Monckton in a rift with Union college Earth scientist and activist

Readers may recall this piece Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in which he schools a number of students despite “en-masse” collections (to use Donald Rodbell’s words) of naysayers. Mr. Rodbell and Erin Delman, pictured below, wrote this essay (which I’ve excerpted below) in their student newspaper The Concordiensis, citing their angst that Monckton was speaking.

A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth

IMG_3846

Erin Delman (left), President of the Environmental Club, debates with Monckton – photo by Charlotte Lehman | Department Chair and Professor of Geology Donald Rodbell (right) asks Lord Christopher Monckton a question at the event on the “other side” of global warming. – photo by Rachel Steiner, Concordiensis

By Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman in |

As Earth scientists, we were torn. The College Republicans and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic, on Mon., March 5, and we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. On one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought. On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.

And thus, the college environmentalists – including Environmental Club members, the leaders and members of U-Sustain, concerned citizens, and renowned Earth scientists with PhDs from prestigious research institutions – decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus. We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.

Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint. He kept asserting that this debate must follow a rigorous, science-based approach, and that the consensus of experts is, by itself, an insufficient basis on which to decide the veracity of the evidence for significant human-induced global warming.

Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere, nor in highly charged and politically motivated presentations either by Lord Monckton or by Al Gore.  The fact of the matter is that science has spoken, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence has shown very, very clearly that global warming is occurring and is at least mostly caused by humans.  While scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not.

[end excerpts]

===============================================================

Sigh, there’s that ridiculous 97% figure again. You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them and making themselves look like sycophants. And then there’s this:  “Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere…” well, then, PLEASE tell that to the RealClimate team so they stop trying to do that on the taxpayers dime.

It seems Erin Delman is training to be a professional enviro-legal troublemaker

She is interested in pursuing a joint Ph.D. and law degree in geology and environmental law and is considering a career in environmental policy, particularly involving water rights.

…so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.

Full article here: A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth

===============================================================

Monckton responds in comments to that article

Monckton of Brenchley March 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

Oh, come off it, Professor!

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Professor Donald Rodbell’s personal attack on me in Concordiensis (“A Lord’s Opinion Can’t Compete with Scientific Truth”) deserves an answer. The Professor does not seem to be too keen on freedom of speech: on learning that I was to address students at Union College, he said that he “vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger”. My oh my!

The Professor should be reminded of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. I exercised freedom of speech at Union College. The Professor may disagree with what I said (though his article is lamentably unspecific about what points in my lecture – if any – he disagreed with); but, under the Constitution, he may not deny or abridge my right to say it.

He and his fellow climate extremists ought not, therefore, to have talked of “opposing the presence of Lord Monckton”: for that would be to abridge my freedom of speech. It would have been fair enough for the Professor to talk of opposing my arguments – yet that, curiously, is what his rant in Concordiensis entirely fails to do.

The Professor says it is certain that “the world is warming, climatic patterns are changing, and humans are a driving force”. Let us look at these three statements in turn.

- The world is not warming at present. It has not been warming for almost a decade and a half, though it has been warming since 1695. In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.
- Climatic patterns are indeed changing. But they have been changing for 4,567 million years, and they will go on changing long into the future. However, the fact of climate change does not tell us the cause of climate change.
- Humans are indeed exercising some influence. Indeed, though the Professor implies otherwise, I stated explicitly in my lecture that the IPCC might be right in saying that more than half of the warming since 1950 was caused by us. However, that tells us little about how much warming we may expect in future. My best estimate is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century will cause around 1 C° of warming by 2100. But that is not far short of the IPCC’s own central estimate of 1.5 C°.

Next, the Professor asserts, without any evidence, that “97% of scientists overwhelmingly oppose [Monckton’s] viewpoint”. Overlooking the tautology (the word “overwhelmingly” should have been omitted), as far as I am aware there has been no survey of scientists or of public opinion generally to determine how many oppose my viewpoint. I am aware of two surveys in which 97% of scientists asserted that the world had warmed in the past 60 years: but, in that respect, they agree with my viewpoint. No survey has found 97% of scientists agreeing with the far more extreme proposition that unchecked emissions of CO2 will be very likely to cause dangerous global warming. And, even if there had been such a survey, the notion that science is done by head-counting in this way is the shop-worn logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum – the headcount fallacy. That fallacy was first described by Aristotle 2300 years ago, and it is depressing to see a Professor trotting it out today.

Science is not done by headcount among scientists. It is done by measurement, observation, and experiment, and by the application of established theory to the results. Until Einstein, 100% of scientists thought that time and space were invariant. They were all wrong. So much for consensus.

Next, the Professor says I made “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Yet he does not mention a single one in his article, which really amounts to mere hand-waving. He then asserts that I have “no interest whatsoever in pursuing a truly scientific approach”. Those who were present, however, will be aware that I presented large quantities of data and analysis demonstrating that the principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC climate assessments are defective; that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is 1 C°; and that, even if 21st-century warming were 3 C°, it would still be 10-100 times cheaper and more cost-effective to do nothing now and adapt in a focused way later than to try to stop the warming by controlling CO2.

The Professor goes on to say that “the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications”. No: rigorous thought is the cornerstone of science. That is what is lacking in the IPCC’s approach. All of its principal conclusions are based on modeling. However, not one of the models upon which it relies has been peer-reviewed. Nor is any of the IPCC’s documents peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. There are reviewers, but the authors are allowed to override them, and that is not peer review at all. That is how the IPCC’s deliberate error about the alleged disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was not corrected. Worse, almost one-third of all references cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report were not peer-reviewed either. They were written by environmental campaigners, journalists and even students. That is not good enough.

Next, the Professor says that, in not publishing my own analysis of “global warming” in a reviewed journal, I am “fundamentally non-scientific”. Yet he does not take Al Gore to task for never having had anything published in a reviewed journal. Why this disfiguring double standard? The most important thing, surely, is to shut down the IPCC, whose approach – on the Professor’s own peer-review test – is “fundamentally non-scientific”.

The Professor goes on to say, “It is impossible to scrutinize [Monckton’s] methods, calculations, and conclusions without a complete and detailed peer-reviewed publication that presents the important details.” On the contrary: my slides are publicly available, and they show precisely how I reached my conclusions, with numerous references to the peer-reviewed literature and to the (non-peer-reviewed) IPCC assessment reports.

Next, the Professor says that “rather substantial errors” were pointed out to me at Union College. Yet in every case I was able to answer the points raised: and, here as elsewhere, the Professor is careful not to be specific about what “errors” I am thought to have made. I pointed out some very serious errors in the documents of the IPCC: why does the Professor look the other way when confronted with these “official” errors? Once again, a double standard seems to be at work.

The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken” and that, “while scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not”. Well, the eugenics consensus of the 1920s, to the effect that breeding humans like racehorses would improve the stock, was near-universally held among scientists, but it was wrong, and it led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka. The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s and 1950s, to the effect that soaking seed-corn in water over the winter would help it to germinate, wrecked 20 successive Soviet harvests and killed 20 million of the proletariat. The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s has led to 40 million malaria deaths in children (and counting), 1.25 million of them lasts year alone. The don’t-stop-AIDS consensus of the 1980s has killed 33 million, with another 33 million infected and waiting to die.

The climate “consensus” is also killing millions by diverting billions of dollars from helping the poor to enriching governments, bureaucrats, bankers, landowners, windfarm scamsters, and environmentalist racketeers, and by denying to the Third World the fossil-fueled electricity it so desperately needs. It is time to stop the killing. If arguing for a more rational and scientifically-based policy will bring the slaughter of our fellow citizens of this planet to an end, then I shall continue to argue for it, whether the Professor likes it or not.

He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Education, Educational opportunity and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

441 Responses to Monckton in a rift with Union college Earth scientist and activist

  1. Nerd says:

    Ha ha ha. Classic.

  2. TomRude says:

    Earth scientists are among the most skeptical of AGW. Yet, many when asked about meteorology and climatology are sorely misinformed. Then, among these, some of them figure there is a career -or a sweet end of career- in switching to the alarmist side and becoming a convenient propagandist. Obviously Rodbell is one of them.

  3. See - owe to Rich says:

    Lord love a duck, you played a blinder with that one. (I hope you’ll forgive some English slang on this American blog, and I think that the “blinder” slang should occasionally be replayed to Muir Russell and Co, to show that both sides can do it; it does not mean anything untoward, but just perceived skill.)

    Rich.

  4. PaulR says:

    Bravo Lord Monckton!

    Having read the transcript of the assembly, it is plain the professor is hand waving. Keep up the good work.

    Paul R.

  5. Tom C says:

    @Nerd,

    Fresh.

  6. dtbronzich says:

    Wonderful! Why is it that such otherwise intelligent and presumably rational people “go off the rails” when their cherished viewpoint is challenged? It’s rather as if one had invited a Southern Baptist Minister out for cocktails on a Sunday after services.

  7. brennan says:

    Have they also published this response in the Campus paper as well? That would be fair, no?

    I think the most telling thing about it is that they had the opportunity to debate Lord Monckton either at the time, or by actually taking his topical points where they believe he is in error, but failed to do so in any way. Poor little Erin has leaned that she has sent all that time and money on her earth theology study, to find out there is no god; no wonder she expressed such “utter disgust and sheer anger”.

  8. klem says:

    “You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them ”

    I think the more accurate word might be “indoctrinated” in that sentence.

    And as a fellow geologist with a lifelong love of science, I can honestly say Donald Rodbell has publicly embarrassed himself.

  9. Andrew says:

    I wonder when there will be anybody that can counter in an intelligent, educated and thoughtful manner. Oops – sorry that will never happen whilst we have such brain-washed Earth citizens. Thank god for people like Monckton who can eloquently say the things that need to be said. Indeed Aristotle would be turning in his grave to hear such crass statements from the ‘consensus’.

  10. John Shade says:

    Two childlike inhabitants of academia have tantrums in front of a kindly adult, and later quite shamelessy write a story about it. Still the kindly adult reasons with them and tries to help them out. Quite a moving tale of compassion and humanity.

  11. Robin Hewitt says:

    See the top Comment on that piece in Concordiensis, Earth Scientist Dr Norman Page tears them to shreds. Maybe I should copy it before it mysteriously disappears.

  12. Mark Hladik says:

    Does anyone know (or can we post a link) to respond to the student newspaper directly?

    It would not be difficult to show that there is a ‘consensus’ (sensu stricto) of equally-educated equally proficient scientists of all stripes (physicists, chemists, etc) who do NOT accept CAGW dogma. I doubt if the student newspaper would bother to print/publish a single one, but at least we could show the student journalists that they still have some “homework” to do.

    Just a thought,

    Mark H.

  13. Smokey says:

    Those college kiddies use the usual “progressive” argument.

  14. Paul Coppin says:

    Besides farmers and agronomists, what’s an “earth scientist”? (other then the obvious allusion to people who like to fling mud around….)

  15. Beesaman says:

    IMHO any academic involved in a scientific area that tries to openly prevent someone debating a scientific concept, especially at a university, should be fired.

  16. Kaboom says:

    Monckton of Brenchley, rouser of rabble. I’m quite sure that’s the ironic definition few had in mind when the term was first coined.

  17. Claude Harvey says:

    This is yet another example of why debating “The Lord” is not a good idea. As the professor just demonstrated, Monckton’s opponents are most often reduced to emotionally rooted, incoherent babbling. Gotta’ love a swash-buckling wit like Monckton’s on display in an intellectual showdown (very rare). The professor’s standing among even his “true believing” students cannot have been enhanced by his encounter and his juvenile “so’s your mother” defense of his position.

  18. atheok says:

    Either the pics are in the wrong position (right left) or the attributions are reveresed as tht is surely Erin on the right.

  19. orkneylad says:

    Here here m’lord!
    A magisterial takedown.

  20. BarryW says:

    The utilize these tactics because when they try to debate the skeptics they get their clocks cleaned.

    Also notice how the CAGW activists always use the “consensus” to support their position without specifying what that actually is. Thereby allowing them to insert their own extreme positions into the discussion as if they were agreed to by the majority. A favorite technique in the political realm that you can see in everything from the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street.

  21. Ian W says:

    The ball is now well inside “The Concordiensis” court. Are they sufficiently open minded and ethical that they will also publish Lord Monckton’s rebuttal?

    If they are really on the side of the Catastrophic Antrhopogenic Global Warming proponent climatologists, ethics cannot be expected to be one of their qualities. So will they be scientific or will they do all in their power not to shake faith in their ’cause’?

  22. Robert of Ottawa says:

    97% of Cardinals agree with the Pope.

  23. Kaboom says:

    I think a good point is raised, if not put in the spotlight as it should, namely that it is impossible to be a good scientist and adhere to the consensus. Science is driven by testing, by doubting and by making the construct of ideas vibrate to see if pieces fall off. It’s no coincidence that a thesis has to be defended in front of an – sometimes hostile – panel of scientific peers. Every paper of significance needs to be held to an equal standard or it is just that, paper. You cannot be part of the 97% and be a scientist that advances the field, you’re just flotsam.

  24. Hugh Pepper says:

    Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

  25. It’s not the AGW that is the problem, which most scientist agree is taking place to some degree, nor is it the GW or GC, which is a net number between natural climate change and AGW, it is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) that would be the problem IF the positive feedbacks in the climate models are correct, which is unlikely since very little is known about feedbacks and they are more likely to be negative, and for which there is hardly a scientific consensus. The alarmist keep conflating the three GW, AGW, and CAGW. So when they make the statement that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening, that is probably a true statement, but it is also a meaningless statement. CAGW is hardly agreed and is the subject of much study and disagreement, but it is CAGW that has caused the EPA to label CO2 a pollutant. Just ridiculous!

  26. Look at the picture of the President of the environmental club. She has very insecure body language for someone supported by 97% of the scientific community, does she not?

  27. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper,

    As the undefeated WUWT champion of totally content-free, baseless opinion, I would expect nothing less from you than that ignorant waste of pixels.

  28. climatebeagle says:

    > we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.

    Hey guys, did you think about taking a scientific approach, either:
    – we were looking forward to hearing alternative theories and evidence related to climate change
    or
    – we look forward to an engaging debate where we can demonstrate the strength of the AGW evidence

    Your sentiment of disgust or anger doesn’t seem very suitable for institute of learning, maybe, just maybe, your response is because deep down you know AGW is faith, not science.

  29. Michael Palmer says:

    While I don’t doubt Monckton’s good intentions, I don’t think his panoply of failed consensus helps his case; none of them hold even a drop of water.

    Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.

    The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known. This cannot be compared to a consensus that forms in a free society.

    As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. If the countries most severely affected by malaria had any kind of capable and responsible government, these governments would have been free to make or procure DDT and use it. (Chances are, however, that the insect vectors would by now be largely resistant to DDT, had its widespread use continued.) The causes for the continued malaria problem are the same as those for the continued problems with tuberculosis and HIV: Poverty and government malfeasance.

    Monckton’s positions on these affairs certainly show that he has his heart in the right place, but as illustrations of “failed consensus politices” the examples don’t work.

  30. Adam Gallon says:

    The comments are 100% in favour of his Lordship. And that’s ignoring his Lordship’s own response.

  31. Dr. Dave says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    “97% of Cardinals agree with the Pope.”
    =====================================================
    If you were to ask American Trial Lawyers if we should enact meaningful and sensible tort reform (like most of the rest of the civilized Western world). I’m quite sure at least 97% of them would agree that any such reform would be a terrible idea. It would be beneficial for society as a whole but it would be damaging to the financial interests of their practices. In this respect, explain to me how “climate scientists” who are essentially grant feeding parasites are morally superior to lawyers.

  32. boston12gs says:

    I’ve saved as a PDF the Concordiensis comments, up to comment 8 (the last comment when I last viewed). The comments so far simply, calmly, and scientifically eviscerate the Rodbell and Eldman opinion piece.

    Good stuff.

  33. Frank K. says:

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    Smokey – the snarky comments by people like “Hugh Pepper” is a strong indication that their side is badly LOSING the CAGW argument with the public, and that Lord Monckton is in fact being very effective and persuasive in his debates and presentations.

    Don’t worry, Hugh. It will all be over in November when America votes to defund CAGW-ism…

  34. Dr. Dave says:

    Smokey,

    I’m afraid you were entirely too charitable with your response to Hugh Pepper. It’s funny though, that even the dullest, most witless of gormless cavilers believe they have a contribution to make.

  35. Tez says:

    They must be giving away Phd’s in cornflake packets nowadays. How thick must you be to attack the master of facts and repartee with opinions dressed as science?

    The Lord has dispatched this unworthy adversary with his usual aplomb.

    The shamed “professor” should not be employed in an education facility. Reminds me of a saying: Those that can, do. Those that cant, teach.

  36. David A says:

    Hugh Pepper says:

    March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.
    ====================================================
    What is it with your non-sense. You Sir are a poster child of baseless assertion without evidence, just like the high priest professor and his devotee devotee.

  37. David A says:

    Ronald P. Abate says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm
    ————————————————————–
    BINGO Ronald. I have both won and lost debates about GW, and AGW, but I have never lost a debate when the subject turned to CAGW, consequently I always remeber to turn the debate in that direction.

  38. harrywr2 says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science.

    I can sit down with a piece of paper and calculator and come up with Monkton’s numbers or Bill McKibbons numbers using just basic radiative physics.

    McKibbons number -
    We’ve have had between 8 and 9 doublings of CO2. The current temperature of the earth is 33C higher then is no greenhouse gases(including water vapor) were in the atmosphere. Hence 33/8 ~ 4C per doubling.
    Monktons number – CO2 alone will cause about 1.2C increase in warming all other things remaining equal.

    Yeah…brilliant me…I can be either a catastrophist or the head denier…all with ‘back of the envelope calculations.

    The problem I have is that while I can calculate the ‘average’ feedback from a doubling I don’t know if it is a straight line, an accelerating curve, a decelerating curve or a sine wave.

    It all depends on clouds and we don’t have very good historical records of global cloud cover, even the IPCC has stated that the role of ‘clouds’ is highly uncertain.

  39. Hugh Pepper says:

    Well said Smokey. You certinly have a way with words.

    Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.

  40. David Allen Borth says:

    Hugh Pepper!

    The pure unadulterated “logic” of Lord Moncton pervades any discussion of the CAGW topic and shreds the self congratulating paper tigers that stand for the “peer reviewed” science of the alarmists.

  41. JDN says:

    @Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.

  42. Latitude says:

    ………..between utter disgust and sheer anger
    =================================
    That’s all they have left…………

  43. TANSTAAFL says:

    “We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.”

    Scratch a leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.

  44. Hugh Pepper says:

    SCience is not a consequence of “unadulterated logic”, as David Allen Booth maintains. SCience is all about empirical research, expressed reasonably , and even logically. Logic is a word which fits philosophy, a discipline which actually reflects Mr Monckton’s training.

  45. u.k.(us) says:

    Very well done Mr. Monckton.

    Even your last sentence, was nicely restrained.

  46. johnl says:

    Is Monkton right about DDT? Lambert has argued that DDT is no better than other insecticides for vector control, and also that banning DDT for agricultural use has extended its useful life for vector control. Malaria is caused by the presence of standing water and the lack of vector control.

  47. When they make the statement that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening, doesn’t that make you want to know just who the other 3% are?

    Especially since their “97%” was only based on “…the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2…”

    Rephrase that last, then. Of these specialists, 3.79% (3 of 79) answered something other than “risen” to question 1, 2.59% (2 of 77) answered no to question 2, and two (2.53%) failed to make a comment on question 2.

    Imagine that – there are actually some of the “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change)” that didn’t answer “risen” to question one.

    And there were some scientists “who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”, who didn’t agree with question 2.

    Finally, there were two “climate scientists” who were brave enough to totally refuse to answer this question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”.

    I applaud those brave souls, daring to be on the “other side” in the Climate Wars.

  48. dfbaskwill says:

    That’s going to leave a mark!

  49. Smokey says:

    Michael Palmer says:

    “As to the DDT ‘ban’, there is no such thing, at least not internationally.”

    Good! So where can I buy some?

    . . .

    Hugh Pepper says:

    “Mr Monckton is universally criticized…”

    That’s only in your universe, Hugh. In the real universe some folks may criticize Lord Monckton. But they’re all afraid to debate him. Instead, people like you take potshots from the sidelines, where it’s safe.

  50. John Blake says:

    A New York City subway token-taker has more to offer than these two fatuous dolts. While this quavering enviro-wacko hones her water-baby skills in hopes of a rent-seeking schtick with such as Gleick, one has to ask: Why Rochester? Having just parachuted into Durban, mayhap His Lordship like Odysseus got blown a tad off-course.

  51. DirkH says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    “Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.”

    No, I’m not. I did follow all of that, and you are deluded if you think any honest person with a brain comes to that conclusion. Note, I do not say the alarmists have no brains. It’s just that they had to make a decision between being honest and being efficient. Turns out they are neither.

  52. DirkH says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    “As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. ”

    There is one, effectively, as even in-house DDT use causes EU importers to refuse accepting agricultural produce as organic, leaving farmers with no income. EU greens are totalitarian – NO to any kind of chemicals means an absolute no.

  53. Bill Marsh says:

    The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken”

    So did the Wizard of Oz and the Ministry of Truth in 1984.

    I m reminded of Samuel Clements comment, “Whenever I find myself in agreement with the majority, I find it is time to pause and reflect.”

  54. vukcevic says:

    I am great admirer of his lordship, but was a bit surprised that he would associate himself too closely with the Dr. Scafetta’s ideas, at least until there is some solid evidence that what Scafetta is proposed is based on the solid science. This association could be misused to undermine his up to date excellent scientific credibility.

  55. DirkH says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    “SCience is not a consequence of “unadulterated logic”, as David Allen Booth maintains. SCience is all about empirical research, expressed reasonably , and even logically. Logic is a word which fits philosophy, a discipline which actually reflects Mr Monckton’s training.”

    What drug are you on? The very principle of causality is a LOGICAL expression: if A, then follows B; you can draw the truth table for that; you can build a boolean LOGIC circuit for it.

    If you were not a disingenious dolt I would recommend to you the Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus by Wittgenstein but I doubt you would even understand the structure of that book.

  56. harvey says:

    Mr. Monkton has become passe’ his arguements have all been refuted…

    He unfortunately reminds me of the barkers who worked the crowd at circus’s a grifter of the highest order.

    REPLY: And you Mr. Puca, remind me of delinquent teenager. When will you ever contribute anything of value here beyond drive-by snark and hate? – Anthony

  57. DirkH says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    “Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder. ”

    Wrong on all counts. You should google Lebensborn.

