. “I’m a little ticked off that some people have claimed that this was peer-reviewed,” he said. “It was not.”
Notwithstanding its status, the article had 125 errors http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Who exactly is the troll here?
REPLY: You are, your trolling track record here is well proven. – Anthony
————
Billy Liar,
Reminds me of the futility expressed in the play ‘Waiting for Godot’ by Samuel Beckett. CAGWists are waiting in vain for nature to arrive with their postulated CAGW by CO2; just like the characters Vladimir and Estragon in the play wait endlessly and in vain for Godot.
John
Richard Drake says:
September 19, 2011 at 1:51 am
et al on anonymity.
I have a fairly unique surname. I work in a smallish engineering discipline.
My employer is quite specific about exposing his good name (like most employers); and many employers now take the reasonable view that an employees behaviour can reflect poorly on the employer.
I may wish to work for Siemens one day. Given my views here they may not wish to employ a skeptic (they do build rather a lot of those pointless wind turbines).
Alternatively I may find I am part of an engineering team putting together a proposal involving ‘renewable’ power sources.
I like to think I would turn down any overt invitation to work on such senseless projects; however I have a family to feed (and a mortgage to feed); so I may need to swallow my pride and dirty my hands.
And I don’t even work in climate related areas ! What would you do; if you worked at the UEA ? Or perhaps worked for the wrong bit of NASA ?
There are many reasons some of us will not use our own names; I consistently (like many others) use the same pseudonym.
Thank you to all boards that allow us this privilege.
@ Drew says:
September 19, 2011 at 7:08 am
———————————————-
Did you bother to read Monckton’s replies?
“2.He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – He wrote a paper which received what he believes was peer review, to be staunchly reprimanded by the same journal and it’s reviewers”
It was reviewed and published. What happens afterward, in respect to the claim, is immaterial.
“3.He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.”
In the time frame in which Monckton was speaking, using HadCrut, it absolutely did cool. Models don’t measure heat transfer. Models don’t measure anything. All the rest of your writings are rationalizations to explain how this, ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/trend ) isn’t cooling. Sorry, I can look at my thermometer one day, then look at it the next to determine if that day was warmer or cooler than the other day. I don’t need a model nor the scientific method to make that determination. Try again Drew. What you just wrote is the silly.
“4.He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.. the Danish expert clearly rejects Monkton’s misrepresentation of his work.”
Read Monckton”s reasonable explanation. If a scientist offers information, is it under the caveat that one must agree with the conclusions to use the data? That’s the dumbest argument I’ve seen against Monckton and there have been several irrational arguments against him.
5.He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.He confuses forcing with sensitivity.
There has been no provable estimation of CO2 forcing. You don’t know its 3 times higher any more than he knows it. Again, read the explanations at the top (Monckton’s own words) He’s clearly demonstrated he understands what a forcing is. If you read right above his understanding of a forcing you’ll see where he derived his numbers from.
“6.He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.”
Now, I know you didn’t bother to read his explanation. He admitted and explained his mistake. What more do you want from the guy? Some form of self-immolation?
What’s wrong with you people? Argue his science, argue his numbers. Quit trying to make him out to be a person that intentionally deceives. My goodness, if our climatologists were 1/2 as candid as Monckton we wouldn’t have near the discussions we are having today.
James
At 8:14 PM on 18 September Frederick Michael had addressed me with four lines from Kipling’s oft-quoted poem “If” (1895) and no further comment, as if this were somehow a profound message.
Okay. Let me offer in return a bit of “Macdonough’s Song” (1917):
Taking my example from Frederick Michael, no further expatiation is offered.
izen says:
September 19, 2011 at 3:51 am
@- Russ says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:36 am
“Compairing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.”
They are both politicians, NOT scientists. They use their rhetorical skills to promulgate a ideological viewpoint, NOT explicate the science.
If what you want is their political take then pay them attention.
But if you want the science both are a waste of time. Two sides of the same coin….
But Gore wants to be a carbon billionare and Monckton wants to stop the BS.
So again, compairing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.
@- Billy Liar says:
September 19, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“Still Waiting for Greenhouse.”
Perhaps like Vladimir and Estragon, you wouldn’t recognize it if you saw it.
What ‘better data’ would you require to acknowledge its existence ?
—————–
Izen,
I think you are creating/imagining the wrong protagonist. It is moi, not Billy Liar. (I thank Billy Liar for the lead off tip to Izen)
Unlike Vladamir and Estrgaon, we are not in the climate science imagined existentialist marshmallow world. We can, as individuals, judge for ourselves the hard value of the science product, independent of its source. N’est ce pas?
This is the open, transparent science media here, not the ‘Teams’ controlled echo chamber.
John
@- Russ says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:53 pm
“But Gore wants to be a carbon billionare and Monckton wants to stop the BS.
So again, compairing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.”
The other difference is that Gore is presenting a viewpoint supported by 100% of the worlds’ scientific organisations, 99% of the scientists active in the field and ~80% of the scientifically literate.
While Monckton is pushing a fringe, crank extreme position only supported by a few percent with a common political dogmatism against AGW, not a coherent scientific argument.
@- John Whitman
Perhaps in this transparent arena you could explain what evidence, data or events would persuade you of the reality of AGW?
@ izen, The other difference is that Gore is presenting a viewpoint supported by 100% of the worlds’ scientific organisations, 99% of the scientists active in the field and ~80% of the scientifically literate.
Yeah and that’s why you warmist are now throwing Gore under the bus lately, because he is doing such a bang up job, Good one. No wonder you paint Gore and Monckton with the same brush. Good try though.
So again, compairing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.”
@- Russ says:
September 20, 2011 at 1:25 am
“Yeah and that’s why you warmist are now throwing Gore under the bus lately, because he is doing such a bang up job, Good one.”
Gore is only really effective with educated liberals, he preaches to the choir with little effect on the conservative unconversant with physics. This website just spent a good deal of time and bandwidth pouring scorn on anything he said and did, for many on the rejectionist side of the AGW argument, the involvement of Al Gore is seen as sufficient justification to reject ANYTHING he is linked with.
But then those who undersdtand AGW theory and accept its implications find Monckton is equally repellent as a source of information. In fact his record of errors and exaggeration makes the WHOLE of the rejectionist case look much weaker so while his contribution is seen as worthless in itself, he does serve to illustrate how crass and unscientific the rejectionist position can be.
He brings skepticism into disrepute for all but his devotees….
suyts says:
September 19, 2011 at 1:46 pm
@ Drew says:
September 19, 2011 at 7:08 am
———————————————-
Did you bother to read Monckton’s replies?
I read all of Monckton’s replies and thoughtfully gave him credit that he is doing what he believes is right, rather than being cynical about his motivations. The only time I talk about his motivations, is when I’m finished writing about his replies to what he says in lectures and move into a personal judgement (which barely matters). My belief in why he does things is of minimal importance, but I believe very strongly that he does require very harsh scientific rebuttal because Monckton either alters the context of other authors or he creates an alternate criticism made against him so he can reply to that instead. If you are a skeptical mind you would ask yourself several questions before even getting started on researching Monckton’s claims.
The first thing to note, is that Monckton alters quotes significantly as to alter their context, as he places his own view of what was said in quotation marks and claims it as the words of somebody else. You can’t do this. If Monckton says something I will not be rewriting it and putting quotes around it unless it is verbatim. If Monckton is changing something which is essentially the same meaning as the actual quote, then he should just leave the first quote in there to begin with and explain his interpretation rather than giving the audience his view to begin with. This misquotation is serious, as it defies any standard because if you alter quotes, your work can’t be trusted.
Second, Monckton writes up work which he says for everyone he either has a source or a journal article or an equation to verify the data he presents. The problem is, information has been shown in instances to be tampered with to get the result he wants rather than accounting for other known sources, even those directly in the information he uses as a source. Such an instance is when he is taking two different time series and then mixing them together to show there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. There is a fantastic problem here which is so simple that for him to act so oblivious to it is to set off warning bells. The gathered scientific evidence using paleomagnetism of ancient glacial sediment show the earth was actually covered in ice around the equator. The sun has also shown to be strengthening over time so was much weaker 800 million years ago during the first instance of this deep freeze. The correlation requires taking into account solar irradiation was weaker by about 4%, geographic distribution was altered, ocean heat transport systems were different and Monckton does not account for any of this, completely decoupling his ‘model’ from reality. To believe this is a meaningful result is pretty hilarious. Where’s the skepticism?