  58. Ken Hall says:

    Viscount Monckton starts his presentations and debates by stating unequivically for the audience to NOT believe him. Monckton provides references to support his arguments on each point and invites the audience to check them for themselves. I have checked most all of them for every video presentation I have seen of the Viscount Monckton.

    I would like to equally make the same qualitative check against his arguments, but quite inexplicably, for a supposedly educated man, he fails to provide ANY references whatsoever to back up his arguments. Even worse, It appears to me that the professor did not even attend and witness the event upon which he casts his unsupportable accusations.

    Would we trust a film critic who did not even watch the films he was critiquing? Or would we think him a fool or a fraud?

    Such a woefully inadequate critique of Viscount Monckton is not only arrogant and insulting, but utterly devoid of fact, evidence or reason. If this is the standard of the Professor’s science, “I believe the following hypothesis, because someone else said so. or I disagree with another hypothesis based upon nothing more than fashionable hearsay” then he is not fit to teach kindergarten children, let alone University students.

    So which of the two should I believe?

    The Viscount who provides references, which I have independently checked and and found to be largely correct. Or the Professor who has written nothing more than a hearsay filled rant, devoid of facts or reason?

    The Professor failed to use one single substantive, referenced, checkable, evidence-based fact at all to support his own arguments as his “hatchet job” was filled with third-hand hearsay. He should indeed be ashamed of himself.

  59. Gail Combs says:

    Paul Coppin says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    Besides farmers and agronomists, what’s an “earth scientist”? (other then the obvious allusion to people who like to fling mud around….)
    ____________________________________________
    Rather obvious that he is someone who could not make the grade as a full geologist and had to settle for the lesser degree. (Appologies to other Earth Scientists)
    Here is the definition (It is a general degree while geology is a specialization) http://geology.com/articles/what-is-earth-science.shtml

  60. Dr. Dave says:

    I can readily understand why Dr. Rodbell become “disgusted and angry” at the prospect of Lord Monckton speaking at HIS college. Rodbell is a geologist who earned a Ph.D. in 1991 (right when the AGW gravy train was leaving the station). He worked for the USGS as a “research geologist” for about a year and then did a fellowship in Ohio for about a year. He has been at Union College since 1994. In his mind this is own personal fiefdom. He’s a big fish in a small pond. Only HE decides what the science is. Only HE sets the agenda and defines the narrative. HE decides what students are exposed to what they should “learn” (i.e. indoctrination). Someone like Lord Monckton could easily spit in his Wheaties!

    I can only imagine how grim it must be to be one his students. If you don’t agree with and able to regurgitate his dogma, you are not likely to pass. These kids with exit college hopelessly brainwashed.

  61. ..utter disgust and sheer anger…
    I guess that article could be subtitled ‘Fear and Loathing in Schenectady’!

  62. neill says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Dr. Pepper, I presume?

    Surely you’ll be happy to summarize exactly WHY the good Lord ‘has no credibility regarding science’, as well as the ‘already debunked’ details you vaguely refer to.

    Instead of just taking your word for it.

    (And — thanks in advance — try not to bespittle our displays.)

  63. Gary Hladik says:

    Robin Hewitt says (March 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm): “See the top Comment on that piece in Concordiensis, Earth Scientist Dr Norman Page tears them to shreds.”

    Thanks, Robin. I wasn’t going to bother reading the article, but Dr. Page’s response made it well worthwhile. I recommend that WUWT readers browse the comments to the Delman & Rodbell article.

  64. Eric Webb says:

    Well done Mr. Monckton, you are a hero to all of us skeptics. Looks like the same old agenda driven BS being portrayed by the warmingistas. its hysterical that they keep putting out the same old lies over and over again, but i guess in their upside down world, if they tell you the same lies over and over again, it somehow makes them more truthful. Would be great to see a televised debate with Bastardi and Monckton vs Mann and Al gore though, how epic that would be!! i can just see the fire coming straight out of Gore’s mouth!!

  65. kcom1 says:

    “A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth.”

    What about a patent clerk’s?

  66. Mike, Stockholm says:

    How come these people always get cranky when confronted with scientific facts?

  67. neill says:

    I love the “97% of scientists” schtick. When will they start saying ’97% of the 79 scientists that responded’?

    Any day now, any day…….

  68. vukcevic says:

    Lord Monckton of Brenchley
    In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.

    Illustration of the above statements:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm

  69. JohnWho says:

    “On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.”

    Yeah, the impact of truth can be dangerous to CAGW supporters can’t it?

  70. jorgekafkazar says:

    Michael Palmer says: “The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known. This cannot be compared to a consensus that forms in a free society.”

    Your ignorance of logical argument is profound. This fallacy is known as “a Red herring.” It ignores the fact that claims of consensus are a lie in the first place. Are good democratic lies somehow more noble than socialist lies? Besides, your statement is incorrect and should have read: “The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known up until now.

  71. …[we] decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus.
    —————————————————————–
    Pesky old Freedom of Speech. But hey – if obama is re-elected, that will go away.

  72. Scottie says:

    This may seem pedantic but Monckton is one of the few who seem to understand the difference between ºC and Cº. (Or Fº and ºF for that matter.)

    The first is an actual temperature. For example, 1ºC is the temperature which is 1Cº above 0ºC. The second is not an actual temperature; it is a division on the Celsius scale.

    So you cannot have a temperature increase of 1ºC, but, as Monckton says, you can have an increase of 1Cº.

    This was drummed in to me at school many years ago.

    Sorry, but I consider this sloppy, and symptomatic of post-modern science.

    /rant

  73. SadButMadLad says:

    @Michael Palmer, I got the impression that Monckton was using them as examples of “consensus” to highlight that the climate change consensus is just as valid, or invalid in this case. In other words using the term conensus means nothing and the examples given show that.

  74. Gary Hladik says:

    Hugh Pepper says (March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm): “Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science.”

    Thank you for visiting WUWT, Ms. Delman. I wish you success in your budding career as the poster child for vacuous CAGW dogma.

    Josh, I think we have a winner!

    REPLY:
    Actually Hugh Pepper is a well known troll here who’s trademark is snark. That’s not Delman – Anthony

  75. pat says:

    The shallow, trite, and factless response by this professor demonstrates he has no response other than his delusional politics.

  76. R7 Rocket says:

    You can’t have a serious scientific debate if your hypothesis (fossil CO2 will lead to catastrophes, even if the catastrophes are mutually exclusive) is unfalsifiable.

  77. Jimbo says:

    The first comment on the article is a cracker. Followed by more crackers. Excellent rebuttals. ;-)

    Dr Norman Page
    As an Earth scientist I am appalled by the whole tone of this piece. You say “Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. ” You sound like a bunch of priests being appalled at hearing heresy which questions your received truth. In the piece there is nothing but unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority not one reference to data of any sort. That you think of yourselves as scientists shows the extent of your self delusion…………….

    The naivety of these young ones would be understandable due to their ages but they are studying science I presumed.

  78. RobertInAz says:

    “Is Monkton right about DDT? ”

    It’s been years since I read the article, but it related to more targeted (than in the 40s) DDT use inside mosquito nets would have a very positive impact on malaria.

    Read about the remarkable resurgence of bedbugs.

  79. A hidden pearl of wisdom from Ms Delman: her aspiration to focus on “water rights”, rather than “climate change”.

  80. Joe Veragio says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    ” Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review. ”

    :-)

    Is that all your own work Hugh, or something you’ve heard others say ?

  81. Marlow Metcalf says:

    When he writes “my slides are publicly available” it would be helpful if he were to include a short cut link for us lazy people.

  82. Kath says:

    Well said, your Lordship!

  83. Max Phillis says:

    The original article maintains, “Most readers know that the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications.”

    From the tone of this article (and many others), you would think that young science students these days are trained to simply accept any written publication as true factual, if it only has made it through the referees of a peer-reviewed publication. In actuality, that is not the case. Any graduate of any decent science program is trained to critically review published papers. Often times, journal clubs are set up for this purpose, and research scientists and trainees will discuss various strengths and weaknesses of published work. Factually, a lot of incorrect junk is published all the time in peer reviewed journals, particularly in soft sciences (such as climate science).

  84. In the sense that Monckton accepts that the planet has warmed recently and that CO2 has a significant (measurable/detectable) impact on temperatures, Monckton is as much a part of the 97% as the rest of the 97%.

    Watched a horror movie yesterday and it’s bemusing to always watch the lone ‘sceptic’ in his battle against fear, meet a nasty end because of his denialism of superstition.

  85. clipe says:

    Monckton at UWO monday.

    http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/Nerenberg/

    Nerenberg Lecture 2012

    Premise:Mathematics is the lingua franca of the sciences. Few speak it. Today’s statesmen and the handful of courtiers they have time to trust must often go beyond their expertise. This is the Courtier’s Conundrum: how can the inexpert adviser advise expertly? Margaret Thatcher’s six policy advisers were not scientists. Yet they often gave scientific advice, because they had to…

  86. Jimbo says:

    ADVICE ALERT TO ALL YOUNG UNIVERSITY WARMIST SCIENTISTS

    Keith
    The other fun thing to understand is that this argument is kept in perpetuity by such sites like the Internet Archive; unlike papers published in periodicals and other transient publishing mediums – you would do very well for your future careers to stick to the facts, verify your conclusions to source and keep your emotions under check.
    http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/#comment-19691

    I could not have said it better myself. Check the facts for yourselves and stop being a blind person following a blind person who claims to you that they can see. Don’t believe a word we sceptics have to say but DO check our counter claims and arrive at honest conclusions. The science is not settled and there never was a 97% of climate scientists blah blah. CHECK IT!

  87. Hugh Pepper says:

    It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted. But he is persuasive, in a perverse way!

  88. jonathan frodsham says:

    Erin Delman is an it. It wants to be an environmental lawyer. I could not even in my worst nightmare think of a worst lowlife occupation. This in itself gives us the type of person “It” is. It is just a very nasty piece of work. It is also an educated idiot. Educated idiots usually find employment in the government liberal sector, as it will, and funded by the taxpayer. It will be a environmental lawyer winding up teaching its rubbish to other students so they can do the same (Teach)

    If I had such a daughter (I have 3) I would be ashamed

  89. Len says:

    Adults should give up childish thngs and thinking as a child thinks. Adults who call themselves scientists should know a litle bit about the scientific method and of the role of truth in science. In fact the very definition of science is searching for the truth. And research is used because it is hard to find the truth, so more and more research is needed. Neither Erin nor Prof. Robdell know enough to carry an adult conversation with Lond Monckton as their vile words and false claims (97% consensus of scientists support CAGW) demonstrate. How fortonate they were to have an opportunity to personally hear a presentation by Lord Moncton. Their loss is not just the argument, but they missed a great opportunity to listen and learn from a unique person. I would welcome the opportunity.

  90. Graphite says:

    See – owe to Rich says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm
    Lord love a duck, you played a blinder with that one.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    English slang?

    Maybe in a Boulting Brothers parody of P.G. Wodehouse . . . but in the real world?

    You’ll hear Prof Rodwell talk sense before you hear those words.

  91. Jeff B. says:

    Look at the body language of that sad girl. She doesn’t have any confidence in her beliefs. She’s been indoctrinated with a load of garbage that she believes based on emotion and not intellect. The University system is a Left leaning wasteland full of the self important pseudo-scientists like Mann and Trenberth. Can’t wait for that bubble to burst so we can get back to real learning.

  92. majormike1 says:

    Hugh Pepper
    “Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him?”
    ————————————————————————————————————
    Damn right I’m “defended” him. You have to be student before you become teacher. An intellectually active student engages a body of knowledge, paying particular attention to contrasting views, and then produces a coherent synthesis from ideas and information to serve as a base for teaching. The mettle of the teacher is tested as he presents and defends his subject in the arena of ideas before groups of passionate, skeptical truth seekers. Such a group does not include the “consensus” coterie. Their minds were made up before the discussion began. Like sheep, they are comfortable going in a direction as long as a lot of others are going that way too.

    Hell, I’m part of the 97% that thinks it’s warming, but I’m also part of the very small percentage who has read H H Lamb’s “Climatic History and the Future”, plus many global and historical climate studies and analyses, and have concluded that present climate and weather events are not unprecedented, and are far from unusual.

    After sea levels rose over 400 feet since the last Ice Age, global temperatures were 2 to 4 degrees C warmer 8000 to 3000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, Greenland ice cores show that 9100 of the past 10000 years were warmer than any of the past 100, that glaciers in Glacier Bay, Alaska, retreated 60 miles 1780 to 1912 and only six miles since; yes I’m “defended” Lord Monckton. He doesn’t need my defense, or a consensus of believers, because climate history and science support his positions.

    I’ll bet that if we asked “climate” scientists if they agreed the Earth had experienced natural climate changes many times, including much warmer and colder periods, that over 97% would say yes, and only the Al Gore acolytes would say no.

    Then we would have “our” consensus.

  93. Phil says:

    Thank you, Lord Monckton. It is sad that, for so many, belief trumps science.

  94. Mike, Stockholm says:

    Curious and interested in different points of view and theories = student.
    “Disgusted and sheer angry” about ditto = useful idiot.

  95. BradProp1 says:

    It would appear the “alarmists” have become the new “Deniers”. But they’re even worse because they have no facts to backup their “denialism”. ;)

  96. A Lovell says:

    From Erin Delman’s cv.

    “She helped organize the College’s award-winning cardboard recycling program, and she is also active with Union’s chapter of Campus Kitchens, a nationwide program aimed at using leftover dining hall food to make nutritious meals for local residents.”

    May I have a Udell Scholarship and an award please? I recycle cardboard and make meals from leftovers for local residents (my family) nearly every day!

    Well done once again, Lord Monckton. Another thorough shredding.

  97. kakatoa says:

    Anthony says “….so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.”

    Ms. Delman might be interest in furthering her education by attending UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability (IoES). She just missed a fundraiser for the program noted in a post post by Lawrence Bender (the producer of an Inconvenient Truth) entitled: America’s Young Minds: A Neglected Renewable Resource. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-bender/climage-change_b_1346459.html?ir=Green

    Ms Delman would likely agree with Mr. Bender that.. “To be sure, governments will remain critical to any comprehensive effort to save our planet. But waiting for governments is no longer an option. It is time for other institutions to step up. And one place that is happening is our universities, which can serve as powerful agents of change.”

    With UCLA being so close to the center of the movie industry it is likely she will be able to gain first hand knowledge of the differences between journalistic and theatrical truth. Fact checking is not required for one as recently played out over at NPR- ” NPR Retracts Episode Claiming Apple’s Factory Abuse- http://www.mobiledia.com/news/133655.html

    “NPR radio show “This American Life” retracted its episode about Apple’s factory abuses — due to errors in fact-checking — which triggered an outpouring of criticism and cast a negative light on Apple.
    The program will air another show explaining what went wrong, detailing conditions of Apple’s Foxconn factory in Shenzhen, China. Based on material from performer Mike Daisey, who wrote a one-man-show entitled, “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs” the episode described visits to factories in Shenzhen.

    “The program, which put Apple’s treatment of workers under a microscope, fueled a backlash against the company from journalists, regulators and consumers. Now, This American Life says it isn’t standing behind the report, due to exaggerated details, since Daisey’s script was part of a monologue for performance purposes.”

    I just heard parts of the “what went wrong” episode on NPR today. Mr. Daisey’s rational for skipping the fact thing reminded a bit of Dr. Gleick’s rational for lying. I have a greater respect for Garrett Hardin’s foresight, noted in The Tragedy of the Commons, to make sure corrective feedbacks are in place. Traditional science has the corrective feedbacks pretty much in place. Post Normal Science on the other hand not so much; as theatrical truths can trumpet real ones in the PNS world. I was glad to hear that NPR stood up for journalistic truth vs. theatrical truth. Last time I checked books are categorized into a couple of different categories: Fiction and Non Fiction. Journalistic truth is kind of like Non Fiction, and theatrical truth is like Fiction. My librarian aunt gets very annoyed if someone represents a Fiction work as Non-Fiction…………..

  98. Jimbo says:

    Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman

    “As Earth scientists, we were torn………Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.”

    Continental drift also disgusted many of Wegener’s colleagues who stood by the consensus. By the way they don’t say why they felt “disgust and sheer anger.” Is it because they have nothing say but wave their arms wildly about?

  99. D. Patterson says:

    JDN says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    @Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.

    The other half of the truth which you omitted is the right of the taxpayers employing their elected representatives to terminate the employment of academics who wrongfully abuse their positions and authority by denying the right of their critics to debate the science and policies in the public forum.

  100. 4 eyes says:

    Mr Pepper,
    Let’s just stop attacking the person. Let’s get back to the facts because, as you say, “SCience is all about empirical research” which implies it has nothing to do with who is doing it. Lord Monckton (along with many others) has stated that temperatures have not risen in 15 years (some say a decade). This is a purely empirical exercise using statistics. Do you agree that temperatures have not risen in the last decade?

  101. Ian H says:

    A problem in any social organisation faces is the type of people that are attracted to join it. This can have undesirable consequences if people are attracted to join for the wrong reasons.

    The Catholic Church for example has long struggled this problem. Because of its rules on celibacy it unfortunately attracts not only those who are running towards God, but also those who are running away from their own sexuality – sometimes for very good reason. Hence the Church finds itself afflicted by paedophile priests.

    The comments of the students above indicate a similar problem is now developing in the Climate and Earth sciences. It looks to me from the comments that these students are attracted to study in these area not out of a deep abiding curiosity for the subject and wish to find objective answers, but out of environmental crusading zealotry and a desire to justify solutions. I suspect it will be difficult for these students to truly become scientifically dispassionate. If they succeed in becoming scientists at all they will be activist scientists along the lines of Mann and Hansen.

  102. Theo Goodwin says:

    dtbronzich says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm
    Wonderful! Why is it that such otherwise intelligent and presumably rational people “go off the rails” when their cherished viewpoint is challenged? It’s rather as if one had invited a Southern Baptist Minister out for cocktails on a Sunday after services.

    Yes, amazing how intolerance has switched places in America.

  103. TimH says:

    I am reminded of a recent event where 2 corporate executives got so intoxicated and out of control on an international flight that they had to be physically tied up. They were later found trying to chew through their restraints.

    I, for one, will be delighted to see Rodbell and Delman try to chew their way out of this one.

  104. John West says:

    I’ve been mulling over the “utter disgust and sheer anger” statement. I can only conclude that they actually believe mankind is ruining the planet and Lord Monckton is hindering progress toward “healing the planet” for personal gain, basically to them he’s a charlatan of the worst sort, something akin to a miracle medical treatment con artist in the process of conning a family member into costly and ineffective treatments in lieu real treatments to the detriment of the family member. Certainly, the presence of such a charlatan would incite feelings of utter disgust and sheer anger. How would I deal with such a con artist? Discredit the treatments by proving the treatments are ineffective and potentially detrimental if I could. Discredit the con artist by proving the con artist is a scoundrel if I couldn’t discredit the treatments. Appeal to authority by imploring the family member to seek a second opinion from what I consider a reputable medical professional if I couldn’t successfully discredit the treatments or the charlatan. If all else fails, I’d have to attempt to separate the charlatan from my obviously brainwashed family member any way I could. Obviously, the “rules” of civil debate and logic are meaningless to me in this situation; I wouldn’t care whether I’d have to use ad hominem attacks or any other logical fallacy to save my family member from such a swindler. This seems to be the same strategy the advocates for action on climate change take with respect to skeptics. So, that’s what we’re up against, except everything is turned upside down, it’s like we’re in some twilight zone where the doctors prescribe snake oil and the traveling salesmen are providing antibiotics. Can reason, logic, and evidence be successfully employed in such a situation? Perhaps not to those that feel a familial connection to Mother Earth and have acquired a religious like belief that man is defiling the planet, but maybe to those as of yet to be indoctrinated it may have an effect. I hope so.

    I think that’s why they fear Lord Monckton so much; his cool, calm, and collected manner has a way of projecting a principled character that’s incompatible with that of a charlatan; while the leadership of the advocates of taking action on climate change project just the opposite. I may not always agree with him and of course he makes mistakes occasionally (he’s human), but his stand against this epic railroad (unjust conviction) of humanity for global bureaucratic empowerment is indeed inspirational.

  105. Ian W says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Well said Smokey. You certinly have a way with words.

    Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.

    Hugh – you have not read or listened to Lord Monckton’s presentation.
    He provided evidence in the form of quoted ‘peer reviewed’ papers for everything he said. Indeed, he caused somewhat of a stir by _agreeing with the IPCC_ in some of what he said. You would discard what the IPCC said and demand evidence? You would not be welcome with the IPCC lead authors and reviewers as _they_ don’t expect evidence or even peer reviewed papers. You will also see that Lord Monckton scrupulously quotes the papers his evidence is based on, much of it references in the IPCC reports. So if ‘Cook and Abrahams’ have thoroughly debunked these assertions then they will also not find favor with the IPCC. Perhaps you are unaware that you are falling into the trap of always disagreeing, even when it is papers in support of your cause that have been quoted – an inverted confirmation bias?

  106. johanna says:

    “we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.”
    ———————————————————————
    Your sentiments vacillate? May whatever deity (or none) that we subscribe to save us from a world where the owners of vacillating sentiments have any role that affects other people:

    Vacillate – Synonyms:
    waver – wobble – hesitate – oscillate – fluctuate

    OK, that was shooting fish in a barrel. Being an airhead is unfortunate, but probably not malicious.

    But then we got:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    While I don’t doubt Monckton’s good intentions, I don’t think his panoply of failed consensus helps his case; none of them hold even a drop of water.

    Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.
    ————————————————————-
    This is another kettle of fish. The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum – as even the cause of Godwin’s Law was told by his own scientists at the time.

    It is chilling to read that someone in this day and age, long after eugenics was disproved as well as dismissed as morally bankrupt, uses it as a first example of how Chris Monckton’s list of failures of consensus science does not ‘hold even a drop of water.’

    You have not got the faintest idea what you are talking about. Your knowledge of genetics is apparently gleaned from the tabloids, or perhaps the darker corners of the internet.

    Others may wish to take issue with your later points, but your opening salvo was so wrong, on so many levels, for so many reasons, that you can only have strengthened Monckton’s case.

  107. HowardG says:

    Hugh Pepper,
    Based on your post at 1:27 pm, I popped the words “Cook Abrahams debunk Monckton” into my search engine (sans quotes) and came up with this link.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/

    I suspect this is not what you had in mind. Would you be so kind as to provide a couple of on topic links that support your point of view.