“2.He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – He wrote a paper which received what he believes was peer review, to be staunchly reprimanded by the same journal and it’s reviewers”
It was reviewed and published. What happens afterward, in respect to the claim, is immaterial.
That’s pretty much exactly what I said, that I don’t care about whether it was published. You can view his scientific works, which are completely verifiable.
“3.He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.”
In the time frame in which Monckton was speaking, using HadCrut, it absolutely did cool. Models don’t measure heat transfer. Models don’t measure anything. All the rest of your writings are rationalizations to explain how this, ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/trend ) isn’t cooling. Sorry, I can look at my thermometer one day, then look at it the next to determine if that day was warmer or cooler than the other day. I don’t need a model nor the scientific method to make that determination. Try again Drew. What you just wrote is the silly.
I don’t think what you wrote is silly, because people have different ways to understand and that makes them uniquely valuable. Models do not produce evidence — what they produce is a statistical likelihood that they are representing what is being seen given some dependent variable(s). If evidence through measurements conflicts with the hypotheses of how the system works this negates any value of a statistical relationship. Monckton gives his speech saying something along the lines of… statistics can be used to prove anything. This isn’t true, as I explained above, if you find measure data such as in the troposphere and find it does not warm more given CO2 is the forcing, then your model is invalid because it is part of the hypotheses. Monckton then draws a line from different random points as if this makes clear that it can mean anything, but this doesn’t give either an r squared value, or a CI, p-value etc. What Monckton is saying, as I have shown above, is absolutely untrue because observational evidence is supporting the theory of CO2, which gives credence to the models.
“4.He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.. the Danish expert clearly rejects Monkton’s misrepresentation of his work.”
Read Monckton”s reasonable explanation. If a scientist offers information, is it under the caveat that one must agree with the conclusions to use the data? That’s the dumbest argument I’ve seen against Monckton and there have been several irrational arguments against him.
That’s not the argument against Monckton. What Monckton says is that this is the work of the authors and then formulates something completely controverting what the authors write in their own research. Monckton can’t just say “this is science” and then ignore the the context in which he got his information. It’s like I measure the heat content of the ocean and say, oh the earth is getting hotter when in fact it was the ocean I measured, not the entire earth which has no context. If Monckton uses something from one paper then he has to explain why he ignored the authors explanations of what the information means. In saying this, Monckton did not explain or ever concede he was incorrect in the calculations he performed.
What Monckton says is, “Here is a paper by Yohannessen et al., very dilligent danish researcher using laser altimetry and what he found was that between 1992 and 2003, the average thickness of the vast greenland ice sheet increased by inches a year.” That was not what was found by the researcher because the researcher reported in the journal article Monckton quotes, “First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes–let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change–for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig.1).
That’s pretty cut and dry that Monckton is totally wrong on the science, and secondly, he tries to represent this as the views of the author.
5.He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.He confuses forcing with sensitivity.
There has been no provable estimation of CO2 forcing. You don’t know its 3 times higher any more than he knows it. Again, read the explanations at the top (Monckton’s own words) He’s clearly demonstrated he understands what a forcing is. If you read right above his understanding of a forcing you’ll see where he derived his numbers from.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html#sec10
The equations Monckton uses are spurious. E46 from the link provided above details the errors in his final sensitivity calculation. This is scientific error that skeptics should keep in mind when Monckton rattles off equations. You need to verify the math yourself or find a mathematician who can explain it to you.
“6.He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.”
Now, I know you didn’t bother to read his explanation. He admitted and explained his mistake. What more do you want from the guy? Some form of self-immolation?
What’s wrong with you people? Argue his science, argue his numbers. Quit trying to make him out to be a person that intentionally deceives. My goodness, if our climatologists were 1/2 as candid as Monckton we wouldn’t have near the discussions we are having today.Monkton says, “I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr.
Abdussamatov’s name. Dr. Abdussamatov, like other researchers in the field (e.g. Solanki, 2005; Shaviv, 2008, 2011; Svensmark, 2011; Kirkby, 2011), offers evidence to the effect that the role of the Sun may be rather greater than is found congenial by those who would like to blame nearly all recent warming on CO2.”
Monckton replies to something nobody is interested in for a start. I don’t care if he cites a paper incorrectly or makes a mistake because he can clarify mistakes. The problem is he made the claim that it was the position of the IAU, he said this quite clearly in his speech to the auddience. Watch the videos of his in full so you are aware of his claims.
———–
izen,
I appreciate your reply. Thank you.
From the very first use of fire by primitive mankind the Earth’s environment was influenced. What the influence has been till now is a significant scientific goal worth achieving and I add that there are many other things in the universe that are much more important to study.
The current IPCC process is fatally flawed and for me cannot yield trust in their products.
The only situation that could convince of the AR4 IPCC CAGW position is for there to be an equally funded competitive effort that (as opposed to the IPCC) has an open/transparent/independent structure led by an international association of private universities and private research institutes. Unlike the IPCC, AGW by CO2 focus would not be built in as the biased premise. Let me call my idea of a competing association APT (Assessment by Private Team)
After say 10 to 12 years there would be a long series of public debates lasting for ~5 years as to which approach best benefits the understanding of interactions of climate and the result of mankind’s economic/technical/industrial progress. Is it the biased/closed IPCC or the APT’s open/independent venue?
That would start to convince me that science in climate is objective.
John
Friends:
This is the funniest thread on WUWT for some time.
Izen and Drew, please keep contributing. Your attempts at character assassination of Lord Monckton demonstrate the paucity of your arguments supporting the AGW hypothesis: you would not bother to make such points if you had any cogent scientific arguments.
(A cogent scientific argument would be,
“The fact (X) demonstrates that emissions from human activity are causing AGW of a potentially catastrophic magnitude and, therefore, people – including Monckton – who point out facts that disprove the existence of such potentially catastrophic AGW must be wrong.”)
So, in addition to the laughs your contributions provide, your contributions demonstrate to the undecided the inadequacy of the so-called ‘science’ used to promote the AGW-hypothesis. I for one am very grateful for this, and I thank you for it. More of the same, please.
Richard
Can any warmist apologist provide Lord Monckton’s equivalent statement which equates to Al Gore’s adamant statement that the Earth’s core is millions of degrees in temperature. This clearly demonstrates the differential gap in Gore’s base knowledge (he doesn’t have any).
Obviously, warmists have a spokesman, who is embarrassing inadequate, when compared to the ambassadorial Lord Monckton. GK
Richard S Courtney says:
“Izen and Drew, please keep contributing. Your attempts at character assassination of Lord Monckton demonstrate the paucity of your arguments supporting the AGW hypothesis: you would not bother to make such points if you had any cogent scientific arguments.”
1. I never once supported the AGW hypotheses
2. I never attacked Monckton’s character because I believe his scientific prowess demonstrates everything I need to know
3. I defend Monckton’s right to freedom and to say what he believes without my inferring malicious intention.
4. Seeing as nearly everything I wrote made clear I was only concerned with Monckton’s scientific endeavor I wonder if you meant something entirely different other than what you wrote.
5. I don’t think I can clarify any better that I don’t care what Monckton’s intentions or personal beliefs are and that only his scientific errors are my concern.
Isn’t it obvious to the most casual observer that if we had Monckton and Gore in direct discourse in public that Gore would be quickly reduced to sputtering and swearing while turning red?
Replace Gore with Abraham and you would have the same result. Replace Gore with Black or Monbiat or Romm or Cook. . . ditto. Monckton’s world class efforts would prevail.
I do appreciate it when Monckton enters the fray with IPCC CAGWists. When he does the IPCC CAGWist commenters here (and elsewhere) entertainingly go terminally ballistic and display levels of irrational argument seldom achieved in polite venues like WUWT.
Anthony and Mods, thanks for showtime!