  108. mfo says:

    Another account of the talk in Concordiensis by Gabriella Levine and Ceillie Keane, on 7 March, included the following comment by a former student who graduated in 1987:

    “As Union enters its 217th year, however, 200 years of heritage have come and gone, as has the decorum once proudly displayed by Union students and their professors. I am ashamed of those among you who lack the intellect to rationally confront logic and reason, and who then resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks, and post script mendacity when you fail in open debate. I am also ashamed of the culture that permits these hysterics and the appalling lack of leadership demonstrated by the current faculty. Alternately, I applaud the dwindling number of you who value and promote Union’s eroding heritage of plurality and open debate. It is the latter few who give me hope for Union’s future. I wish you great success and look forward to seeing you this May.”

    http://www.concordy.com/article/news/march-7-2012/lord-monckton-fuels-global-warming-debate/4216/

    New email same mfo

  109. RockyRoad says:

    But back to the real discussion after this Hugh Pepper character has tried three times to hijack the discussion (and like most hijackers, has been shot down mercilessly).

    The main points I see are these: The professors that teach this brand of “earth science” stuff at Union college should pay back their last 5 years of salary. And all the “earth science” students should get full tuition refunds. That only begins to rectify the situation.

    But more to the point–how many of you would be happy if your son or daughter came home with a BS from Union and that was LITERALLY all they had learned? I personally would be horrified!

  110. David Allen Borth says:

    97% of this commenters at Concordiensis supported Lord Monckton. Now to get my analysis peer reviewed.

  111. u.k.(us) says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted. But he is persuasive, in a perverse way!
    ================
    You set a high standard for others, while exhibiting none yourself.

  112. Rodbell just became roadkill.

  113. Worrying to see these emerging greenshirts. La-la-la. Fingers in ears. Accusing Monckton of everything of which he is NOT guilty but they are. Liars and cheats. Calling themselves professor, too. What has Science become?

    OTOH, perhaps there are a few students there now secretly reading W**T.

  114. JohnWho says:

    Aachoo!

    Oops, sorry – too much Pepper.

    :)

  115. James Sexton says:

    John West says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    I’ve been mulling over the “utter disgust and sheer anger” statement. I can only conclude that they actually believe mankind is ruining the planet………..
    ======================================================
    Yes, and this is the crux of the argument. It isn’t about science. It never was. It is about an ideology and a belief system.

    Many people, mostly the alarmists, believe humanity is an aberration of, and not part of, nature. They believe any advancement of humanity comes at the expense of nature. This is why Mz. Delman wants to worry about our water. It’s a Malthusian concept. Any rational individual knows we can’t run out of water, but that isn’t the point. The point is, we’re using it for humanity. It’s just like their fuel and energy efforts.

    They wanted carbon free energy, but we didn’t build and advance already proven technology with essentially no emissions, (nuclear and hydro), instead we built windmills. An ancient technology which was proven not to work for these purposes. We also advanced natural gas at the expense of coal, because gas burnt cleaner. But, humanity was able to successful utilize the resources and find all that we’ll need for this use. Now, the alarmists are lining up against natural gas. Why? Because anything which benefits humanity, they are against us using it.

    They’ve a peculiar form of self-loathing which extends to the rest of humanity. They are misanthropists, and they work against humanity. To effectively do this, they must exercise control over the rest of humanity. Left to our own devices, humanity has shown he can conquer the elements and adapt and effectively utilized the resources Nature has provided and continue to advance.

    Alarmist advocacy is simply utilizing totalitarian socialism as a means to express their Malthusian misanthropy.

  116. Hugh Pepper said @ March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

    The Good Lord shows the deficiencies of the CAGW argument using logic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with “research”. There are no “accepted processes” for criticism. If there were, you would be able to refer to an authoritative source. Rational discourse relies entirely on Aristotle’s Laws of Thought. You should acquaint yourself with them.

  117. Grant says:

    Michael Palmer- 1:07pm
    By coincidence, there was a story in todays National Post that dealt with a Canadian political figure and his early support of eugenics . Writing in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, Dr. Shevell, a prominent McGill University physician, discusses the acceptance of eugenics in areas of North America and Germany in the early 20th century.

    “…Dr. Shevell said he has long been interested in the role of medicine in the Third Reich, when eugenics led to horrific experiments by physicians and scientists on people considered to be inferior human beings.
    As someone who has “revered” Mr. Douglas for his medicare achievements, he said he was surprised to come across the former premier’s 1933 sociology Master’s thesis from McMaster University in Hamilton, titled The problems of the sub-normal family. Similar ideas reappeared in a 1934 document of the CCF, the NDP’s predecessor, said Dr. Shevell.”
    “Under eugenics, human reproduction is restricted as a way to address social problems and improve the human population. By the mid-1930s, 24 U.S. states, Alberta and B.C. had laws mandating sterilization of those found to be intellectually disabled or morally degenerate.”

    It seems Michael Palmer, that we can find evidence of ‘legalized’ eugenics in North America and Germany. I would say Lord Monckton’s point on eugenics remains standing.
    Your comments on DDT are also in need of correction. DDT was banned in the US in 1972, effectively eliminating the world’s largest and lowest cost supplier. The Stockholm Convention (2004) attempted to correct this by allowing global use of DDT in the use of malaria control.
    It seems your bag of refutation was hastily filled.

  118. Werner Brozek says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others.

    I saw his slide show and he shows that there have been other periods with the same warming as between 1975 and 1998. He also talks about a cooling for many years. And guess what? Phil Jones agrees with him! Was Phil Jones part of the 97%? See
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
    So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

    Here are the trends and significances for each period:
    Period Length Trend
    (Degrees C per decade) Significance
    1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
    1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
    1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
    1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

    C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

    No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

    And a different comment by Phil Jones:
    Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

    That was in 2005. The latest from the MET is that there has been no warming for 15 years which is what Monckton said.

    Now can you please tell us one specific thing that Monckton said that was debunked by others?

  119. bcbrowser says:

    I wonder if it’s the title “Lord” that makes them think that the man is a pushover. The funny thing is, they never learn that he knows his stuff very well and they keep coming year after year having their faces blooded. Great fun Mr. Monckton and I thank you for that very much. Only confirms one’s suspicion that a large segment of the academia worries little about the truth, only caring about reinforcing their own preconceived beliefs.

  120. Werner Brozek says:

    Marlow Metcalf says:
    March 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    When he writes “my slides are publicly available” it would be helpful if he were to include a short cut link for us lazy people.

    The link below shows a 95 minute speech he gave on October 15, 2009 where many slides are shown. Keep in mind this is before climategate.

  121. BarryW says:

    I notice how the trolls keep saying Moncton was refuted without a.) providing reference. b.) are ignorant of the fact that every time I’ve seen critiques of his lectures he has, in turn, refuted those critics.

  122. Marlow Metcalf says on March 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm:

    When he writes “my slides are publicly available” it would be helpful if he were to include a short cut link for us lazy people.

    =========

    All you have got to do is to put “Lord Monckton’s slides and presentations” into your search engine and your wish will come true. – Personally I can watch and listen to Lord Monckton’s slides for hours on end. He really is good – and how he keeps it all in his head is beyond me.

  123. Greg House says:

    Will Nitschke says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    “In the sense that Monckton accepts that the planet has warmed recently and that CO2 has a significant (measurable/detectable) impact on temperatures, Monckton is as much a part of the 97% as the rest of the 97%.”
    ——————————————–

    That is exactly my opinion too.

    Monckton is brilliant, I always enjoy watching him, but he is no threat to the AGW concept.

    I’d like to know, why he does not question the general calculations of “global warming” like “Hansen and Lebedeff 1987″. Neither are the data sufficient nor are the methods really scientific.

    As he went to school and university students were not taught anything about “warming CO2″ or “trapped radiation”, this idea was actually debunked by Professor R.W.Wood back in 1909. He was definitely taught, that the air gets warm through contact with the surface and convection. And now he agrees on “human impact”?

    And this idea of his from the comment above is simply scientifically horrible: “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)…”. Central England is representative for the whole world?

  124. John Shade: Two children throwing a tantrum in front of an adult. That about sums it up.

  125. Frank says:

    I was looking at the Professor’s article and followed the link to some of Ms. Delman’s other articles. In an article where Ms. Delman was responding to comments on one of her previous pieces I discovered the following quote:

    “Editorial pieces should not be diatribes, but rather an assertion of opinion and an attempt to educate or persuade.”

    http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/january-19-2012/in-defense-of-the-purpose-of-opinion-articles/3445/

    I think that it is ironic that she and the professor authored an editorial that I believe was very much a diatribe…

    FWIW – Frank

    PS: It was very interesting to follow the link to other articles by Ms. Delman.

  126. F. Ross says:

    In my extensive research over the last 27 minutes I have found that approximately 97% of Mr. Pepper’s statements are fatuous with a margin of error of +3, -0.

    And, yes, sorry to admit, that’s an ad hominem and I’ll probably go to hell for it.

    One tires of reading the inane “peppery” drivel.

  127. Toto says:

    “allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.”

    Therefore, by their logic, they need to either not allow the speech or to allow it and reject it, whatever that means. It clearly does not mean debate it, so it must mean simply declare it to be false, which is an odd attitude for an academic institution. Many have noticed this non-science strategy before. Their strategy is not to try to convince anyone, it is to deny the existence of any doubt. The cause needs foot-soldiers, not free thinkers. To build a revolutionary guard, you need to build fear and hatred, not chat with the enemy.

  128. LamontT says:

    Having just checked over in the opinion pieces comments it amuses me that not one comment supports the professor. All of them starting with the scientist in the first response are critical of the piece.

  129. Dante d. Leone says:

    So, they’re blowing pot derived smokes up all humanoids ar-and-s’s, and hope a bunch of dumb flukes, preferebly all folks in the whole wide world, believe in the same crap they themselves, obviously, so do not, just so they could portray themselves as having been looking, at the very fluking least, ordinarily commonly correctly like they could possibly be right under the right statistically gobbledigook circumstances?

    [Moderator's Note: A masterful evasion of those words that get a comment consigned to the spam filter and then snipped. Congratulations. -REP]

  130. Michael Palmer says:

    DirkH says:
    March 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    “Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder. ”

    Wrong on all counts. You should google Lebensborn.

    Your reply is different from the others here, inasmuch as it contains at least some substance – indeed there was Lebensborn, and since in my youth I used to know one individual who had been born and raised there, I won’t have to google it.
    However, Lebensborn hardly qualifies as a large scale eugenics experiment.

    Care to explain what you might mean with “wrong on all counts”? I see only this one count.

  131. Jerky says:

    [SNIP: This is getting tedious. Somone posts, Monckton answers. Someone posts the same stuff, Monckton answers again. Someone posts yet again.... Take it elsewhere. We've seen it. Everyone has seen it. Repetition does not make something truer. -REP]

  132. Latitude says:

    Donald Rodbell-The Environmental Science Policy & Engineering Program

    You guys realize this is so much easier to teach, when you teach global warming…..

  133. Doug Allen says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    …he (Monckton) males stuff up… He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted.
    Mr. Pepper. You remind me of that fellow Glieck who wrote an Amazon book review on Donna Laframboise’s “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert,”
    and who expressed utter disgust and sheer anger at the book he obviously had not read. Go and read the transcript (or watch) the Monckton lecture and Q+A period. He references peer reviewed literature throughout and doesn’t ever claim to have conducted his own research, just as the IPCC doesn’t conduct any research. Both have assessed the scientific literature. I don’t suppose you have read the Donna Laframboise book either, but no doubt you have strong opinions on that too. Pathetic.

  134. LamontT says:

    “Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.”
    =====================================================================

    Hugh. Can I call you Hugh? You can call me Tom if you want. Anyway Hugh you make a claim based on authority here. The problem is you don’t even back up your authority. So I must ask you what authority you have to be claiming he is debunked.

    Since you want to debunk him I’ll give you an easy target. Might I suggest you look at this WUWT post that summarizes his presentation and gives bits of it including actual video. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/ You can then go through and pick two, well you can pick more if you want two will do, points where he is wrong and easily debunked.

    This should should be an easy task for you since you have indicated how thoroughly debunked he is. Since this is so easy I fully expect your reply here showing two points debunked. This isn’t an unreasonable challenge since you are speaking from authority in you initial claim I merely am asking you to back that authority up.

    Mind you I do find it interesting that of the over 300 reply’s to that article giving actual quotes and examples from Lord Monckton’s speech that you didn’t post even once. Almost as if you you couldn’t actually debunk any of his statements and didn’t want to appear foolish. But no that couldn’t be it so here I am graciously granting you the opportunity to put up or shut up. If you do not respond with a couple of example from Lord Monckton’s speech easily debunking him then we will know that you do not speak from any sort of authority on the topic of Lord Monckton.

    Cheery-O. I eagerly await your schooling of me in just two easily debunked points from this specific speech.

  135. J. Felton says:

    Congrats once again to Lord Monckton.

  136. Latitude says:

    Don Rodbell

    Professor of Geology and Chair

    Education Research Courses Publications
    Education:

    B.S. 1983, St. Lawrence University; M.S. 1986, Ph.D. 1991, Geology, University of Colorado
    Research Interests:

    I am interested in documenting the geologic record of global climate change. My focus is on the timing of fluctuations of mountain glaciers during the last 2 million years in the Andes Mountains of Peru and Ecuador, and on the geologic record of El Nino preserved in lake deposits in the tropics. I have also applied these techniques to lake deposits in the northeastern U.S. These records provide important information on natural cycles of climatic change on which human effects have been superimposed.

  137. Michael Palmer says:

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    Michael Palmer says:

    “As to the DDT ‘ban’, there is no such thing, at least not internationally.”

    Good! So where can I buy some?

    Glad to help. Took me almost a minute to find a supplier:
    Contact name: SACHIN PATEL
    Company: BHUMI SALES
    Address: 3 MANHAR COMPLEX NR. C U SHAH COLLEGE ASHRAM ROAD
    380014 AHEDABAD, GUJARAT
    INDIA
    Phone: +91-79-27541632
    Fax: +91-79-27541632
    Email: bhumi_ss@yahoo.com.sg

  138. Gary Hladik says:

    “REPLY: Actually Hugh Pepper is a well known troll here who’s trademark is snark. That’s not Delman” – Anthony

    Dang, I knew I should have added “/sarc”! :-)

    I’m aware that Hugh “peppers” WUWT threads with inanities, but after reading the Delman/Rodbell article, I couldn’t tell their writings apart. Hence the deliberate “confusion” on my part.

    Sorry for wasting your time, Anthony.

  139. JimJ says:

    I always look forward to reading the Viscount’s posts and comments. His rapier wit and grasp of details have to drive the consesus batty. Unfortunitly, there are very few public figures that can defend the skeptic position well if at all. Consequently, they are very reluctant to stick their heads up to discuss the issues because of the very real fear of public humiliation which will most assuredly be their fate. Again, how long did it take for Santorum to be the butt of Jay Leno’s jokes? Jay Leno for God’s sake. We have a long way to go folks.

  140. On criticism and science

    Grandvewe Cheeses’ Sapphire Blue Cheese won the top prize, Champion Cheese, at the 2012 Sydney Royal Cheese and Dairy Produce Show and it was the Git’s great privilege to eat the penultimate portion on Friday night. The Git is not a great fan of Roquefort-style cheeses, but this particular cheese was sensational! While The Mercury gave the credit to the owner of the cheesery, it failed to mention Cheryl, who is the girl who actually makes the cheeses.

    The occasion was the monthly book discussion group started by Mrs Git more than twenty years ago and the topic was cheese. Naturally, we didn’t just discuss cheese in literature, especially when the maker of a prizewinning cheese is a close neighbour.

    Cheryl, when questioned, said that she knows nothing of cheesemaking science, nor does she want to know. Diane had given here the recipes when she was first employed two years ago. The making of cheese proceeds through several distinct stages and proceeding to the next has been the subject of much research. Critical aspects include pH, temperature, humidity and so on. Cheryl explains that she does all of this by “feel”: “this batch won’t be suitable for Roquefort”; “this batch needs an extra ten minutes before draining” etc. Not only does Cheryl not know the science behind what she does, she doesn’t even want to know.

    Of course the science behind cheesemaking is as fascinating as the science behind many aspects of life — to those of us fascinated by science. Is it a requirement that one understands cheese science to criticise and appreciate fine cheese? What an absurd idea! It’s all about taste, aroma and mouth-feel. Science can inform us of many things, but it cannot substitute for human judgment (criticism).

    The Good Lord has an excellent grasp of CAGW science, but his judgement of the effects of believing the bullshit – millions of dead people — has nothing whatsoever to do with science. His judgement has everything to do with being a rational and caring human being.

  141. J. Felton says:

    Sorry, I had a browser error and my comment was published halfway. Don’t think I’ll ever get used to typing on a smart phone. Mods, if you could please delete my last comment that would be greatly appreciated!

    Another excellent article Lord Monckton. I would say your best qoute by far is “100% of scientists thought Einstein were wrong in that space and time were invariant. They were wrong. So much for a consensus.”

    This qoute right here, aside from all the other evidence on Anthony’s and other sites, completley debunks the failed consensus argument. You would think the good Professor would know that. Apparently not.

  142. hillbilly33 says:

    One never has to bother to defend Christopher Monckton. The Lord is more than qualified and willing to look after himself as evidenced in another of his classic responses to those so frightened of free speech and points of view different to their own. Why do such snivelling closed-minded “torn” intellectual minnows set themselves up for such a shellacking?

  143. Smokey says:

    Greg House says:

    “Central England is representative for the whole world?”

    Close enough. The long term rising temperature trend line since the LIA is more or less the same in many other locations.

    And since there is no discernable change in trend either before or after the ≈40% rise in CO2, the obvious conclusion is that the effect of CO2 is negligible. It is too small to measure. It is undetectable. There has been no acceleration in the natural global warming trend, as was widely predicted.

    If CO2 had the effect claimed by the climate alarmist crowd, we would see it reflected in the temperature record. But it is simply not there. Time to stop the “climate change” funding. There is no justification for throwing good money after bad.

  144. Tim Minchin says:

    I’m wondering if Hugh Pepper isn’t a few wavelengths short of a spectrum

  145. Kasuha says:

    I like Lord Monckton’s talks very much. There’s no doubt he’s not a scientist – he’s a politician and a very skilled speaker. But he still provides very consistent scientific information and his name keeps him doors open to places where many skeptics aren’t allowed. Unfortunately, sometimes bits of information in his talks are more emotional than scientific and these have better chance than others to be also inaccurate or wrong. Sadly, this gives many “warmists” chance to dismiss the whole talk with “he’s all wrong because he got _this_ wrong”.

    I did my own research on DDT some time ago because I simply couldn’t believe that such miraculous insecticide would be banned for having such weak effects on humans. What I found was quite a surprise to me. Yes, there are certain negative influences on human health but main reason behind the ban in “civilized countries” was the fact that if it wasn’t banned, insects would become immune to it anyway. In fact many kinds already were immune and doses had to be increased substantially to control these which still weren’t immune completely. And the truth is, DDT is still being actively used in malaria control. It must be used carefully, combined with other insecticides and for short periods of time to prevent mosquitos developing immunity to it. In some areas mosquitos are already immune to it and there’s no point in using it there anymore as its weak but existing negative impact on human health then remains the only effect. But in the areas where mosquitos still aren’t immune to it, it is still used to control them.
    There are very strong reasons behind how DDT is being handled today and I believe it is being treated very reasonably. Blaming “ban on DDT” for malaria deaths is not fair.

  146. Michael Palmer says:

    johanna says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    But then we got:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Eugenics may or may not work (…)
    ————————————————————-
    … The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum –

    This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects. The only question is whether or not the trait that is the object of optimization is indeed to a significant extent genetically determined. If it is, it follows that it can be enhanced by breeding.

    Like others here, you are confusing ethical with scientific objections. You may have valid ethical arguments, but this doesn’t imply you have scientific ones. Like Monckton, you may have your heart in the right place, but I’m not sure about your head.
    Regarding your assumption that I learned my genetics in some tabloids, well that, and in medical school, and I also cover some of it in my biochemistry lectures at university.

  147. Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer says:

    It may have been mentioned in the comments before, but it sounds to me if Ms Delman is a fellow traveler with another student ‘activist’, who proselytized, er, “testified” in front of Congressional Democrats recently.

    Oh, Lord Monckton? I don’t know if the college in question is a private or public institution. If private, they can do as they wish regarding speech on this side of the pond. Many thanks for this, as well as your myriad other battles. You truly remind me of the late Andrew Breitbart. Utterly fearless, and charge into battle with the confidence that comes with facts on your side. Again, many thanks.

  148. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    “Greg House says:

    “Central England is representative for the whole world?”

    Close enough. The long term rising temperature trend line since the LIA is more or less the same in many other locations.”
    ———————————————–

    Being representative is a slightly different thing.

    Let me give you an example. Let’s assume, you and me discussed 10 issues and agreed on all of them. Now, if someone would like to have your opinion on the issue Nr. 11, can he simply ask me? According to your logic, my opinion is representative for yours.

  149. Smokey says:

    Michael Palmer,

    Eugenics was easily perverted because it was used as a justification for eliminating undesirable individuals and groups from the species, rather than being used in a positive way, by encouraging the procreation of those with desirable characteristics. Neither one works due to human nature, but the evil side of eugenics seems to be the usual tendency of governments.

    It is best to steer clear of anything that smacks of eugenics, for the simple reason that it is too tempting for those in power to use it against perceved enemies. Who will appoint the panels that will decide who will be eliminated? Germany identified ‘subhuman’ classes, and superhuman Aryans. Don’t think it can’t happen here. Human nature is the same everywhere.

    There are already discussions regarding “death panels” in government healthcare. If government healthcare becomes a reality, it is absolutely certain that there will be such panels. Will the government spend $100,000 to keep a 90-year old alive for six more months? Private health plans will spend the money, they do it all the time. But government bureaucrats have different uses for it, such as buying votes. So we are coming full circle from the 1920′s and ’30′s. It’s really all eugenics, no matter what they might label it today.

  150. Paul Coppin says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted. But he is persuasive, in a perverse way!

    Hate to pile on (well no I don’t actually), but Hughie, its only difficult to debate Monckton, if you know nothing of the topic. Someone actually conversant with the material (and a requisite command of the English language) could debate Monckton, and defeat him, if his arguments are indefensible. The fact that you believe him to be undebatable means at least one or more of at least three things: your debaters are ignorant on the topic to be debated; your debaters lack a command of English sufficient to engage in debate,

    He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted.

    Hate to ad hom here, but are you thirteen? If this was benchmark for anything, nobody would be able to talk about anything. There is a longstanding English expression known as “re-inventing the wheel”. Consider your quote in that context and see if you can devine the logical causality. “Troll” is too kind, Trolloid would be more apt, in the hope that at some point you might actually rise to the level.

  151. Mark Bofill says:

    Hugh Peppers says:
    Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

    Hugh,
    as defined on the Merriam Webster dictionary website
    Definition: credibility (noun) 1 : the quality or power of inspiring belief

    Obviously, Lord Monckton has credibility with many people. Examples include many posters here. This is also plain that Professor Rodbell is aware of it, “On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.” If Lord Monckton had no credibility, he would not constitute a risk of having a dangerous impact. Furthermore, if you truly believed Lord Monckton had no credibility it is unlikely that you would feel the need to post on the matter at all.

    Definition: research (noun) 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws

    Equally obvious is the fact that Lord Monckton has indeed done considerable research on the topics he discusses. For example, he demonstrates familiarity with the IPCC’s statements and positions; it is improbable to the point of absurdity he could do so without having done research on the material. Perhaps you meant he has authored no papers published in peer reviewed journals? I think many, possibly most of the readers here are students of science who have published nothing. As students who study sciences, we know from experience that an understanding of highly technical material is attainable with discipline and effort, regardless of the presence or absence of academic trappings. Further, the understanding is effective irrespective of how it was obtained.

    Respectfully, I suggest that you consider making an effort to clarify in the future what you mean when you make claims such as ‘his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others’. As they say, the devil is in the details. For example, is it your contention that his statement that ‘it was settled science that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 adds to it, that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, that we are largely to blame, and that some warming can be expected to result’? I’m sure the readers here would be fascinated to hear more from these master deniers who have debunked these claims Lord Monckton has made! Obviously, you don’t mean that. If you were more specific, you would avoid problems like this. You might even make progress in persuading people that your assertions may be valid by breaking down the specifics of what you disagree with Lord Monckton about and why.

  152. Everyone, especially the most prominent people in the debates (like Monckton), need to come clean. I have posted a comment on this at Roy Spencer’s site, and on my own blog:

    The Climate Science Debate: All Should Come Clean

  153. Paul Coppin says:

    Yet, perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to your professor, you raised your hands in denial of the truth. Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority.

    As I’ve previously written in other threads about Moncton’s visit, I believe this is by far the most salient, and damaging, point of his entire speech, and the point about which Redbull and Dulman are most upset about. Not only does this refute the consensus, it enjoins to challenge it. The age of the college and the attitude of its staff suggest that the stocks still remain on the common.

  154. Smokey says:

    Greg House,

    I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I simply provided seven more locations that all show a steadily rising warming trend from the LIA, in response to your question.

    Michael Mann tried to erase the LIA, but his MBH98/99 papers were falsified. There was, in fact, a LIA. It was the second coldest episode of the entire Holocene. The planet has been gradually warming along the same trend line since then. I just provided additional examples supporting the CET record. I can provide more if you like.

  155. J. Felton says:

    Greg House said

    “Central England temperatures are representitive of the whole world?”
    * * *

    As far as I know, the Central England temperature measurements are among the oldest in the world. (Whether or not they are accurate is another story.)
    I think this was the point, as longetivity in temperature records obviously matter in order to get the whole story.

  156. johanna says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    johanna says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    But then we got:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Eugenics may or may not work (…)
    ————————————————————-
    … The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum –

    This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects. The only question is whether or not the trait that is the object of optimization is indeed to a significant extent genetically determined. If it is, it follows that it can be enhanced by breeding.

    Like others here, you are confusing ethical with scientific objections. You may have valid ethical arguments, but this doesn’t imply you have scientific ones. Like Monckton, you may have your heart in the right place, but I’m not sure about your head.
    Regarding your assumption that I learned my genetics in some tabloids, well that, and in medical school, and I also cover some of it in my biochemistry lectures at university.
    ———————————————————————-
    Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.

    When Chris Monckton and I talk about eugenics, it relates to selective breeding of humans for physical and mental traits that were considered to be desirable, a fallacious and barbaric school of consensus that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. The main instruments were identifying and sterilising or isolating people who were considered to be bad breeding stock. In the US, that would have included most of the black population, given the views of the time about average inferior intellects in that ‘race’. In my parents’ European country, it could have included my grandfather, who was ‘just’ a postman; his sister, who had epilepsy; and their cousin who was a dwarf. But, they all reproduced, and amazingly, the family has done pretty well.

    Do I have to draw you a picture? Eugenics as cited by Monckton has nothing to do with breeding livestock, then or now. As for citing your university credentials, go back to the head post and perhaps realise that you have inadvertently reinforced the point – that people in universities are not always as smart as they imagine themselves to be.

  157. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    “If CO2 had the effect claimed by the climate alarmist crowd, we would see it reflected in the temperature record. But it is simply not there.”
    ———————————–

    One can argue, that CO2 does have the effect, but other factors interfere and spoil the correlation between CO2 and the temperature.

  158. Jaypan says:

    Almost missed the best piece today …
    The body language of this professor tells me a lot already.
    Then I’ve read their original article. They are AFRAID like little kids in the dark
    and would do almost everything to silence Monckton. Wow.
    How this AGW issue does change some people, let them forget all principles.

    But before I became too concerned, I’ve read the comments there.
    So the funny part began …
    Thanks everybody for their contributions.

  159. Steve from Rockwood says:

    If I were guiding students I would invite Monckton to speak. Beforehand I would caution my students that this guy is the best there is. Don’t get sucked in, don’t confront him with silly talking points. Take it all in and when it’s over we’ll get together and talk about the event, putting things into perspective. But have some fun while you’re there. The shrill “we were torn” teaches young people nothing. Sometimes the old cliche that “those who can’t – teach” hits a little too close to the mark.

  160. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    “Greg House,

    I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I simply provided seven more locations that all show a steadily rising warming trend from the LIA, in response to your question. ”
    —————————–
    Maybe I have misunderstood your idea, I am sorry. I thought it was about it was about the issue of something being representative for something else.

  161. Greg House says:

    J. Felton says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    “As far as I know, the Central England temperature measurements are among the oldest in the world. (Whether or not they are accurate is another story.)
    I think this was the point, as longetivity in temperature records obviously matter in order to get the whole story.”
    ———————————–
    OK, let us say, back in XXXX the only temperature record available was the one from the Central England. Was this record representative for the whole world and why?

  162. Max Hugoson says:

    From one of Mockton’s detractors:

    “As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. If the countries most severely affected by malaria had any kind of capable and responsible government, these governments would have been free to make or procure DDT and use it. (Chances are, however, that the insect vectors would by now be largely resistant to DDT, had its widespread use continued.) The causes for the continued malaria problem are the same as those for the continued problems with tuberculosis and HIV: Poverty and government malfeasance.”

    This is the old problem of 1/2 the story, 1/2 on Mockton’s side, and 1/2 on his detractor’s side.

    The primary nation HURT TERRIBLY by OUR DDT ban was INDIA. We used to supply them with TONS to treat their malarial Swamps. By 1975, the year we banned DDT (and I’ll BET the Mockton detractor has NOT read the Rucklehouse, may he rot in HE-double toothpicks..report “On the Decision to Ban DDT”. A report with “science” so shoddy as to be an embarrasment to everyone who TOUCHED it! I have a copy of it, I know of what I speak…!) the Indian government had the malarial death rate down to < 50,000 per year. By 1986, the year I became interested, and obtained the EPA report, and found out the terrible truth of how our "prissyness" condemned hundreds and thousands to a horrible fate…death from Malaria…, the death rate was back to the about 250,000 per year..which it had been for many years prior to the USA assisted DDT programs of the 50's 60's and 70's.

    INDEED the Indian government and people ARE NOT STUPID and they now MAKE their own DDT and are controlling the malarial problem once again. ALAS the nations in AFRICA, in general, do NOT have the resources that INDIA does, and because WE, yes WE the good old USA have been and would be the primary source, the African nations are S.O.L.

    Now two quick points about DDT, and it's "hazards". Number 1., the "egg shell thining". TENUOUS ASSOCIATION AT BEST. Ultimately proved to be primarily due to the ethylene di-bromide used to stabalize Tetra-ethyl Leaded gasoline. (Leaded gasoline removed in 1970..not needed for OCTANE improvement, and valve seats then HARDENED by surface treatement processes, and thus the lead cushion to prevent wear..no longer needed!) Number 2. The alledged "persistance" in the enviroment. 1990's, soil samples found, U of Michigan…sealed in 1910. When analysed? You guessed it, 10 PPM DDT! Naturally occuring. (Someone doing a SIMPLE mass calculation on the amount of DDT needed to put 10 PPM in all the top soil around the world would have found it to be several times the industrial production which had ever been!)

    LAST POINT: "Oh, you can control malaria by Quinine." Hum, had a Swiss MD friend of mine pull that one on me. Then he did 2 years medical relief work in Thailand during the 1980's. He DID, indeed (Thank you Dr. Hans R.) APOLOGIZE to me for that ignorance. You see, quinine in too large a dose is deadly poisonous. In all but the most highly educated societies, it has to be administered "a pill at a time" to keep the less well informed and disciplined from TAKING A WHOLE BOTTLE AND DYING because "the more will make you better faster". (Primative thinking!)

    SO, sorry to go off on such a tirade. But I despise people for superficial thinking on BOTH sides of the arguements, and in the long run…would prefer that sometimes …some claims, when they aare COMPLICATED as this one, be left to better venues to discuss.

    Max

  163. RockyRoad says:

    Greg House says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    “Greg House says:

    “Central England is representative for the whole world?”

    Close enough. The long term rising temperature trend line since the LIA is more or less the same in many other locations.”
    ———————————————–

    Being representative is a slightly different thing.

    Let me give you an example. Let’s assume, you and me discussed 10 issues and agreed on all of them. Now, if someone would like to have your opinion on the issue Nr. 11, can he simply ask me? According to your logic, my opinion is representative for yours.

    I’d rather have a representative thermometer than a representative tree. And that’s the main issue, rather than one of semantics.

    Or, “wood” you like to take this discussion to the next level?

  164. Michael Palmer says:

    johanna says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.

    When Chris Monckton and I talk about eugenics, it relates to selective breeding of humans for physical and mental traits that were considered to be desirable, a fallacious and barbaric school of consensus that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. The main instruments were identifying and sterilising or isolating people who were considered to be bad breeding stock.

    “fallacious and barbaric” – there you have your own error, in a nutshell. Barbaric it is, but not fallacious – the scientific basis of breeding humans is exactly the same as for breeding livestock. As I said before, you are confusing ethics and science.

  165. RockyRoad says:

    Greg House says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
    “If CO2 had the effect claimed by the climate alarmist crowd, we would see it reflected in the temperature record. But it is simply not there.”
    ———————————–

    One can argue, that CO2 does have the effect, but other factors interfere and spoil the correlation between CO2 and the temperature.

    So if that’s the case, what’s your worries?

  166. Hugh Pepper says:

    Thank you Tom. The debunking I reference has been thoroughly done By Professor Abrahams. You can Goggle him if you wish. Abrahams left Monckton’s contentions in shreds, as you will see if you check out the presentation.

  167. RockyRoad says:

    hillbilly33 says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm

    One never has to bother to defend Christopher Monckton. The Lord is more than qualified and willing to look after himself as evidenced in another of his classic responses to those so frightened of free speech and points of view different to their own. Why do such snivelling closed-minded “torn” intellectual minnows set themselves up for such a shellacking?

    Clueless in one, clueless in many.

  168. Mark Bofill says:

    jonathan frodsham says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    Erin Delman is an it.
    ——————–

    Jonathan, I hate to be a pain in the left buttock and all, but I’d rethink this if I were you. She’s a kid, not an ‘it’. Maybe some people commit sufficient atrocities that they should no longer be considered people, but come on. I can’t say I personally think of environmental law as a noble calling, but it’s not beyond the reach of my imagination that someone could make something worthwhile of it. Maybe I just have a REALLY good imagination, I don’t know.

  169. Smokey says:

    Michael Palmer says:

    “Contact name: SACHIN PATEL
    Company: BHUMI SALES
    Address: 3 MANHAR COMPLEX NR. C U SHAH COLLEGE ASHRAM ROAD
    380014 AHEDABAD, GUJARAT
    INDIA”

    My question is still the same: where can I buy DDT, if it’s not banned? I think there would be a problem attempting to import something from India that I cannot purchase in the U.S.

    So once again: where can I buy DDT, if it’s not banned? I live in the U.S. Give me a U.S. source where I can buy it off the shelf, please.

    The fact is, DDT is effectively banned. We can’t buy it like we used to be able to.

  170. Michael Palmer says:

    Max Hugoson says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    (on DDT, the universe, and everything … )

    As you correctly point out, India makes the stuff themselves. Whose fault is it that it took them so long? DDT is easy to make, as far as chemical synthesis goes.

    African countries, if they had some sort of reasonable government, could have done the same, or just bought it from India instead of wasting their money on gilded toilet seats and Kalashnikovs. To put the blame on Uncle Sam no longer doling the stuff out for free is absurd.

  171. Greg House says:

    RockyRoad says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    “Or, “wood” you like to take this discussion to the next level?”
    —————————————————————–
    What do you mean by “the next level”?

  172. RockyRoad says:

    Oh oh… I think Hugh Pepper is a bot! He’s posting the exact same stuff that got him a dozen excellent rebuffs and he POSTS IT AGAIN!

    Mods, is there any way you can wake Hugh up? Maybe send something to his email saying we all get his point but his point is pointless?

    This is getting tedious beyond any normal expectation.

  173. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper says:

    “The debunking I reference has been thoroughly done By Professor Abrahams. You can Goggle [sic] him if you wish. Abrahams left Monckton’s contentions in shreds, as you will see if you check out the presentation…”

    That is not ‘debunking’, that is pure cherry-picking. Abraham doesn’t have the balls to debate Lord Monckton, so he emits one-sided propaganda from his hideout. Anyone can do what Abraham did, by sifting through reams of commentary and cherry-picking this and that to try and paint a deceptive picture. Alarmist blogs do it all the time.

    The plain fact is that Abraham is terrified of debating Lord Monckton. He’s a chicken; is there any doubt at all? I will humbly retract that comment — if and when Abraham screws up enough courage to go toe to toe with Monckton on a level playing field. But so far, Abraham is a scaredycat who cringes in the safety of his ivory tower, taking pot shots but never daring to show his face in public with Lord Monckton. Spin it any way you want, but your boy is a chicken.

  174. Greg House says:

    RockyRoad says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    I’d rather have a representative thermometer than a representative tree.
    ——————————————-
    That is understandable, but the problem is, that a non-representative thermometer is not any better, than a non-representative tree.

  175. Michael Palmer says:

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:46 pm

    Michael Palmer says:

    “Contact name: SACHIN PATEL

    My question is still the same: where can I buy DDT, if it’s not banned? I think there would be a problem attempting to import something from India that I cannot purchase in the U.S.

    You don’t have to, because there are viable alternatives to DDT, such as malathion and pyrethroids (although, as with DDT, resistant Anopheles strains exist). They are being used all the time for example in Florida. How much endemic malaria cases from Florida have come knocking at your door lately?

    The case against DDT may have been trumped up, but so is the case against the DDT ban as the most appalling genocide in history.

  176. Greg House says:

    RockyRoad says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    “So if that’s the case, what’s your worries?”
    ————————————
    I do not think it is helpful to use invalid arguments, that is all.

  177. LamontT says:

    Ah Hugh I did as you suggested and found that Professor Abrahams had been shredded into little bits by Lord Monckton’s 84 page reply to him. It was one of the first returns when I did the search you suggested. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/ here for the first site I came across on the topic. And http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf if you want to read that rebuttal to Professor Abrahams.

    That said you didn’t actually meet my challenge. I asked you to pick two examples from the linked lecture by Lord Monckton and rebut them. Instead you pointed to a debunked attack by Professor Abrahams as if that settled things. I’m afraid it didn’t remotely hold up to analysis and fell apart.

    So again please pick two easily debunked items from Lord Monckton’s Schenectady speech and demonstrate just how easy it is to debunk him. I’m afraid Professor Abrahams is simply out as a source of debunking as he was debunked himself.

  178. Dante d. Leone says:

    Dante d. Leone says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    [Moderator's Note: A masterful evasion of those words that get a comment consigned to the spam filter and then snipped. Congratulations. -REP]

    Well, even if it wasn’t all that, I’m learning, still, so I’ll take it from an obviouse master and be proud, as the aitch in the elevator to the bottom, of the current hill.

    [Moderator's Query: I am going to hate myself, but I'm pretty sure something just went over my head. If you tell me what it was, I promise to take it with humility. -REP]

  179. Smokey says:

    Michael Palmer,

    I don’t want substitutes, I want the real thing: DDT! Where can I buy some?

    It’s almost as though it’s been banned.☺

  180. Michael Palmer says:

    Smokey says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    Michael Palmer,

    I don’t want substitutes, I want the real thing: DDT. Where can I buy some?

    It’s almost as though it’s been banned.☺

    It seems we have a case against DDT after all – it seems to be highly addictive to some, and compromise their mental faculties. It should be banned!

  181. LamontT says:

    Equally important is it legal to import DDT into the US?

    Cannot be legally sold or bought in the US. http://www.epa.gov/international/toxics/pop.html

    And it does appear to monitored when imported. – http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=1262

    I didn’t see a quick indication that you can legally import it into the US on the other claw I didn’t see that you can’t. If you do import it from India you certainly would be monitored if it wasn’t confiscated. And you couldn’t sell it. There might be repercussions as well if you attempted to use it.

    So it isn’t specifically banned but it certainly isn’t something you can buy in the US so it is effectively banned. I would thus state for the record that DDT is banned.

  182. Smokey says:

    Michael Palmer says:

    “It should be banned!”

    Haven’t you noticed? It is.

  183. Greg House says:

    LamontT says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    “Ah Hugh… I asked you to pick two examples from the linked lecture by Lord Monckton and rebut them.”
    ——————————————————-
    May I take this? Thank you.
    This is easy. Two things I have already done, see above, about “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)” and the absence of correlation between CO2 and the temperature.

    The third one is the thing about warming having stopped 12-15 years ago. I’ll just give an example. Look at this “warming”: 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-4-5-6-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13. You can see, may “warming” stopped for a while, but then…

    The problem is, he uses not only valid arguments, but also invalid ones.

  184. Smokey says:

    Sorry Greg,

    The recent warming has a lower high:

    http://climate-change-theory.com/360month.jpg

  185. Sam Geoghegan says:

    I don’t pretend to know anything about climate science but have the following points been dealt with by sceptics? Both sides of the argument have their fair share of acolytes- I suspect many who know nothing, hang on every word Monckton has to say.

  186. Laurie says:

    Lord Monckton: ….therefore not CAGW…
    Dr. Rodbell: Liar! Liar! LALALALALALALALALALALA! I can’t hear youuuuuuu!

  187. Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    For someone who claims to have gone to medical school or to be, God-forbid, lecturing students, you’ve yet to learn to distinguish between livestock breeding, genetics and eugenics. The latter may employ and apropriate principles of the former two to support its inherent ideology, but it is an entitity on its own. Eugenics is a racist ideology developed in California, of all places, and well before Hitler. It was about protecting and enriching a presumed superior human group, the “Nordic Race,” and to enhance its health and intelligence, as subjectively defined by some people at the time, through programs including selective breeding, forced sterilization and genocide.

    So, learned doctor, when you pop a howler like “you [johanna] are confusing ethical with scientific objections”, I don’t know whether to laugh or throw up. Are you defending, for example, David Starr Jordan’s “race and blood theory,” the notion that only 10 percent of the White population is eugenically viable, that Blacks are mentally inferior, that Jews are genetically poisonous? Those were some of the central, unchallenged conclusions reached and acted on by eugenic “science.” No, those were not mistakes, those were pre-dermined goals and conclusions fraudulently represented as honest science. Do, then, try to comprehend this simple point: Eugenics is what it historically was, not what you want it to be. It is not some sort of a potentially benign version of “applied genetics” as you appear to imply, but an ignorant superstition tarted-up with scientific-sounding gobledeygook and poor or fraudulent research to resemble real science…in other words, a pseudoscience. It was wildly successful with “policy-makers” in the US and Germany for the same reasons that CAGW succeeded; it was supported by powerful people and institutions, it was lavishly funded, addressed the vanities and fears of people and was legitimized by a temporarily dominant cadre of morally deficient, fundamentally stupid and corrupt academics. Rings a bell?

  188. Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    “…It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable (sic) discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males (?) stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted…”

    You could also make the same comment about another public speaker – Academy Award winning, Nobel prize winner, Al Gore.

    “…He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted…”

  189. Once again, many thanks to the overwhelming majority of commenters here for their kind support. The trolls are fewer and dimmer than ever, confirming that they know the climate scare is over.

    Mr. Vukcevik (not a troll) asks why I support Dr. Scafetta. Not the least of many reasons is that he has done what I lack the skill to do: he has been able to subtract the naturally-occurring ocean oscillations from the temperature record, isolating a long-run residual increase at a rate of 0.9 C/century that may be anthropogenic. Another compelling reason is that his forecast of the global temperature trend, which he began in 2000, has proven skilful, while that of the IPCC has proven exaggerated beyond all reason. Dr. Scafetta is getting it right: the IPCC is getting it wrong.

    One wonders what research Mr. Pepper did before concluding I had done “no research”.

    And let us be clear about the DDT ban. DDT was indeed banned by the US and many Western countries. Many of them made banning DDT a condition of their aid to Third-World countries, many of whom were, in effect, bribed to stop using it. The consequences have been heartbreaking, and I cannot any longer bear to read them out during my talks, which is why I now show the DDT and other “consensus” slides in absolute silence. DDT was first banned at the instigation of the Environmental Defense Fund. Its then lawyer, Victor John Yannacone Jr., advised the Board of the EDF that they should press for a ban only on the outdoor use of DDT: indoors it would save children’s lives without giving the mosquitoes a chance to acquire resistance.

    The chairman of the EDF sacked Yannacone on the spot. As he left the room, he heard one of the Board say: “That’s the last time we employ a lawyer who knows anything about science.” Result: deaths from malaria, which chiefly kills children, rose from 50,000 per year before the worldwide ban to more than 1 million a year afterwards. Some 40 million children have died as a direct result of the DDT ban, 1.25 million of them last year alone. Had the ban not been introduced in the West and then imposed on the rest via strings attached to foreign aid, malaria might have been wiped out almost everywhere in the world by now. There are few more poignant demonstrations of the massacre caused by a cruel, scientifically-illiterate, politically-motivated “consensus”.