John
I thoroughly agree with Richard and John about the paucity of the arguments against Monckton. Isn’t it characteristic of the debate much more widely that the people concerned hide their sorry arses behind pseudonymity? (Dunno know why I’ve gone into street American all of a sudden, it must be a reaction to all this talk of Viscounts!) I would like to return to that subject just a little. I appreciate all the feedback. In order of decreasing disagreement then:
Septic Matthew: “They are marks of pride and embodiments of the first amendment.” I know you’re talking about the George Eliots of this world but even so, I can’t agree. Pseudonymity is never a mark of pride or the embodiment of the first amendment. At best it’s a necessary evil. The ideal is that we are able to speak our conscience or present our art publicly in our own name in a free society, without fear. I find it disturbing that so many say that they feel unable to do so. What signals does this give to those who may count themselves our enemies?
Mark Wilson: “I am fortunate enough that my name is common enough, that even with it, you would have trouble finding me in most middle to large sized cities. Assuming I were to tell you what city I live in.” This is a key practical point. I don’t believe that everyone should make themselves available to the most unstable reader of their opinions to be able to arrive at their doorstep within hours of reading. How unusual one’s name clearly affects this. Point taken.
peter_dtm: “What would you do; if you worked at the UEA?” Paul Dennis is a very interesting case in point. Last month I was the first climate blogger he had ever met (that wasn’t already an academic colleague). It was a real priviledge on my side. The next day Paul was back at East Anglia and got the strong impression that the powers that be were keen to have him onside. He doesn’t think he has anything to fear. I very much respect him for that quality.
John Whitman: “Anonymous behavior is interesting and discussions about it bring out a lot of energy and personal emotion on the topic.” I have some theories about this which are not as negative as you parting shot: “in dealing with the topic of anonymity we are dealing with some aspect of avoidance behavior.” But you also have a point. Thanks.
I’m not going to try to systematise my response. I’ve come to realise, over twelve years now, that it’s a really deep issue. All I will say is that it’s never good to be governed by fear. I see Anthony Watts as a superb example of someone who is fearless. (He probably feels different to that at time but that’s the advantage sometimes of not having met.) This quality – which one also sees in Christopher Monckton, in his different way – is much to be desired. With it comes victory over more than the plots of the AGW insiders but something much deeper. I speak as a beginner.
———————
Richard Drake,
Your comment appreciated.
By mentioning that anonymity is in some aspect avoidance behavior, avoidance of identity, there is no pejorative intent. I am sorry you took my observation as negative.
I think anonymous commenters know they are hiding their identity. They are not hiding the fact of hiding their identity. Their reasons for anonymity, often stated by themselves here at WUWT, are manifold. I have no comment on their reasons, but I am interested in their logic for reaching their decision on anonymity. So I would like to continue the discussion in that regard.
The only commonality I can see in all the anonymous commenters is the avoidance behavior aspect. Do you see any other commonalities?
Looking at the consequences on open and transparent discourse which identity avoidance behavior creates might yield better dynamics in the open and transparent venues.
John
izen says:
Gore is only really effective with educated liberals, he preaches to the choir with little effect on the conservative unconversant with physics. This website just spent a good deal of time and bandwidth pouring scorn on anything he said and did, for many on the rejectionist side of the AGW argument, the involvement of Al Gore is seen as sufficient justification to reject ANYTHING he is linked with.
But then those who undersdtand AGW theory and accept its implications find Monckton is equally repellent as a source of information. In fact his record of errors and exaggeration makes the WHOLE of the rejectionist case look much weaker so while his contribution is seen as worthless in itself, he does serve to illustrate how crass and unscientific the rejectionist position can be.
He brings skepticism into disrepute for all but his devotees….
HAHAHAHA. Only in eyes of you, and your warmist kind. And let me rephrase this for you, Gore is only really effective with warmist in general, I wouldn’t use liberals because I wouldn’t be surprised that there are liberals out there that are also skeptics on AGW.
So, tell me, how long will it be before you flip flop on Gore again? You praise him, you then throw him under the bus by comparing him to Monckton, (because you warmist despise Monckton), and now here you are praising Gore again. HAHAHA.
So again, I say comparing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.
The Ronggbuk glacier has disappeared altogether. … -Monckton
It may have receded a bit lately, but it is definitely still there. 🙂 It’s but one of the 46,000 odd glaciers covering about 40,000 square kilometres of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Google images has plenty of recent photos of this behemoth.