    On 15 December 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi, newly-appointed head of the World Health Organization’s malaria program, announced that the WHO was lifting the DDT ban, He said: “In this field, politics usually comes first and science second. We will now take a stand on the science and the data.” He was ignored by almost all nations, who seem to prefer the now-accelerating massacre of the innocents that is malaria today.

    If the “global warming” scare continues to divert trillions away from giving fossil-fueled electricity, clean water, safe sewerage, decent health care and education to the world’s poorest people, then tens of millions will die who would otherwise have been saved. Consensus kills.

  190. D. King says:

    Michael Palmer
    DDT
    It’s a game of semantics and cute arguments, except when it’s not!

  191. Richard Patton says:

    JDN says: March 17, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    @Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.
    The courts have generally held that the 14th ammendment puts State and local governments under the limitations of the Bill of Rights. Otherwise Utah could legally make Mormonism, and Georgia could make the Southern Baptist Church their official State religions.

  192. Richard Patton says:

    Bad editing that was supposed to read:

    JDN says: March 17, 2012 at 1:32 pm
    @Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.

    The courts have generally held that the 14th ammendment puts State and local governments under the limitations of the Bill of Rights. Otherwise Utah could legally make Mormonism, and Georgia could make the Southern Baptist Church their official State religions.

  193. Werner Brozek says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    I would rather comment on something in writing since that is easier to quote. But to comment on one item, Monckton says the trend is down from January 1, 2001 over the next 9 years. He uses Hadcrut3. Then the narrator says the trend is UP over 10 years! But that is NOT what Monckton said!

    Take a look at the graphs below. It DOES go down over the 9 years as Monckton stated. While it goes up over the 10 years from 2000 to 2010, Monckton never said anything about a 10 year period.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

  194. “… their student newspaper The Concordiensis”

    As in “Hail Eris” and all that ? Well, that explains a lot ;-)

  195. Nicodemus says:

    OT as far as the content of this post is, but a Latin grammar question for those readers who are better informed than me [probably 97% at least...].

    The Concordiensis??? WTF? “ensis” is an adjectival suffix denoting geographical origin or location, at least in biological Latin, of which I have a reasonable knowledge. Something like ‘Acta Diurna [or whatever time frame is used] Concordiensis’ would seem to make sense. ‘The Concordian’ [noun] would make sense. But the Concordiensis? Perhaps I am wrong, in which case I am pleased to be informed. But I worry when a school of higher learning seems to lack the basic knowledge of our culture.

  196. Bill Tuttle says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.

    Eugenics most certainly *was* tried — the National Socialists’ program in the ’30s encompassed euthanasia, sterilization, and selective breeding. The extermination camps of the “Final Solution” were political establishments, and separate from the effort to create a race of übermenschen.

  197. James Sexton says:

    Greg House says:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    LamontT says:
    March 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    “Ah Hugh… I asked you to pick two examples from the linked lecture by Lord Monckton and rebut them.”
    ——————————————————-
    May I take this? Thank you.
    This is easy. Two things I have already done, see above, about “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)” and the absence of correlation between CO2 and the temperature.

    The third one is the thing about warming having stopped 12-15 years ago. I’ll just give an example. Look at this “warming”: 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-4-5-6-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13. You can see, may “warming” stopped for a while, but then…
    ================================
    Greg, if I may……. the use of the word “proxy” may the problem. Historically, Central England has a pretty good correlation with the rest of the world’s temps…. though admittedly that’s subjective. I don’t believe Monckton or anyone else is asserting there are any predictive or intuitive properties with Central England temps and how they would relate to the rest of the world, but rather, there’s simply a good historical correlation.

    The correlation between CO2 and temps is subjective as well, and depending upon the time frame, it may hold different meanings to different people. Clearly, there is no correlation in the last 15 years. One can pick some start point and say, “aha! a correlation”….. but, that’s entirely subjective.

    Lastly, when people say “the warming has stopped”, they’re using the present participle. Notice, there’s no indication or prediction of future events when such a statement is made. So, your example isn’t valid towards the statement ‘the warming has stopped’. For it to be a valid representation, it would look like this…… 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-4-5-6-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-6. See the difference?

    Here’s the CO2 correlation for the entire Mauna record. CO2 really only correlated for 20 years out of the 54 year record.

  198. Dr. Dave says:

    For those interested in DDT I strongly recommend this article by the late Dr. Edwards. It is perhaps the single best, succinct description of DDT I have ever read.

    http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

    That said, I actually know a few things about insecticides as we apply them to humans to treat mite and lice infestations. I’m also a gardener. DDT today is a niche application insecticide. It possesses several rather unique properties. It is virtually non-toxic to humans in normally encountered doses, it doesn’t stink, it has repellant properties and most importantly it has “persistence.” A single application of DDT can last a month or more. Although in the early days a number of agricultural pests developed resistance (not “immunity”) to DDT, the mosquito never did to any great extent. In his previous comment, Lord Monckton was absolutely correct in his description of how DDT was politicized (and resulted in the death of millions). We really don’t need DDT in the US. But they need it certainly for indoor use in Africa, India, Indonesia, etc. Just like using antimicrobials to treat human infection, the smartest choice is the agent with the most focused spectrum of activity to reduce the development of resistant strains. Same is true for insecticides. I’m a big fan of permethrin. It’s non-toxic, it doesn’t stink and it’s extremely broad spectrum. That’s why I seldom use it in the lawn or garden except when the big guns are necessary. We do, however, shampoo the heads of our children with this stuff at a 1% concentration to kill head lice. This is a concentration MUCH higher than landscapers or even exterminators use.

  199. wfrumkin says:

    This comment thread ties together some important points about CAGW as a belief system.
    1. Most humans are harming Gaia
    2. A few enlightened people undetstand the price to be paid will need to be a culling of the unworthy
    3. Deniers have forfeited their right to live on mother earth
    4. Since Malthus predicts that most of the human race are fated to starve anyway, banning carbon will only speed up the inevitable (hopefully) limiting the damage to Gaia.
    5. Of course, we the enlightened get to survive and keep our private jets and waterfront mansions in the new sustainable world we create.
    /bitter sarc.

  200. Is Lord Monckton always right? No. But he presents an important opposing viewpoint that I appreciate is out there. To me, he is like Richard Dawkins. I don’t agree with many of his claims, but I think he is an important counter-balance to other points of view.

  201. Man Bearpigg says:

    So the professor was not content with getting mullah’d once, he thought he would have another go and got mullah’d again ..

  202. Asmilwho says:

    “we were torn … the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger …. it seemed ludicrous …. dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection ”

    Is this was passes for the language of scientific debate amongst climatologists, these days?

  203. James Sexton says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    I don’t pretend to know anything about climate science but have the following points been dealt with by sceptics? Both sides of the argument have their fair share of acolytes- I suspect many who know nothing, hang on every word Monckton has to say.
    ============================================
    I suspect you don’t know jack. If you don’t pretend then don’t bring up things that have been hashed and rehashed. If you have a specific question. Ask it. If you want to know all of the specific replies to what that contextually challenged individual stated, it’s in the archives here.

  204. Greg House says:

    James Sexton says:
    March 17, 2012 at 11:16 pm
    ——————————————————
    James, maybe I caused some misunderstanding trying to be concise in my previous posts.

    Generally you can not a)prove causality alone with correlation and b)disprove causality alone with absence of correlation. This is a central point. If you do not agree with that, I will go into details next time.

    Second, the argument about “stopped warming” misses the point. The AGW side can rightfully argue, that they do not mean the warming must be really continuous, they mean specifically long term trends. However, this argument about “stopped warming” is not completely useless, because a lot of people have got the impression from the pro AGW media, that the warming is continuous and catastrophic, so debunking the claims of the media is a good thing.

    Third, about good correlation between temperature records, the thing is, that a good correlation is not enough to use one weather station or one region as a proxy for others for many reasons. I’ll give you just one simple example: the records (5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-6-7) and (5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-4-3) correlate very well, but the trends are different.

    Generally I strongly recommend to be very suspicious of anything coming from the climate science, including alleged measurements, statistics and conclusions.

  205. Ken says:

    It is extremely sad that our children are subjected to an overwhelmingly Liberal Educational system from K through College. The educational system is similar to the AGW nightmare we are currently facing. It’s no more than another attempt by the Progressive / Liberal camps to reach into our lives, limit our freedoms, control our politicians, and to reallocate our tax dollars as they see fit. My big question is this; Where are the adults from both sides of the argument? This whole situation is playing out like a bad Jerry Springer episode. Somewhere there has to be a group of educated and mature scientists that are willing to sit down and work this issue based on facts. Seriously, Where is Inhofe?? How can NASA be hijacked without congressional hearings? Why isn’t someone of authority questioning the historical temp data adjustments that are being made? I am a huge skeptic, and not just AGW, but with almost every decision coming out of DC these days. Everything evolving before our eyes is a back room deal aimed at special interest. Are we going to have to completely clean house in DC before honesty, integrity, and selflessness become common place again? Bad behavior has become too widely accepted. The farther this country moves away from religion the worst it gets.

  206. Louis says:

    Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman state the following in their article:

    “Peer reviewed publications are the building blocks of all the pillars of scientific knowledge…”

    They also assert the following claim as if it was an undisputed scientific fact:

    “Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint.”

    So my question is, from what “peer reviewed publication” did they obtain the scientific knowledge that 97 percent of scientists oppose Lord Monckton’s viewpoint? Most of the points in their article are general in nature and rightfully described as “hand waving”. But this one point is very specific. it should therefore meet their own requirements and come from peer reviewed research. Otherwise, they have only succeeded in condemning themselves with their own words.

  207. Christopher Hanley says:

    Re Sam Geoghegan 9:25 pm:
    Monckton’s claim that the Earth has not warmed in over a decade, despite a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration 365 ppm – 395 ppm, is manifestly true.
    No one, including Monckton, claims that it has not warmed since, say, 1979 or 1950 or 1880 or 1750.
    Any claim that the Earth has warmed or not warmed is meaningless unless a starting point is specified. For instance, the Earth has not warmed since ~ 7500 BP, if that’s any help.
    http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2 TemperatureSince10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC.gif
    As for the other claims where the narrator says Monckton is wrong, he can no doubt answer for himself, but they seem pretty trivial to me and do not challenge his basic contention that IPCC ‘science’ is more of a belief system than science and that the organisation itself is corrupt.
    As Arthur Schopenhauer says in The Art of Controversy XXXVII: “Should your opponent be in the right, but, luckily for your contention, choose a faulty proof, you can easily manage to refute it, and then claim that you have thus refuted his whole position”.

  208. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Sexton -So what do I look for in the archives to find the specific refutation of the author’s points, which includes misquoting, cherry picking and opinionation? -Is he right?
    And yes, I don’t know jack about climate science-like 99.9% of pundits who have an opinion on it. -That’s what I said didn’t I?
    Monckton always comes across as a sophist to me, and he regularly keeps company with flaming conservatives like Glenn Beck and Alan Jones -not that has a bearing on the facts but these people take a sceptical stance for entirely ideological reasons. I suspect they don’t know jack either.

  209. Smokey says:

    Sam Geoghegan,

    Are you really Joel Shore in disguise? Because we’re discussing facts here, not political ideology. Science has no ideology, and there are plenty of good leftist commentators here who know that CAGW is a bunch of pseudo-science bunkum.

  210. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Callme a conspiracy theorist but…

    I am a geologist but I do not recognise neither Erin Delman nor Donald Rodbell as the same kind of geologist as I am, i.e., one hwo understands rocks and things. And the enormity of time…

    I reckon the green movement, feeling vulnerable due to the fact that virtually all real geologists know that CAGW is a total crock of sh*t, are packing geology undergrad courses with true believers. And if Rodbell is a professor, it suggests that they have been doing this for a while and that they are succeeding in their cunning plan…

  211. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    “Thank you Tom. The debunking I reference has been thoroughly done By Professor Abrahams. You can Goggle him if you wish.”

    “Goggle” him???????

  212. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Smokey

    I could easily get that kind of response from a warmist blog.

    Sorta evasive if you think ideology doesn’t come into play. -Seriously- is that a joke?
    Like I say. 99.9% of people take a stance on climate change based on ideological proclivity and the press, I don’t know where you get off thinking facts have anything to do with it.
    But that’s an aside. I thought the guy in the video might have a point about Monckton, Do you think he’s infallible?

    By the way- I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find CAGW bunk.

  213. vukcevic says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    March 17, 2012 at 10:15 pm
    ……………………
    My thanks to Lord Monckton of Brenchley for his kind reply to my post.
    I appreciate the time he found to do so, but even more so the time and the noble effort he devotes to put right a huge wrong which in the name of science is, and would be at the increasing rate, burdened on those who can least afford it.

  214. Andrew30 says:

    Sam Geoghegan says: March 18, 2012 at 12:49 am

    [Monckton always comes across as a sophist to me, and he regularly keeps company with flaming conservatives like Glenn Beck and Alan Jones -not that has a bearing on the facts but these people take a sceptical stance for entirely ideological reasons]

    People with your level of sophistication have made similar types of statements about another person, they go like this:

    “You have a benefactor that is a criminal, so you must be a criminal” (not that has a bearing on the facts)
    and;
    “The leader of your prior religious group is a Muslim extremist, so you must be a Muslim extremist” (not that has a bearing on the facts)
    and;
    “You mother was an avowed communists, so you must be an avowed communist” (not that has a bearing on the facts)

    So the question to you Sam Geoghegan is: Are these valid statements to make even if they (as you indicated is the weasel word part of your post) do not have any bearing on the facts?
    If these types of statements are a valid mechanism of indictment then how could such a person ever get elected?

  215. Andrew30 says:

    Sam Geoghegan says: March 18, 2012 at 1:29 am
    [By the way- I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find CAGW bunk.]

    I would go so far as to say that there are plenty of people here who don’t find CAGW at all.

  216. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Christopher Hanley

    Thanks, but if choosing a trend over a short period of time is dubious, why was Monckton making the ten year cooling trend so salient in his speeches?
    Aren’t you agreeing with the narrator that some of his techniques are deceiving? The narrator didn’t claim what his motives are but one can only guess.

  217. James Sexton says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 18, 2012 at 12:49 am

    When I said you don’t know jack, it was in response to this statement of yours, “I suspect many who know nothing, hang on every word Monckton has to say.” Many here are very well informed and have formed their own opinions without Monckton’s assistance. Myself included, though, I agree with much of what he has to say.

    And yes, all of that has been thoroughly addressed. You can start here….. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/ But, you need to be sure and read the comments. And, you need to be able to sift through the context of much of the comments and the relevance. It’s probably better if you bring up a specific question if your actually curious. Most of them can probably be easily answered here.

  218. Peter Miller says:

    I have said it lots of times before here at WUWT, but it is worth repeating again as this is a classic case:

    Geologists are the most sceptical of all scientists – they, after, all do have a sound knowledge about historic climate. The exception to this, of course, are those geologists who work for government, or quasi-government, organisations – they have to toe the party line, or suffer dismissal or non-renewal of their employment/consultancy contracts.

    Consequently, the opinion of most government employed geologists should be treated with extreme scepticism, as their opinions are little more than a reflection of their employment prospects.

  219. James Sexton says:

    Greg House says:
    March 18, 2012 at 12:19 am

    James, maybe I caused some misunderstanding trying to be concise in my previous posts.
    ================================================
    lol, yes, and I was trying to clarify the communication difficulties you and the others were having. I do agree with your statements, though.

  220. Stephen Richards says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
    Well said Smokey. You certinly have a way with words.

    “Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.”

    You are a [snip . . civility is a strength . . kbmod] OR just completely not of this planet. There is not one iota of thruth within your comment and not a single demostrably proven fact. Crawl down your troll hole and remain there until you have understood the’ meaning of science ‘ and facts.

  221. James Sexton says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:59 am

    Christopher Hanley

    Thanks, but if choosing a trend over a short period of time is dubious, why was Monckton making the ten year cooling trend so salient in his speeches?
    Aren’t you agreeing with the narrator that some of his techniques are deceiving?
    =============================================================
    So, when the narrator deceived you about the time frame referenced, your take away is that Monckton’s truthful assertion was deceptive. Trolls are so cool!

  222. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Andrew 30

    Guilt by association? I think political association influences policy, narrative in the press and public discourse. I also believe it provides support for rampant partisanship because there’s nothing more a political persuasion wants than to have one over its competition.

    But first you have to establish the truth and it is obvious that in many instances, Monckton stretches it for [insert reason here]. Is his basic assertion that climate change is exaggerated -true? My guess is yes but I’m a scientific layperson.
    Some of his Marxist takeover theories border on paranoia- as if to say the right aren’t complicit in metastatic growth of government as well.

  223. Stephen Richards says:

    Second, the argument about “stopped warming” misses the point. The AGW side can rightfully argue, that they do not mean the warming must be really continuous, they mean specifically long term trends. However, this argument about “stopped warming” is not completely useless, because a lot of people have got the impression from the pro AGW media, that the warming is continuous and catastrophic, so debunking the claims of the media is a good thing.

    Greg
    Most of your post I can totally agree with but not this bit (“rightfully argue”) Since 1975 apprx the agw argument has always been communicated by them, in the media, as a continuous rather than continual rise in global T. It has been only since the early 2000s that the conversation has changed to “little significant trend”. Now for sceptics that has meant “stopped” but for the agws it is resting before taking-off again with renewed vigor.

    They may well “mean” to say continual but never did to my knowledge.

  224. Brian H says:

    Peter Miller says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:05 am

    I have said it lots of times before here at WUWT, but it is worth repeating again as this is a classic case:

    Geologists are the most sceptical of all scientists – they, after, all do have a sound knowledge about historic climate. The exception to this, of course, are those geologists who work for government, or quasi-government, organisations – they have to toe the party line, or suffer dismissal or non-renewal of their employment/consultancy contracts.

    Or work at universities, where they face denial of tenure and grants, at the very least.

  225. wayne Job says:

    The Monk is right about DDT, its banning is one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed, bar none. It has killed more people than all wars combined, including Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, my god these people have no shame. The perps involved in this ban without science should be charged with crimes against humanity.

  226. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Andrew 30.

    I’d like to re-state my CAGW comment as ‘I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find AGW bunk’. That at least encompasses guys like McIntyre, Pielke Jr. and Lucia, -Probably Anthony Watts as well.

  227. Crispin still in Johannesburg says:

    @Hugh Pepper

    …And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.

    +++++++++

    Hugh, learn at least one lesson from the history of conflict: never bring weasels to a dog fight.

  228. Greylensman says:

    Sorry guys, I know that your careers depend upon it, billions of dollars spent but it really was and is all for naught. (note no comma before “and”).

    Taking the widest and simplest view, all things being equal, in an open system subject to many modes of mixing and circulation, along with a recognition of the butterfly” effect albeit its reverse, the Central England Temperature record really does represent the global picture. It shows no discernible trend.

    Crikey

    If that thought rings true can anything support it.

    Well lets go the Antipodes and we find a similar “open system” with a long continuous record, New Zealand. It too shows no trend.

    Seems to me, in such a vast but connected by many factors, environment as the Earths Atmosphere, it matters not one jot if you divide it into 1,000 mile squares and record each and every temperature or 100 mile or ten mile squares. To do so just defines how many angels live in each block.

    Man Made global warming is dead

    sadly long live the next scare they dream up.

  229. SPM says:

    Smokey says:
    March 18, 2012 at 12:56 am

    Sam Geoghegan,

    Are you really Joel Shore in disguise? Because we’re discussing facts here, not political ideology.

    ==========================================================================

    Wrong, Smokes.

    You are discussing Moncktons version of the facts, which appear to be driven largely by his political ideology. And a desire to pocket a nice little income from these ”lectures”.

    Cheers.

  230. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Sexton

    He’s made the ten year ‘no significant statistical warming’ claim numerous times (It varies between 10-15 years and ‘no warming’ to ‘cooling’). If choosing start/end points over a decade has no weght on the overall history of climate, then why mention it other than to impress the audience? Your answer?

  231. Jimbo says:

    johanna says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    johanna says:
    March 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    But then we got:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Eugenics may or may not work (…)
    ————————————————————-
    … The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum –

    This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects………

    Would that be for the physical or mental traits in “cattle, pigs and dogs”? Try again.

  232. Charles.U.Farley says:

    Agw and its supporters display exactly the same blinkered self opinated views as Flat Earthers.

    They wouldnt listen to any opposing viewpoints, “earth is round? Whaaaat!? Burn the heretic!” and the irony is that at one time THEY held a consensus viewpoint as well.
    Rather than having any real science to back it up they used to shout down opposition too, drown out the other views so only theirs can be heard then call it a consensus of opinion where none exists.

    Hats off to M’lord Monckton (doffs and curtseys ;) ) you just know youre hitting them where it hurts when they squeal this loudly. :)

  233. Sam Geoghegan says:

    James Sexton
    Addendum- thanks for the link, I just saw it and will read through it tomorrow.

    ;-)

  234. Dave says:

    You are not Earth Scientists. Have you not heard of scientific uncertainty. Richard Feynman would have had a good laugh, or maybe cried, that you are in a `university`. Tenure must be pretty easy to get there.

  235. Jimbo says:

    Even IF eugenics does work it is an abhorrence to most people. It is unethical and flat out wrong. What if Warmists decided to sterilize skeptics because we were found to have a mental defect for not towing the consensus – would that be OK?

    All people should have the right of free speech as well as a right to control over their own bodies. Trying to justify the unjustifiable is plain silly. What if your beloved sister / brother / cousin / mother etc. had a minor mental defect – would it be it ‘OK’ by you to sterilize them? Nough said.

  236. d says:

    Lord Monckton please go to more college campuses. The mere fact that they oppose ur presence is disturbing but not suprising. Please keep exercising ur freedom of speech and thanks for exposing the intolerate environmentalists. I hope u opened many students minds. Thank you.

  237. Jimbo says:

    May I suggest Anthony Watts puts up a post titled:

    ———————
    “A challenge to the Concordiensis”
    “Can you please rebut every one of Moncktons points, point by point, citing peer reviewed research and or the IPCC’s (sometimes) non-peer reviewed research?”
    ———————

    We can hold the debate right here or on their college newspaper with impartial and independent moderation. Or they can post their rebuttal to Anthony and we can all weigh in. It would be highly entertaining I think. :-)

  238. Dave says:

    Furthermore, you have brought great dishonor on Schenectady. Prof, what do your colleagues think?

  239. Jimbo says:

    If the The Concordiensis have the science on their side then why can’t they rebut each and every one of Monckton’s points? Why all the arm waving and appeals to authority? Why not appeal to the specific evidence and present it? Why are they so afraid of debate? As scientists they should be curious, if not, why not?

  240. Smokey says:

    SPM,

    As always with the alarmist crowd, when you cannot refute the scientific facts presented by Lord Monckton, you resort to ad hominem remarks. But the scientific facts are not going away: as [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues to rise, the planet’s temperature remains static, thus falsifying the catastrophic AGW scare. And rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, on all time scales. Effect cannot precede cause. Rising CO2 is largely a function of rising temperatures since the LIA. A warmer ocean outgases CO2 just like a warm beer does.

    Facts are pesky things. They just never go away. Instead, they sit there, making the alarmist crowd so uncomfortable that they attack an individual like Lord Monckton, who is merely the messenger pointing out the facts.

    The fact is that CO2 is harmless. No global or regional harm has been connected with its rise. And CO2 is beneficial: as CO2 rises, agricultural productivity rises in lock step. See? CO2 is a harmless minor trace gas, essential to the biosphere. More is better. Simples. But then, scientific truths usually are.

    . . .

    Sam Geoghegan says:

    “He’s made the ten year ‘no significant statistical warming’ claim numerous times (It varies between 10-15 years and ‘no warming’ to ‘cooling’). If choosing start/end points over a decade has no weght on the overall history of climate, then why mention it other than to impress the audience? Your answer?”

    Answer: the start time is a decade and a half ago; the end time is now. Thus, there is no cherry-picking. The plain fact is that as CO2 continues to rise, the global temperature is not following. Another pesky fact, no?

  241. Jimbo says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

    Good! Would you care to debate Monckton who has “no credibility as a critic of science.”? He does not have to offer any hypotheses for he is not the one making the AGW claims over natural climate variation. He uses peer review to knock down your rubbish. You sir are sad and not even worthy of contempt. I will waste no more of my keystrokes on you.

  242. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Smokey

    You missed the point. 10-15 yrs is insignificant and it IS cherry picked.

    I’ll read Monckton’s pothole54 rebuttle tomorrow

  243. Hugh Pepper says:

    Let’s be clear. “Facts” are not ideas conjured through some intellectual exercise alone. “Facts” about the real world are established by a rigorous exercise of observation and measurement. There are accepted protocols which work to ensure that the practice of finding the truth is legitimate. If everybody follows the “rules”, this system works. It is legitimate for Al Gore, who you apparently have demonized, to quote research which has been apprpriately conducted by others. You are also free to follow this style as well, and I encourage you to do this.

    The physics of climate science has ben well established for many years, and universally accepted. Read Michael Mann’s recent book, for example, for an authoritative summary of this basic work. But then, I suppose, he has also been thoroughly demonized.

  244. Bill Tuttle says:

    Jimmy Haigh. says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:27 am
    “Goggle” him???????

    Must’ve been a reference to NVGs, Jimmy — it takes forever to focus them, and when you’re wearing them, you have no depth perception, you’re stuck with a very narrow field of view, and everything looks
    *heh*
    green…

  245. garymount says:

    Sam Geoghegan

    We only have 33 years of reliable global temperature data, so 10-15 years is significant.
    This 10 to 15 years of no warming could extend to 20 or more years in the next couple of years depending on how cold it gets, as we can extend the trend further back in time as well. One climatologists, who I won’t name (Santer), said only 17 years of a trend is needed:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/19/santers-17-years-needed-for-a-sign-of-climate-change-compared-against-the-ipcc-models/

  246. Hugh Pepper says:

    WHere is your research published Mr Monckton? Please refer me to this work and I will be delighted to read it. Please note: I am not referring to intellectual commentary, which can be easily done from the sactuary of our homes. There are legions of people (thankfully) who trudge around the frozen regions of our world, and who venture onto the oceans, folks who do actual research and who write papers summarizing their work. It is this kind of inquiry, Mr Monckton, which I am asking you to cite.

  247. johanna says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    johanna says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm

    Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.

    When Chris Monckton and I talk about eugenics, it relates to selective breeding of humans for physical and mental traits that were considered to be desirable, a fallacious and barbaric school of consensus that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. The main instruments were identifying and sterilising or isolating people who were considered to be bad breeding stock.

    “fallacious and barbaric” – there you have your own error, in a nutshell. Barbaric it is, but not fallacious – the scientific basis of breeding humans is exactly the same as for breeding livestock. As I said before, you are confusing ethics and science.
    ——————————————————————————–
    I am not confusing ethics and science. If you had bothered to read my posts, I explicitly made the distinction, using terms like ‘leaving aside the ethical issues’. I did that not because I don’t think the ethical issues matter – on the contrary – but to deal with exactly the criticism you have made.

    If you really believe that eugenics is barbaric but not fallacious, please explain what you mean by that. In detail. I look forward to your exposition on why breeding people to have non-floppy ears or different length legs (which is quite possible) has anything to do with eugenics as cited by Monckton and recognised in the history of science as a powerful scientific movement in the 20th century.

  248. Jimbo says:

    Michael Palmer says: “The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known. This cannot be compared to a consensus that forms in a free society.”

    ——————
    Dear Dr. Peters,
    We have had to decline your grant application to study the benefits to plants of global warming and rising co2 in the Balkans.
    ——————
    Dear Dr. Peters,
    Congratulations on your grant application to study the degenerative effects on plant of global warming and rising co2 in the Balkans.
    ——————
    Here is your modern day enforcement. :-)

  249. 3x2 says:

    [w]ere hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic[...]

    [F]rankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.

    [O]n one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought.

    Perhaps cooler heads may have resulted in more coherent argument. And that is just the first paragraph.

    So Professor, let’s take a look at where you went wrong.

    Know your enemy. Had you taken the time to do a bit of research you may have recognised that Monkton is an eloquent speaker with an encyclopaedic knowledge of both the peer reviewed literature and the IPCC reports. He has put a lot of time and effort into his arguments and you may need more than a ‘second of time or thought’ should you wish to avoid looking foolish in future.

    His arguments are well documented and would have taken but a few minutes to obtain. Then you could have tasked your acolytes with spending a little time and effort rebutting his ‘erroneous discourse’ point by point. Suitably armed you could then have demonstrated to all present the obviousness of his “numerous inaccuracies and misstatements”.

    I think I can see why you didn’t take this route. There is always the danger that, having studied his arguments in detail, they may have found merit and started asking some awkward questions. We can’t have that now can we professor?

    Watching the video I could only conclude that this isn’t Science or Education, it’s a Cult. One can only hope that at least one or two listened and were persuaded to investigate further. It would be very worrying sign for Higher Education if none did.

    That they will be forced to keep their questions and views to themselves for a year or two until they have their qualifications should set off alarm bells everywhere.

    Doesn’t it worry you at all that you are teaching the acolytes that, rather than reason, evidence and debate, the quickest route to the ‘truth’ is to simply silence your opponents? It should. At least one is thinking of moving into Law. Let us hope she doesn’t wind up on the Bench.

    As many have pointed out, there is an infinite source of renewable energy just waiting to be tapped: the spinning bodies of scientists past.

  250. Robin Hewitt says:

    “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)”.

    You have to work with what you’ve got. Obviously an old American record would be more believable but nobody actually wanted to go there.

    Henry Scobell recorded this from Parliament in 1646:- http://www.robinhewitt.net/hansard.jpg

  251. garymount says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:29 am
    Like I say. 99.9% of people take a stance on climate change based on ideological proclivity and the press, I don’t know where you get off thinking facts have anything to do with it.
    ————–

    If CAGW was proven, or even had a shred of evidence supporting it, the number of people believing in it would be about as equal as the number of people that believe in gravity. The reason there is so much skepticism is because most people aren’t gullible, and instead they are highly intelligent and educated, and it is not because of ideological reasons. You may be correct that the press has something to do with skepticism, as many news organizations goal is to inform people.

    I mean, come on, if I thought CAGW was true, I would want something done about it, and I would be doing something about it. I wouldn’t be denying it because I “don’t like change”, or I think “the economy is too bad right now” or whatever imagined excuses warmists are coming up with to explain skepticism.

  252. Constitutionalist says:

    US citizens enjoy 1st amendment protection. Monckton is not a US citizen. He has the right to behave himself while a guest in our country or the right to pack his bags and leave.

  253. Jimbo says:

    A Lovell says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    From Erin Delman’s cv.
    “She helped organize the College’s award-winning cardboard recycling program, and she is also active with Union’s chapter of Campus Kitchens, a nationwide program aimed at using leftover dining hall food to make nutritious meals for local residents.”

    What I want to know Erin is did you enjoy eating the nutritious (left-over) meals? Do you want spittle with your fries? ;-)

  254. Constitutionalist says:

    Jimbo says:
    March 18, 2012 at 3:53 am

    > >This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects………

    >Would that be for the physical or mental traits in “cattle, pigs and dogs”? Try again.

    Both actually. Cattle, pigs, and dogs that are violent towards people or other domesticated animals and thus make handling difficult and dangerous are not typically selected for breeding. There are exceptions such as rodeo bulls and fighting dogs but I can’t think of an exception for swine.

  255. Constitutionalist says:

    Jimbo says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:52 am

    A Lovell says:
    March 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm

    >>From Erin Delman’s cv.
    “She helped organize the College’s award-winning cardboard recycling program, and she is also active with Union’s chapter of Campus Kitchens, a nationwide program aimed at using leftover dining hall food to make nutritious meals for local residents.”

    >What I want to know Erin is did you enjoy eating the nutritious (left-over) meals? Do you want spittle with your fries? ;-)

    Good grief. Think, McFly. The leftovers in this case is the food that goes unserved not the food left on individual plates after being served. The food left uneaten on plates could go to animal sanctuaries however. There’s definitely a lot of food that goes to waste in the U.S. and that’s a shame.

  256. H.R. says:

    wfrumkin says:
    March 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm
    This comment thread ties together some important points about CAGW as a belief system.
    1. Most humans are harming Gaia
    2. A few enlightened people undetstand the price to be paid will need to be a culling of the unworthy
    3. Deniers have forfeited their right to live on mother earth
    4. Since Malthus predicts that most of the human race are fated to starve anyway, banning carbon will only speed up the inevitable (hopefully) limiting the damage to Gaia.
    5. Of course, we the enlightened get to survive and keep our private jets and waterfront mansions in the new sustainable world we create.
    /bitter sarc.
    ==========================================================
    wfrumkin, you didn’t need that ‘/bitter sarc.’ The way you called it down through #5 is pretty much how I see it.

    I for one do not welcome our CAGW spouting malthusian overlords.

  257. Constitutionalist says:

    johanna says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:15 am

    >Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.

    >I am not confusing ethics and science.

    Yes you certainly are confusing ethics and science. Mistakes were certainly made in associating some traits and diseases with genetic origins but there were also instances where there was no mistake. Huntington’s disease is a prime example of no mistake. Today genetic testing can be cheaply and easily done to identify individuals who carry the gene for it before they are old enough to reproduce and before diagnostic symptoms show up in middle age. Testing and sterilizing carriers would be eugenics and it would work to at least some degree in reducing the incidence of Huntington’s. Whether or not that should be done is an ethical question not a scientific one. Eugenics as practiced 80+ years ago would not have had the precision it would have today but would have still worked as well as it does in animal breeding. Wolves didn’t turn into dogs voluntarily yet the big difference between a livestock guard dog and a wolf is entirely mental. Dogs that attacked the livestock were killed and those that attacked wolves and protected livestock were bred. It works and would work for humans too on a purely technical basis. It’s the moral implications that are unpalletable although that moral objection appears to be more a matter of fashion than anything else as eugenics was readily embraced by “good” Christian Americans in the day.

  258. markstoval says:

    What I would like to see

    I would like to see Lord Monckton in a debate with some of our leading alarmists. I wonder what it would take to get a Dr. Mann to share the stage with Lord Monckton in a televised (or Internet streaming) debate in front of an audience of journalists. (much like what happened once down-under as reported by JoNova)

    It might be more fun even to have a team debate with 3 on a side. I am sure that our kind host of WUWT would make a great second to the Lord. Who for a third? (so many good choices out there!)

  259. Tom_R says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 18, 2012 at 4:28 am
    Smokey

    You missed the point. 10-15 yrs is insignificant and it IS cherry picked.

    How many faster than light measurements must one ‘cherry pick’ to show that relativity is wrong?

  260. Andrew says:

    Excellent reply Lord Monckton.

    It never ceases to amaze me how frankly unsophisticated (thick?) alarmist academics seem to be -in the structure and depth of the arguments they offer up. Hand-waving indeed! This fellow shouldn’t only feel a sense of shame at the needless deaths occurring worldwide on account of the CAGW scam – but he ought to be thoroughly embarrassed at the frankly kindergarden-level intellect he has displayed on these pages – to the rest of the world. If I was a paying student on any of his courses, I would now be asking for a refund…

    From personal experience that observation is by no means rare. It is remarkable how shallow – intellectually-speaking- many of the leading lights of climate alarmism tend to be. Two examples – here in Australia:

    In 2005, one lunchtime, I found myself sitting at a dining table at the Sydney Opera House next to a geographer with the name badge – Prof Andy Pitman. I had never heard of him and although the talk was on CAGW (by someone else) it wasn’t a particular area of interest. The was by the head of research at a large German reinsurer. After the presentation, at question time, I asked the presenter what was the level certainty that precluded variation in solar output as the/ a primary cause of the warming trend observed… after a hand-waving type of answer (“..vee are absolutely sure it is not responsible” – something like that) Pitman lent across toward me and sneeringly declared (rather loudly) that the possibility had been thoroughly proven to be of little if any significance… Up until till then I hadn’t been particularly interested in the AGW debate but Pitman’s (unsolicited) response and his tone rang a big alarm bell for me – it just seemed, well, so unscientific.

    The second similar occasion involved a certain Prof TIm Flannery – the Australian paleontologist. Again at an insurance lunchtime gathering (in 2008) – and again it was the thoroughly dismissive tone – almost verging on kind of scathing disgust (perhaps at being surrounded by so many capitalists!) and the idea that an explanation other than man as a driver of climate on Earth was somehow so easily dismissed… and again, the same sense one had of being so, well, under-whelmed by the intelligence of the person…

    Since then I have become very interested in the CAGW escapade and I have to say my initial gut feelings of these people have been found to be correct – the more I have read of their work and their discourse. And it is no surprise to me that these most under-whelming ‘scientists’ (I use that term very loosely) are unwilling to front-up to a public debate when challenegd by those who are clearly well-read in climate science and the data – these intellectual pygmies know they aren’t up to the task They have, i’m sure, at least that much insight…

    Keep-up the good work Chris!

    Best Regards

  261. A. C. Osborn says:

    Sam Geoghegan says: March 18, 2012 at 2:46 am
    “I’d like to re-state my CAGW comment as ‘I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find AGW bunk’. That at least encompasses guys like McIntyre, Pielke Jr. and Lucia, -Probably Anthony Watts as well.”

    Absolutely classic bait & switch.
    Since when has CAGW = AGW.
    I dare say that they all do believe that AGW is not bunk, but not Catastrophic AGW.

  262. Andrew30 says:

    Constitutionalist says: March 18, 2012 at 5:44 am
    [US citizens enjoy 1st amendment protection. Monckton is not a US citizen.]

    I guess some men were created more equal than others.

  263. In response to a few commenters who have questioned my statement that there has been no statistically-significant warming over the past decade:

    1. The statement is true.
    2. The significance of the recent decade and a half of statistically-insignificant warming lies in the influence so long a period without warming has on the longer-run trend. Since 1950, the linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre’s monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies is equivalent to 1.2 Celsius degrees per century: yet the IPCC’s central estimate (taken as the mean of its projections of manmade warming over the 21st century) is 2.8 Celsius degrees per century. In my talk I showed a slide illustrating this discrepancy, which I call the IPCC’s credibility gap.
    3. I did not show only the temperature record of the past decade. I also showed or discussed the warming that has occurred since the IPCC’s first Assessment Report in 1990; the warming since 1950; and the warming since 1850, when the global instrumental record began.
    4. I also discussed the very rapid warming in the Central England Temperature Record from 1695-1745 (at a rate of 3.9 C/century, many times the 0.7 C/century observed in the 20th century); and the three identical rates of rapid warming during the global instrumental record, at 0.16-0,17 C/century, from 1860-1880, from 1910-1940, and from 1976-2001.
    5. I considered the paleoclimate temperature record going back 750 million years.
    6. I stated that it was quite possible that the IPCC was right to find that more than half of the warming since 1950 was manmade, and cited Dr. Scafetta on the matter.

    Let us be clear. Since 1950 there has been warming – though it was well within the natural variability of the climate and needs no further explanation. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming and it is possible that some of the warming since 1950 – perhaps more than half of it – was caused by us. But it is the rate at which the manmade warming has occurred, and the rate at which future manmade warming may occur, that is the crucial scientific question. Even the IPCC takes just 1.5 C as its central estimate of the warming that may occur by 2100 as a result of the CO2 we add to the air this century. It should be remembered that this, therefore, is the maximum quantum of warming that we could prevent if we were to have ceased emitting CO2 altogether since 2000. The 0.7 C of warming from non-CO2 sources, and the 0.6 C of previously-committed warming, that the IPCC additionally assumes for the 21st century will not be prevented by existing measures targeted at the reduction of CO2 emissions.

    For these reasons, the implicit (and, from Professor Rodbell, explicit) allegation that I cherry-picked the data does seem unjustifiable.

  264. vukcevic says:

    Many scientists could benefit greatly by studying the Lord Monckton’s way of dealing with those who oppose either the process or the more general concepts of science. Some scientists go into undignified rant when confronted with data that may conflict with their beliefs. Here are some I encountered:

    Leif Svalgaard: ‘ you are danger to society’
    on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm

    Gavin Schmidt: ‘do you have some magical mechanism…. climate homeopathy perhaps’.
    on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm

    Grant Foster (so called Tamino): ‘ you are * # ’’…’
    on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm

    Chris Colose: ‘…….counting the cows of Idaho …”
    on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm

    Now, compare any of the above to the Lord Monckton’s way of dealing with my somewhat provocative post:
    ‘Not the least of many reasons is that he has done what I lack the skill to do: he has been able to….’ etc,..etc.
    It’s always good to learn from those who do it better.

  265. John Whitman says:

    Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

    Excellent address to the Union College professor. He appears lazy on his climate science, probably due to believing the PR from the cause ‘team’.

    My advice to the prof is to come play in the open venue blog sites focused on correcting CAGWist ideology of the scientists gaming the political (not scientific) body that is called the IPCC.

    John

  266. Sam Geoghegan says:

    Garymount

    “If CAGW was proven, or even had a shed of evidence supporting it, the number of people believing in it would be about as equal as the number of people that believe in gravity. The reason there is so much skepticism is because most people aren’t gullible, and instead they are highly intelligent and educated, and it is not because of ideological reasons. You may be correct that the press has something to do with skepticism, as many news organizations goal is to inform people.”
    I mean, come on, if I thought CAGW was true, I would want something done about it, and I would be doing something about it. I wouldn’t be denying it because I “don’t like change”, or I think “the economy is too bad right now” or whatever imagined excuses warmists are coming up with to explain skepticism.”
    ———————————————————————————————————————————
    People are strange. In one respect, they bitch and moan about their elected leaders, but also look to them for guidance on issues of economics, defence, entitlements and morality. Ultimately, when there’s a problem, we inevitably ask our overlords to fix it with more bureaucracy and entitlement handouts. That to me negates all our efforts exercising our autonomy.
    Partially what makes Monckton attractive is his non-conformity,and rejection of political centralisation, and yes-he’s eloquent and educated but slightly sinister in my opinion.
    Secondly, the internet is a vibrant marketplace of ideas that has rendered traditional news media redundant as far as truth goes.
    So yeah- people are on the right track but you need to be less puritanical-which is very much rooted in ideology. I don’t think you should use phrases like ‘shred of evidence’ for example, or suggest that only sceptics are intelligent and highly educated. Many AGW proponents are also.
    -That kind of talk promotes the partisanship that I find disconcerting.

  267. Constitutionalist, you seem to have the same problem as Palmer. Genetics and breeding techniques are not at issue. The issue is that the eugenics we are discussing is not a neutral and potentially legitimate field of study, but a historically specific and obviously disgusting scam which started around the 1900s until it was shamed back into the sewers after Auschwitz. While it pretended to be part of the sciences, it was actually a system which began as a racist philosophy and took a piggy-back ride on the back of of grenetics to legitimize its concocted premises. Those who operated under those premises did not produce science, but fraudulent and harmful junk which they managed to float mainly because of their social and political connections, because they wore lab coats and had letters after their names. It was not the science, but their ability to satisfy popular prejudices and to suck up to money and power that convinced the public and “policy makers” of their credibility.

    Neither Joanna, nor Lord Moncton are confusing ethics and science. The ethics are certainly horrific, but the science sucks as well. In any case, fraud, carelessness, politicised science, these are not only ethically wrong, but scientifically null and void. So, it really isn’t as complicated as you and Palmer are pretending it is in your obvious attempts to whitewash eugenics: Attacking pseudosciences is not attacking science. Get it through your cranial armour, people, attacking eugenics is not attacking the spcifics of animal husbandry you two are babbling about. If I think Erich von Daniken is a mendatious nutcase, I’m not attacking archeology; if I think homeopathy is quackery, I’m not questioning modern, science-based medicine; if I laugh at astrology or alchemy, I’m not trashing astronomy or chemistry; and if I’m attacking “warmism,” I’m not attacking climatology. In fact, I think I can make a good argument that climate alarmism is in fact a continuation of the eugenics scam, a pick up on an inertia “rudely” broken up by a genocide and the disgust with series of horrific population experiments in the West. The “science” behind eugenics and warmism is bad and it’s irrelevant to the actual goals, namely grabbing power, prestige and public money by mediocre and ethically challenged technocrats. Both pseudosciences are a stretch, an unfalsifiable claim made with authoritarian chest-beating, under the guise of humanitarian necessity and under dire threats and both need to be aggressively challenged by genuine scientists and a public which has yet to lose its right to question and ridicule.

  268. Joe Ryan says:

    Wonderful reply, but I wish people would stop quoting the first amendment and freedom of speech for private squabbles. It doesn’t apply.

    Eugenics was an interesting example that is appropriate, I think,but for subtler reasons that hinted at in the reply. The eugenics movement was attempting to establish a program that established the preferable traits of human beings and then rid the gene pool of the unwanted traits. It was wholly monstrous on an ethical level, but the science was sound… but that is where the real parallel comes in.

    At the time the scientific field of genetics was still wrestling with what actually amounted to a genetic trait, and in trying to establish these traits they made poverty, and other social issues, genetic traits. So their “scientific conclusion” was to limit or stop the procreation in the lower classes. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood got it’s start working to keep the poor from breeding… and in truth it hasn’t really strayed from that plan in the last 96 years.

    In the end eugenics was a wholly myopic, damaging and morally bankrupt endeavor based on bastardized science executed with the best of intentions…. just like climate science is today.

  269. Constitutionalist says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:44 am

    US citizens enjoy 1st amendment protection. Monckton is not a US citizen. He has the right to behave himself while a guest in our country or the right to pack his bags and leave.

    ———————————
    Mister, you’re about as good of a constitutionalist as you are a defender of junk science. The audience, presumably composed of Americans has the right to hear an opinion be it from a native-born or a guest, especially one that in no way violates your Constitution, laws and mores. In what way did Lord Monckton “not behave himself”? By making idiots out of his detractors? Your problem is of a general nature, I’d say; you just don’t reason too well.

  270. David Cage says:

    However, not one of the models upon which it relies has been peer-reviewed.

    Peer review must be done by a team of computer modellers from every sphere apart from climate science. There should be representatives from climate science merely there to provide clarification of intent where required and a defence from any wrong interpretations, but no more. No member of a review panel should have any known connection with the production of the material or it is not a review at all.
    There should also be teams from specialists other aspects of the natural CO2 cycles to ensure that the models cover all aspects of the creation and use of CO2 by the natural systems backed up by accurate and verified data. The models must clearly show that natural systems will not just rebalance at precisely the same levels regardless of man’s activities.
    Climate science needs to learn the difference between crony support networking and peer review. Their idea of reviewing does not meet the standards required elsewhere in science or engineering and the public should be aware of this before blindly accepting their word.

  271. Constitutionalist, you seem to have the same problem as Palmer. Genetics and breeding techniques are not at issue. The issue is that the eugenics we are discussing is not a neutral and potentially legitimate field of study, but a historically specific and obviously disgusting scam which started around the 1900s until it was shamed back into the sewers after Auschwitz. While it pretended to be part of the sciences, it was actually a system which began as a racist philosophy and took a piggy-back ride on the back of of grenetics to legitimize its concocted premises. Those who operated under those premises did not produce science, but fraudulent and harmful junk which they managed to float mainly because of their social and political connections, because they wore lab coats and had letters after their names. It was not the science, but their ability to satisfy popular prejudices and to suck up to money and power that convinced the public and “policy makers” of their credibility.

    Neither Joanna, nor Lord Moncton are confusing ethics and science. The ethics are certainly horrific, but the science sucks as well. In any case, fraud, carelessness, politicised science, these are not only ethically wrong, but scientifically null and void. So, it really isn’t as complicated as you and Palmer are pretending it is in your obvious attempts to whitewash eugenics: Attacking pseudosciences is not attacking science. Get it through your cranial armour, people, attacking eugenics is not attacking the spcifics of animal husbandry you two are babbling about. If I think Erich von Daniken is a mendatious nutcase, I’m not attacking archeology; if I think homeopathy is quackery, I’m not questioning modern, science-based medicine; if I laugh at astrology or alchemy, I’m not trashing astronomy or chemistry; and if I’m attacking “warmism,” I’m not attacking climatology. In fact, I think I can make a good argument that climate alarmism is in fact a continuation of the eugenics scam, a pick up on an inertia “rudely” broken up by a genocide and the disgust with series of horrific population experiments in the West. The “science” behind eugenics and warmism is bad and it’s irrelevant to the actual goals, namely grabbing power, prestige and public money by mediocre and ethically challenged technocrats. Both pseudosciences are a stretch, an unfalsifiable claim made with authoritarian chest-beating, under the guise of humanitarian necessity and under dire threats and both need to be aggressively challenged by genuine scientists and a public which has yet to lose its right to question and ridicule.

  272. Wijnand says:

    Wow! Serious alarmist asskicking going on in the comment section of the article. I wonder how long after Monday morning the comments will stay there….

  273. Justa Joe says:

    Look at “judgemental” and self righteous posture of that young blonde lady confronting Lord Monkton as she harumphs all over the poor guy. Somehow I don’t think Dana Carvey is going to make her the subject of his comedic mockery though.

  274. Mark Bofill says:

    Paul Coppin says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm

    Yet, perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to your professor, you raised your hands in denial of the truth. Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority.

    As I’ve previously written in other threads about Moncton’s visit, I believe this is by far the most salient, and damaging, point of his entire speech, and the point about which Redbull and Dulman are most upset about.
    ———————————————-
    I second that Paul. In my view the importance of the point Lord Monckton makes here far outweighs the importance of the technical debate concerning AGW (and don’t get me wrong, the AGW debate is pretty darn important). All science demands integrity and dedication to truth, not just climate science. Sine qua non.

  275. LamontT says:

    “Greg House says:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:01 pm

    May I take this? Thank you.
    This is easy. Two things I have already done, see above, about “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)” and the absence of correlation between CO2 and the temperature.

    The third one is the thing about warming having stopped 12-15 years ago. I’ll just give an example. Look at this “warming”: 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-4-5-6-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13. You can see, may “warming” stopped for a while, but then…

    The problem is, he uses not only valid arguments, but also invalid ones.”
    =======================================================================

    Certainly Greg I’ll be glad to analyze your 3 points.

    1. – Central England. Note the word Proxy in there. What Lord Monckton is referencing is that we now have more than a century of world wide data. During that time we have not seen any temperature anomalies in other parts of the world. In other words if it was a warming trend in Central England then there was a warming trend in the rest of the world and if there was a cooling trend in Central England there was a cooling trend in the rest of the world. So because of this we can look at the records back to the 1600′s and make general conclusions about what was happening in the rest of the world. Conclusions such as this by Lord Monckton just a few comments above this one.

    “I also discussed the very rapid warming in the Central England Temperature Record from 1695-1745 (at a rate of 3.9 C/century, many times the 0.7 C/century observed in the 20th century); and the three identical rates of rapid warming during the global instrumental record, at 0.16-0,17 C/century, from 1860-1880, from 1910-1940, and from 1976-2001. – Lord Monckton at WUWT”

    2. Absence of correlation between CO2 and temperature. Lets see he hasn’t made such a claim at the Schenectady lecture so it is interesting you present it as a debunked point from there. I do believe he indicated that CO2 is known to lag temperature increases not precede them.

    3. You claim that there has been warming n the last 15 or so years except …. There was a peak temperature in 1998 since that time the temperature has never gotten that warm again. The problem here is that in 1999 the temperatures plunged so relative to the 1999 peak we see warming but relative to the 1999 peak we have have not seen warming continue. The earth has indeed warmed and cooled since 1998 but the warming hasn’t recovered to the point it was at just a few years ago. You should have limited yourself to the last 10 years if you want to claim warming continues and even there you have to be very careful picking your start and end dates or the trend doesn’t do what you are asking it to do.

    Greg I’m afraid that not one of your three easily debunked points holds up for you on analysis. Instead Lord Monckton’s points remain valid and hold up to checking.

  276. LamontT says:

    “Hugh Pepper says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:01 am

    Let’s be clear. “Facts” are not ideas conjured through some intellectual exercise alone. “Facts” about the real world are established by a rigorous exercise of observation and measurement. There are accepted protocols which work to ensure that the practice of finding the truth is legitimate. If everybody follows the “rules”, this system works. It is legitimate for Al Gore, who you apparently have demonized, to quote research which has been apprpriately conducted by others. You are also free to follow this style as well, and I encourage you to do this.

    The physics of climate science has ben well established for many years, and universally accepted. Read Michael Mann’s recent book, for example, for an authoritative summary of this basic work. But then, I suppose, he has also been thoroughly demonized.”
    ====================================================================

    OH Hugh really? You want to try a claim on facts? Though I note you are careful to to always put facts in quotes. At a guess this means you do realize that a huge number of the facts involved in climate science are of questionable value.

    We know from the climategate letters and other sources that the KEY players in climate science have bent, massaged, and otherwise muddied the water of actual facts since Dr. Hansen’s summertime presentation in Washington on the hottest day of summer with the windows open and the A/C turned off. That right there set the stage for how the key players in climate research treated facts.

    Science depends on repeatability of the research. By this I mean that I should be able to describe my research and how I did it and you should be able to independently duplicate my research. That is the very core of science. If you don’t have that then there is no science involved.

    And the problem climate science has is that their research isn’t repeatable. Much of it is based on computer models and doesn’t match real world data instead existing in a world only as modeled on the computer. Worse the researchers have massaged and cherry picked their data to achieve results that they want. Again this isn’t how science is done. The whole point of the Climate Audit website originally was because the reported data didn’t match what could be seen just looking at the records and Steve McIntyre wanted to be able to follow their work something he should have been easily able to do since he had a background in statistics.

    The fact that they held up the hockey stick for so long and in some cases still fight tooth and nail to retain it tells you how little regard the core group of climate scientists hold facts in.

    So Hugh perhaps you should have run screaming for the hills before invoking your “Facts”. It would have been better for your cause err case.

  277. Mazza says:

    Hugh Pepper refers to ideas “which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.” I do wish this notion – that a paper that has been peer reviewed has been in some way authenticated or shown to be “right” – would go away. All that peer review is designed to do is to indicate that the work is not prima facie rubbish.

  278. James Sexton says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 18, 2012 at 3:50 am

    Sexton

    He’s made the ten year ‘no significant statistical warming’ claim numerous times (It varies between 10-15 years and ‘no warming’ to ‘cooling’). If choosing start/end points over a decade has no weght on the overall history of climate, then why mention it other than to impress the audience? Your answer?
    ============================================================
    Sam you can read Chris Monckton’s reasoning above.

    Here’s why I think the warming abatement is relevant to bring up……. there is no explained mechanism for it. The IR energy travels at the speed of light. Supposedly, the earth’s energy output is at a near constant 392 w/m2. We’ve continued to increase atmospheric CO2 in that time period. If the hypothesis is correct, we should have seen an increase in temps.

    Either the hypothesis is wrong, or there’s another mechanism controlling our climate, thus, making the hypothesis wrong. More details can be found here…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/a-review-of-the-co2-correlation-and-a-discussion-of-warming-abatement/

  279. Neo says:

    Next time somebody warns you of the dangers of carbon dioxide, ask them if they can cite the definitive peer-reviewed study that incontrovertibly ties man to current climate warming. Al Gore’s books and movies don’t qualify, neither do IPCC reports which are mostly put together by politicians, but any peer-reviewed study that was used to produced them is fair game.

    Expect … crickets.

  280. Tad says:

    Where can I send my kid to college that she won’t be subjected to mindless, historically illiterate, un-scientific “professors” such as this fellow? I really don’t want to waste her time and my money sending her to such a place.

  281. vukcevic says:

    Monckton of Brenchley says:
    March 18, 2012 at 7:40 am
    4. I also discussed the very rapid warming in the Central England Temperature Record from 1695-1745 (at a rate of 3.9 C/century, many times the 0.7 C/century observed in the 20th century); and the three identical rates of rapid warming during the global instrumental record, at 0.16-0,17 C/century, from 1860-1880, from 1910-1940, and from 1976-2001.

    Illustration: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-100-150-100.htm

    There are good natural reasons for the warming in the early 1700s and that the same natural variability, can account for most of the temperature rise since 1900 when there are good records and reliable data.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP.htm

  282. dp says:

    I love the man and his gifts for debate but he’s mixed up the freedom of speech to include a guarantee of an audience. Nowhere in the US Constitution are you guaranteed to be heard – you have to be gifted an audience or create your own audience by your own means and in accordance with local statute. Your freedom of speech does not give you the right to approach any gathering on your radar to present your thoughts, and that will hopefully remain true long in to the future.

    Technically – the constitution describes limits against the government and so the free speech amendment was intended to prevent the government from pre-punishing or censoring speech against the government. Subsequent rulings have broadened that significantly and confused the role of the constitution in keeping the government in check.

    Thankfully the good Lord Monckton has had the opportunity to be heard far and wide and ever may it be so.

  283. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:11 am

    “WHere is your research published Mr Monckton? Please refer me to this work and I will be delighted to read it. Please note: I am not referring to intellectual commentary, which can be easily done from the sactuary of our homes. There are legions of people (thankfully) who trudge around the frozen regions of our world, and who venture onto the oceans, folks who do actual research and who write papers summarizing their work. It is this kind of inquiry, Mr Monckton, which I am asking you to cite.”

    As Hugh Pepper can see from the last link below, Lord Monckton’s paper was reviewed by the APS — which promptly climbed down. That is what passes for climate science pal review. It takes Prof Richard Lindzen a year to be published, while Michael Mann gets his science fiction published in a month. And of course the only times Mann will “trudge around the frozen regions of our world, and who venture onto the oceans” is when he is frolicking around holiday venues at taxpayer expense, partying with his fellow climate charlatans, while real scientists go at their own expense.

    I’ve generously helped out Hugh Pepper here, doing an archive search on his behalf. Hugh claims to desire to be referred to Lord Monckton’s published research and says he “will be delighted to read it”, so I’ve provided some of it below. Of course, Hugh will now climb down from his statement, and begin to attach new conditions to his request, and re-frame what he asked for. Nitpicking is sure to follow. But for those who may be new to Lord Monckton’s expertise and his scientific views, the following articles are a good starting point.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/27/monckton-on-pulling-planck-out-of-a-hat

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/24/moncktons-letter-to-the-journal-remote-sensing

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/17/monckton-on-paul-nurses-anti-science

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-science

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/1-k-or-not-1-k-that-is-the-question-2

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/07/hurrah-for-8-orders-of-magnitude

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/30/feedback-about-feedbacks-and-suchlike-fooleries

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/28/sense-and-sensitivity-2

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/09/durban-what-the-media-are-not-telling-you

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/monckton-on-sensitivity-training-at-durban

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/30/why-windmills-won’t-wash

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/09/monckton-skewers-steketee

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/06/moncktons-mexican-missive

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/07/moncktons-mexico-missive-2

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/moncktons-mexican-missive-3

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/10/moncktons-mexican-missive-4

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/27/dr-roy-spencer-lord-christopher-monckton-to-challenge-climate-orthodoxy-at-cancun-un-conference

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/28/the-season-of-disinvitation-continues-monckton-and-delingpoles-mep-affair

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/monckton-why-current-trends-are-not-alarming

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/abraham-climbs-down

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/from-bonn-with-love

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/lord-moncktons-summary-of-climategate-and-its-issues

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/monckton-climate-change-video-goes-viral

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/american-physical-society-reviewing-its-climate-stance

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/aps-fellow-supports-moncktons-position

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/22/roy-spencers-testimony-before-congress-backs-up-moncktons-assertions-on-climate-sensitivity

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/19/american-physical-society-and-monckton-at-odds-over-paper

    This is not a complete list, so when Hugh Pepper completes his reading I will be happy to provide more articles by and about Lord Monckton. Or, Hugh may prefer to bask in his ignorance, and instead get his talking points from the small echo chamber blogs he usually inhabits. The knowledge is here, if Hugh really wants to get educated on a subject he currently knows little about.

  284. Greg House says:

    LamontT says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:12 am
    Certainly Greg I’ll be glad to analyze your 3 points.
    3. You claim that there has been warming n the last 15 or so years except ….
    —————————————–
    No, I did not say that.

  285. Wijnand says:
    March 18, 2012 at 8:41 am
    Wow! Serious alarmist asskicking going on in the comment section of the article. I wonder how long after Monday morning the comments will stay there….

    Yeah, just came from there, had some fun and it’s a turkey shoot, blasting fish in a barrel with a twelve-gauge, as it were. It’s starting to feel wrong and dirty. No adults about, lots of silly snickering from the prof’s loyal groupies and the best argument so far can be summed up as, “I believe because Science told me so.” What the Hell happened to our universities? No, never mind.

    See:
    http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/#comment-19844

  286. Solomon Green says:

    .
    Michael Palmer says:

    “While I don’t doubt Monckton’s good intentions, I don’t think his panoply of failed consensus helps his case; none of them hold even a drop of water.”

    Perhaps a better example of the consensus (not 97% but 100% of chrystallographers,with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers betwen them) being wrong was provided by the Nobel Prize for Chemistry which was awarded to Dan Shechman in 2011.

    “On the morning of 8 April 1982, an image counter to the laws of nature appeared in Dan Shechtman’s electron microscope. In all solid matter, atoms were believed to be packed inside crystals in symmetrical patterns that were repeated periodically over and over again. For scientists, this repetition was required in order to obtain a crystal.

    Shechtman’s image, however, showed that the atoms in his crystal were packed in a pattern that could not be repeated. Such a pattern was considered just as impossible as creating a football using only six-cornered polygons, when a sphere needs both five- and six-cornered polygons. His discovery was extremely controversial. In the course of defending his findings, he was asked to leave his research group. However, his battle eventually forced scientists to reconsider their conception of the very nature of matter”

    source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2011/press.html.

  287. JDN says:

    @Richard Patton
    I’ve read a few state constitutions. They tend to have a bill of rights incorportated into themselves that includes free speech from the perspective of each state. My point to Monckton is that bills of rights constrain legislatures, not professors, and especially not professors at private institutions. Academic institutions proscribe speech right in their student manuals. Professors can kick you out of their class if they don’t like what you’re saying. Whether the courts make the states subject to federal law or not, I can’t believe that the “free speech” clause of any bill of rights has been successfully asserted against a college professor. That would be interesting if that were the case.

  288. The remarks about the First Amendment seem to have gone a little off track. The Constitution says nothing about what sort of speech Congress can not prohibit. No law of Congress can ban free speech on any topic, and it says nothing about citizenship. Criticism of government is just one such topic. By extension, neither can lower governments or their agencies, such as public universities. Thus SUNY could not have banned Moncton for no reason other than his opinion, but the private Union College could. Not that they should and they evidently didn’t. Seems to have worked out.

    On another topic, whether picking 10-15 years ending now is “cherry picking” is semantic. Obviously, it was chosen for maximum effect. It does not demonstrate that there is no longer a trend upwards, of which the last decade-plus is an anomaly. Warmists correctly point this out. It does make it harder to argue that the the upward trend exists at the alarming rate proposed by them. Informed skeptics acknowledge the basic physics of CO2 in the atmosphere, and find it a little odd that so much time has passed with so little observable temperature arise, while CO2 concentration has risen apace.

    Nothing is gained by overstating a case. The skeptical position should be that the lack of any real rise for a decade suggests that the long term rise varies around a typical rate that is far below what IPCC and their ilk want us to believe. There is no hockey stick. We should stick to that and not gloat about a decade that has been very kind to us.

  289. Blade says:

    kcom1 [March 17, 2012 at 2:32 pm] says:

    “A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth.”

    “What about a patent clerk’s?”

    Excellent comment. No doubt it went right over his/her head.

  290. markstoval says:

    “I love the man and his gifts for debate but he’s mixed up the freedom of speech to include a guarantee of an audience.”

    He was invited to a public institution that receives millions each year in federal funds. The right of all of us to hear an invited guest in a public venue is covered under the first amendment. A small group tried to prevent all interested parties from hearing the invited guest. (typical “progressive” behavior I might add)

    Seek legal advice on this if you still don’t see it.

  291. vukcevic says:

    “A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth.”

    “What about a patent clerk’s?”

    Don’t forget the alchemist and theologian

  292. Hugh Pepper says:

    WE all know that Mr Monckton is a prolific publisher of articles, most of which are in the genre of “opinion pieces”. I’ve read many. This, however, is NOT science. Science progresses only after scientists conduct research in an acceptable fashion. But you must already know this Smokey and I’m sure I’m not telling you something new. Our source of disagreement is right here, I think.

    My view is that “facts” follow acceptable (yes, peer reviewed) empirical research. YOu often mock Michael Mann and his “hockey stick”, failing to acknowledge that his work has been replicated seven times. This “consensus “results in widespread acceptance. If you disagree with the results of this collective research, do your own investigation, and propose an alternative hypothesis. Not as some sort of academic exercise, but as a starting point for data collection, and measurement. You have to do more than express opinions to gain legitimacy as a science critic.

  293. Michael Palmer says:

    Solomon Green says:
    March 18, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Perhaps a better example of the consensus (not 97% but 100% of chrystallographers,with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers betwen them) being wrong was provided by the Nobel Prize for Chemistry which was awarded to Dan Shechman in 2011.

    Very good example. Another great example is the discovery of prions by Prusiner – infectious protein particles, which went straight agains the “central dogma of molecular biology”, i.e. that hereditary information could only be transmitted in the form of nucleic acids. He certainly got his share of ridicule before finally proving his point.
    There must be more examples of failed consensus, less politically charged, yet more valid than the horror stories selected by Lord Monckton. Collecting some of these would be a more interesting and useful exercise than calling each other names.

  294. Michael Palmer says:

    Peter Kovachev says:
    March 17, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm

    For someone who claims to have gone to medical school or to be, God-forbid, lecturing students, you’ve yet to learn to distinguish between livestock breeding, genetics and eugenics. The latter may employ and apropriate principles of the former two to support its inherent ideology, but it is an entitity on its own. Eugenics is a racist ideology developed in California, of all places, and well before Hitler. It was about protecting and enriching a presumed superior human group, the “Nordic Race,” and to enhance its health and intelligence, as subjectively defined by some people at the time, through programs including selective breeding, forced sterilization and genocide.

    So, learned doctor, when you pop a howler like “you [johanna] are confusing ethical with scientific objections”, I don’t know whether to laugh or throw up. Are you defending, for example, David Starr Jordan’s “race and blood theory,” the notion that only 10 percent of the White population is eugenically viable, that Blacks are mentally inferior, that Jews are genetically poisonous?

    As a doctor, I can say with confidence: By all means, throw up, if it makes you feel better. Better now? Able to pay attention again? There.

    If you do not trust in university education, maybe you believe Wikipedia? On eugenics, it has this to say:

    “Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. To population geneticists the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without necessarily altering allele frequencies; for example, J. B. S. Haldane wrote that “the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent”. Much debate has taken place in the past, as it does today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics. Some types of eugenics deal only with perceived beneficial and/or detrimental genetic traits. These are sometimes called “pseudo-eugenics” by proponents of strict eugenics.”

    It also says:

    “The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by a wide variety of prominent people, including Winston Churchill, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling and Sidney Webb.”

    So obviously the narrow definition of the term that you espouse is everything but generally accepted. You probably knew that – you just needed a straw man in order to work up a good rage. Silly and boring.

  295. Arno Arrak says:

    Below is what I posted on Concordiensis, the student newspaper of Union College, about the Monckton lecture:
    Here is how they conclude: “The fact of the matter is that science has spoken, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence has shown very, very clearly that global warming is occurring and is at least mostly caused by humans.”

    Wrong, science has not spoken. Furthermore, it is irrelevant how large the “bulk” of that “evidence” is, just one measurement can wipe out all of it. I will do exactly that to your “evidence” now. The scientist whose work I will refer to is Ferenc Miskolczi, a Hungarian scientist at NASA who studied absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he was able to show that the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs has been constant for the last 61 years (E&E 21(4):243, 2011).

    During that same period of time the amount of carbon dioxide in the air increased by 21.6 percent. This means that the addition of all this carbon dioxide to the atmosphere had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. There goes your “evidence” with all its “bulk.” This is an empirical observation, not derived from any theory, and it overrules any deductions from theory that contradict it. Specifically, it invalidates all climate models that use the greenhouse effect to predict warming. That means that all predictions of dangerous warming emanating from the IPCC are dead wrong.

    Carbon dioxide simply does not warm the atmosphere, even if you double it, which means that temperature sensitivity becomes exactly zero. His paper was peer reviewed and has been available in scientific literature for more than a year now. No peer reviewed articles opposing it have appeared, presumably not for lack of trying. It follows that belief in an Armageddon caused by greenhouse warming is just a fairy tale. Unfortunately those who believe this fairy tale have instigated governments to pass laws detrimental to living standards of all citizens. It is time to start reversing this trend by voiding these irrational laws.

  296. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper [falsely] says of Michael Mann:

    “…his work has been replicated seven times.”

    Folks, we have a comedian!

    If Mann’s MBH98/99 has been “replicated” then I’m sure the IPCC will begin to use his original hokey stick chart again; you know, the same chart they were forced to stop publishing in 2007. Wake me when that happens.

    . . .

    Michael Palmer,

    You seem to have missed my observation that human nature being what it is, the most odious use of eugenics is what governments always revert to. Eugenics always ends up being the excuse for disposing of individuals and groups. Always. That is why eugenics [or whatever Newspeak label that is currently in vogue] is an ethics problem: it condones murder.

  297. Arno Arrak says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:38 pm
    ……….

    Interesting and important point, one which I did come across a few years ago, but failed to understand even partially. I penned a reply to you, but it looks like the Concordy moderator is back from his nap, and my post is still in limbo. This is what I wrote:

    Arno,

    I was sure there must be some peer-reviewed challenges you might have missed, given how potentialy (if not actually) damaging the impact of Miskolcz’s research on UN-IPCC’s climate doctrine is, but wasn’t able to find such. Seeing how poorly the Warmies here are faring, I thought it would be sportsman-like to play the Devil’s advocate, so I looked, although not intensely or deeply. Lots of hollering from the PR sites, but zilch from the peer review press I could see. I welcome corrections on this. Here are links to an unpublished critique on a blog and an attempt to get someone to refute him:

    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html

    http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=232818

    Now, I’m leary of Rodbell’s claim that the “fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications (sic.),” but seeing how good the East Anglia and Mann crowd have been at controlling and bullying the process, it’s indeed surprising that there is no credible refutation of his hypothesis. Miskolczi, it appears, has been black-listed as well (see: http://www.omsj.org/authors/blacklisted-scientist-challenges-global-warming-orthodoxy).

  298. RockyRoad says:

    Ok, Hugh Pepper–give us a citation or two or three showing who has “replicated Mann’s work seven times”.

    Time to put up or shut up.

  299. Greg House says:

    LamontT says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:12 am

    1. – Central England. Note the word Proxy in there.
    ============================================
    To use something as a proxy you need a cause-effect relationship. And you need to be sure, that nothing else causes the same effect.

    Is there a cause-effect relationship between temperature in Central England and the global temperature?

  300. RockyRoad says:

    Greg House says:

    March 17, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    RockyRoad says:
    March 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    I’d rather have a representative thermometer than a representative tree.
    ——————————————-
    That is understandable, but the problem is, that a non-representative thermometer is not any better, than a non-representative tree.

    And yet somehow you equate the two (trees and thermometers)?? Trees were never intended to be thermometers, while thermometers were built with but one function: to measure temperature.

    Epic Fail, Greg; Epic Fail.

    If not, show me a tree that is a more accurate (or precise or representative) measuring device for temperature than a hardware-store thermometer. (The key to this mental exercise, of course is hidden in the word “thermometer”: Thermo (for heat) and meter (to measure). If there’s a tree by the name of Thermous Meteror, I’m not aware of it.

  301. rogerkni says:

    Here’s a WUWT thread on Monckton vs. Abraham:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/

    Here’s the first video in a series of videos titled “Monckton Refutes Abraham”:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/cfact#p/u/26/Z00L2uNAFw8

  302. RockyRoad says:

    Greg House says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    LamontT says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:12 am

    1. – Central England. Note the word Proxy in there.
    ============================================
    To use something as a proxy you need a cause-effect relationship. And you need to be sure, that nothing else causes the same effect.

    Is there a cause-effect relationship between temperature in Central England and the global temperature?

    Wow, really hung up on these heat measuring trees, eh, Greg? Do you place a greater reliance on trees as thermometers than thermometers as thermometers?

    First of all, I don’t believe trees are even in the same ballpark–you may have convinced yourself they are, but there’s nothing I can do about that.

    But here’s the ultimate squash: Do they calibrate thermometers against trees, or do they calibrate trees against thermometers?

    The answer to that will settle your confusion.

  303. Anthony Watts says:

    I always get a kick out of people like Greg that think trees make good thermometers. Most people that think this are ignorant of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum.

    Read all about it here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/a-look-at-treemometers-and-tree-ring-growth/

    I’m sure Greg will be able to tell us how the separate a temperature signal in a tree ring width from a precipitation one from El Nino/ENSO and all that in the Bristlecone pines of the Southwest.

    - Anthony

  304. wsbriggs says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:02 pm
    ” Science progresses only after scientists conduct research in an acceptable fashion…
    My view is that “facts” follow acceptable (yes, peer reviewed) empirical research.”

    I’m sure that your fellow travelers were equally adamant about the quality of Jewish research in the 1930s. Certainly a number of them published documents showing that Einstein had everything wrong with Special Relativity, the Photoelectric Effect, and a number of other publications in Physics and Mathematics that he and other Jews had made. That was definitely the consensus at that time, right? Yep, Acceptable Empirical Research – gotta have it…

  305. Michael Palmer says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Doctor, you are repeating the same error again and again like broken automaton, not understanding or pretending not to understand the issue.

    Once again, same story different post: We are talking about eugenics as a specific historical program which serves as a prime example of what happens when governments and people panic and begin acting before thinking. Eugenics as brought up by Lord Monckton and commonly understood by most is not a neutral word for a sector in genetics. It is not synonymous with medical genetics, a good but misunderstood idea with a few little mistakes here and there. The example regarding problems of consanguinity doesn’t support the validity of eugenics. Nor am I interested in the silly-buggers word game of “eugenics vs. pseudo-eugenics.” Perhaps you are hoping to start afresh under stricter rules and better ethics, to establish “neo-eugenics” or real-scientific-eugenics” or whatever (a tacticallymisguided approach given how polluted the word has become), but the eugenics we all know and love is a pseudoscientific belief more accurately described as “raciology,” an ugly fraud which was peddled in the guise of science, and brutally enforced with a series of policies which caused massive suffering and deaths.

    So again, this is not a case of science and ethics as seperate issues, this is a case of a fraudulent pseudoscientific movement (b.1900s-d.WWII) which is both grossly unscientific and morally abhorent. Are any new or different lights blinking yet? I don’t how how else I can rephrase things, and clearly other folks here are not penetrating through either.

  306. RockyRoad says:

    Cause and Effect: The tree vs. the thermometer (liquid bulb type).

    Thermometer:
    Cause–additional heat. Effect–rise in liquid level.
    Cause–less heat. Effect–drop in liquid level.

    Tree:
    Cause–Additional sun, rain, wind, temperature, nutrients, length of growing season, disease, insects, snow depth, lightning strikes, birds, deer, etc., etc. Effect–variable growth ring width.

    Now, quoting you: “And you need to be sure, that nothing else causes the same effect“. The thermometer is measuring just one thing (it is designed to pretty much eliminate all other factors). The tree is generally out of your vision and control–there are at least half a dozen things that impact it, yet you continue to say a tree is more representative than a thermometer.

    I’m sure I won’t convince you, Greg, but that’s not my intent. My intent is to display the blatant disparity in your argument to all the thousands of other readers on this site. Those are the ones you should be worried about.

  307. adolfogiurfa says:

    We are living those “interesting times” of the end of the “fifth Sun”(!!), when things, it seems so, will be back to its traditional order. Lord Monckton is an ambassador of that future, but now closer, new era.

  308. Greg House says:

    Anthony Watts says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    I always get a kick out of people like Greg that think trees make good thermometers… I’m sure Greg will be able to tell us how the separate a temperature signal in a tree ring width from a precipitation one from…
    =================================================
    Anthony, I am sorry to apparently/possibly have caused a misunderstanding, but I do not think trees make good thermometers. Actually I do think this tree thing is a complete bull***t.

    If you are referring to these words of mine: “…but the problem is, that a non-representative thermometer is not any better, than a non-representative tree”, then it was meant differently, like “either tree or a thermometer, whatever is non-representative is bad”.

    REPLY:
    thanks for clearing that up – Anthony

  309. markstoval says:

    “Liebig used the image of a barrel—now called Liebig’s barrel—to explain his law.” — from the link by Anthony Watts.

    I guess the cAGW Team has its collective head in Liebig’s barrel!

  310. Greg House says:

    RockyRoad says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    Cause and Effect: The tree vs. the thermometer (liquid bulb type). …

    I’m sure I won’t convince you, Greg, but that’s not my intent. My intent is to display the blatant disparity in your argument to all the thousands of other readers on this site. Those are the ones you should be worried about.
    ===============================================
    I agree with your post, but please note, that it was not my argument, as I just told Anthony.

  311. Hugh Pepper says:

    Your view that climate science is non repeatable is just plain wrong. I mentioned in another post that the ground-breaking work of Mann et al has been repeated seven times. Each of the other researchers, in this instance, got a similar result, thereby conforming the original hypothesis. Science is all about repetition and the journals are full of this work, which is often confirming, but not always.

    REPLY: Then provide citations to prove it, otherwise you are just babbling – Anthony

  312. Hugh Pepper says:

    Read Michael Mann’s book Rocky. There are several references to this research in the book. From Mann’s references you can locate the original research.

  313. Michael Palmer says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm
    ……………………………………..

    Doctor, you are repeating the same basic error again and again like broken automaton, either not understanding or pretending not to understand the issue.

    Once again, same story different post: We are talking about eugenics as a specific historical program (think sterilizations, banned”inter-racial” relationships, cattle wagons and gas chambers) which serves as a prime example of what happens when governments and people panic and begin acting like spases before thinking. We are talking about bad science and falsified research to back the assumptions which led to the above horrors. Not animal husbandry or the proper and still young and growing science of human genetics.

    Eugenics, as brought up by Lord Monckton and commonly understood by most is not a neutral word for a sector in genetics. It is not synonymous with medical genetics, a good but misunderstood idea with a few little mistakes here and there. The example regarding problems of consanguinity doesn’t support the validity of eugenics. Nor am I interested in the silly-buggers word game of “eugenics vs. pseudo-eugenics.” Perhaps you are hoping to start afresh under stricter rules and better ethics, to establish “neo-eugenics” or “real-honest-to-goodness-scientific-eugenics” or whatever (a tactically misguided approach given how polluted the word has become), but the eugenics we all know and love is a mix of science and pseudoscientific beliefs more accurately described as “raciology,” an ugly fraud which was peddled in the guise of pure and honest science, and was brutally enforced with a series of policies which caused massive suffering and deaths.

    So again, this is not a case of science and ethics as seperate issues, this is a case of a fraudulent pseudoscientific movement (b.1900s-d.WW II) which is both grossly unscientific and morally abhorent. Are any new or different lights blinking yet? I don’t how how else I can rephrase things, and clearly other folks here are not penetrating through either.

  314. vukcevic says:

    Greg House says:
    March 18, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    To use something as a proxy you need a cause-effect relationship. And you need to be sure, that nothing else causes the same effect.
    Is there a cause-effect relationship between temperature in Central England and the global temperature?

    Yes, it is a star in the centre of our solar system, usually referred to as the sun.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NAP-SSN.htm

  315. Hugh Pepper says:

    The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.

  316. Michael Palmer says:

    Peter Kovachev says:
    March 18, 2012 at 3:27 pm

    You are expelling ink as profusely as a cuttlefish, and the results are similarly clear.
    The word ‘eugenics’ has many related but not identical meanings – nobody gives a rodent’s posterior which ones you consider valid or legitimate.
    I recommend some light but regular physical exercise en lieu of blog trolling.

  317. David A says:

    Hugh Pepper says:

    March 18, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Your view that climate science is non repeatable is just plain wrong. I mentioned in another post that the ground-breaking work of Mann et al has been repeated seven times. Each of the other researchers, in this instance, got a similar result, thereby conforming the original hypothesis. Science is all about repetition and the journals are full of this work, which is often confirming, but not always.
    ==============================================
    Well Me Pepper, let us see what the “team” of scientist who did these studies you are referring to thought of Mann;s work in particular, and there own work in general.

    Bradley:
    “I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.
    Cook:
    “I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”

    Then Cook proposes a new climate reconstruction to sort out all the past one’s, a best effort if you will of the team..
    ….tentative title:
    “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures Over The Past Millennium: Where Are
    The Greatest Uncertainties?”
    Authors: Cook, Briffa, Esper, Osborn, D’Arrigo, Bradley(?), Jones
    (??), Mann (infinite?) – I am afraid the Mike and Phil are too
    personally invested in things now (i.e. the 2003 GRL paper that is
    probably the worst paper Phil has ever been involved in – Bradley
    hates it as well), but I am willing to offer to include them if they
    can contribute without just defending their past work”
    ==================================================
    Cook next (in seven steps) articulates what he thinks can be learned from this team effort after describing it in detail…
    “…7. Publish, retire, and don’t leave a forwarding address
    Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
    almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
    show that we can probably say a fair bit about 100 year variability was like with any certainty i.e. we know with certainty that we know fuck-all.
    Of course, none of what I have proposed has addressed the issue of
    seasonality of response. So what I am suggesting is strictly an
    empirical comparison of published 1000 year NH reconstructions
    because many of the same tree-ring proxies get used in both seasonal
    and annual recons anyway. So all I care about is how the recons
    differ and where they differ most in frequency and time without any
    direct consideration of their TRUE association with observed
    temperatures.”

    Wow, now having trashed all the reconstructions as junk, Cook the desribes how to make them appear credible in the next IPCC report…
    ” I think this is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done
    before the next IPCC assessment. But to give it credibility, it has
    to have a reasonably broad spectrum of authors to avoid looking like
    a biased attack paper, i.e. like Soon and Balliunas.”

    So Mr Pepper, you are “defending the indefensible”
    I suggest you read the paper by McShane and Wyner in The Annals of Applied Statistics (Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 5-44). You can see in their study they found that random noise was as effective as the proxies processed by the Mann algorithm in predicting temperatures. As they put it “random series that are independent of global temperature are as effective or more effective than the proxies at predicting global annual temperatures in the instrumental period.

    Dr. Jonathan Jones, Professor of Physics, Brasenose College, Oxford University made on the Bishop Hill blog ( http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html ) at December 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM. Professor Jones makes an unequivocal condemnation of the “Hockey Stick” and much of climatology.

    Do you have a scientific reason for ignoring the conclusion of all of these scientists or of Prof. Wegman who concluded in a report to Congress that the Mann conclusions were not statistically valid? (You may recall that Dr. Gerry North, who was head of an NAS panel reviewing climate reconstructions testified under oath that he agreed with the conclusion of the Wegman report).

  318. climatebeagle says:

    Mazza says:
    ” I do wish this notion – that a paper that has been peer reviewed has been in some way authenticated or shown to be “right” – would go away. All that peer review is designed to do is to indicate that the work is not prima facie rubbish.”

    I strongly agree, wonder what can be done about it. The other side of course is that a paper/blog post/article can be 100% correct without being peer reviewed. Most likely in the future this will be the direction of scientific papers, self-published online and survive/fail on open-source style continual debate, rather than a select few peer-reviewers being gatekeepers.

  319. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper says:

    “Read Michael Mann’s book… From Mann’s references you can locate the original research.”

    I think I’ll pass on Mann’s self-serving propaganda. I prefer science to science fiction.

    BTW, still waiting for those citations showing that Mann’s MBH98/99 papers have been “replicated seven times.” That’s a new one, so I’d like to see the source. While you’re at it, Hugh, show us where Mann’s original MBH99 graph was published by the IPCC after 2007.

  320. Hugh Pepper says:

    With just a little effort Smokey you will discover that Mann’s original hypothesis s now accepted in the climate science community, that is by the people who devote their lives to the study of climate systems. I’m sorry, you may actually have to read Mann’s book to discover that the science of paleoclimatology is robust.

  321. Is this what the Professor and his ilk really want?

    Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/

  322. Greg House says:

    LamontT says:
    March 18, 2012 at 9:12 am

    In other words if it was a warming trend in Central England then there was a warming trend in the rest of the world and if there was a cooling trend in Central England there was a cooling trend in the rest of the world. So because of this we can look at the records back to the 1600′s and make general conclusions about what was happening in the rest of the world.
    ======================================================

    No, we can not. What you suggest is actually a variation of the not so rare mistake: confusing correlation with causality.

    Correlation alone is not enough. I’ll give you a simple example. Mr. Smith is 95 years old and he always votes for the presidential candidate, who wins the election. Like 20 times in succession. This is a perfect correlation of 100%, isn’t it? So, there is no need to hold the next presidential elections, we can simply ask Mr. Smith, who apparently can be used as a proxy for the whole country.

    Or another one about projections in the past. The district attorney Ms.Hard has won all the 1234 cases she represented over the past 30 years. What a nice correlation. But before that she lost one case and the guy was declared not guilty. Because of the correlation it must be clear, that the court had made a mistake hence the guy should be put in jail immediately.

    Maybe you can agree with me that what the modern climate science has been doing is not much different from what I described above.

    Actually, we should ask the question: is the weather station network (and it’s record) representative for the whole world? If you think it is, please give me a reference to a scientific paper where it is proven. I think it is a legitimate question, because apparently not any set of thermometers is automatically representative for the whole world.

  323. Jurgen says:

    The great divider in my observation between CAGW adherents and opponents is curiosity. CAGW proponents appear to miss a basic curiosity. They know things already, nothing new to learn, the science is settled, etc.

    The most basic trait of a “true” scientist as I see it is curiosity. Not some education, or title, or a set of strict rules to follow. It all starts and is maintained by an ongoing fascination and curiosity about how the world is and how it operates. All the rest flows from this.

    One of the big reasons I turn my back on proponents of CAGW is they always sing the same tune. Nothing new to learn from them. Even if they would be right: wow are they boring. And the main reason for visiting WUWT is: so much to learn! Open debate, different opinions, and a lot of facts. Plenty for the curious mind.

  324. Hugh Pepper (March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm):

    While you criticise Mr. Monckton for having offered no hypothesis which could be validated through research, you fail to criticise the climatologists of the consensus for exhibiting the same failing. Why the selective critique?

  325. johanna says:

    Constitutionalist says:
    March 18, 2012 at 6:26 am

    johanna says:
    March 18, 2012 at 5:15 am

    >Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.

    >I am not confusing ethics and science.

    Yes you certainly are confusing ethics and science. Mistakes were certainly made in associating some traits and diseases with genetic origins but there were also instances where there was no mistake. Huntington’s disease is a prime example of no mistake. Today genetic testing can be cheaply and easily done to identify individuals who carry the gene for it before they are old enough to reproduce and before diagnostic symptoms show up in middle age. Testing and sterilizing carriers would be eugenics and it would work to at least some degree in reducing the incidence of Huntington’s. Whether or not that should be done is an ethical question not a scientific one. Eugenics as practiced 80+ years ago would not have had the precision it would have today but would have still worked as well as it does in animal breeding. Wolves didn’t turn into dogs voluntarily yet the big difference between a livestock guard dog and a wolf is entirely mental. Dogs that attacked the livestock were killed and those that attacked wolves and protected livestock were bred. It works and would work for humans too on a purely technical basis. It’s the moral implications that are unpalletable although that moral objection appears to be more a matter of fashion than anything else as eugenics was readily embraced by “good” Christian Americans in the day.
    ——————————————————————————-
    Honestly, I can’t work out whether you are deliberately being obtuse or just plain ignorant.

    Eugenics as a public policy and pseudo-science has nothing to do with your example regarding Huntington’s disease. Thanks to modern genetic science, it is possible for people to voluntarily be screened for serious heritable conditions such as Huntington’s. There is no dispute about either the existence or the heritability of this disease. They then have a range of options (again, all voluntary) to minimise or eliminate the risk of transferring the disease to their children. That means that individuals can voluntarily choose at every step what they want to do, or not do. It is not State sanctioned ‘cleansing’ of the gene pool, which is what eugenics was about.

    Then you typify the ignorance that pervades proponents of this rubbish science by claiming:

    “Wolves didn’t turn into dogs voluntarily yet the big difference between a livestock guard dog and a wolf is entirely mental. Dogs that attacked the livestock were killed and those that attacked wolves and protected livestock were bred. It works and would work for humans too on a purely technical basis.”

    Wolves didn’t ‘turn into’ dogs. They have a common ancestor, a distinction that, like the whole discussion, is clearly too subtle for you to understand.

  326. Nice Hijack, Hugh Pepper. As things heat up, your spelling and grammar disintegrate, though. But the content remains the same. Snark, snark, and yet more snark. Most interesting.

  327. Hugh Pepper said @ March 18, 2012 at 3:20 pm

    Read Michael Mann’s book Rocky. There are several references to this research in the book. From Mann’s references you can locate the original research.

    No, you provide the references. Who wants to spend money only to discover that you are lying through your teeth? Put up, or shut up!

  328. Apropos DDT, it was usually replaced by organophosphates in agriculture. You can read some about those materials here. As a rural volunteer firefighter the Git had to be very careful when the bushfires consumed farm sheds containing such materials.

    Depending on the degree of intoxication, symptoms may include:

    Nervousness/Restlessness
    Miosis (contraction of the pupil)
    Rhinorrhea (runny nose), excessive salivation
    Dyspnea (difficulty in breathing due to bronchoconstriction/secretions)
    Sweating
    Bradycardia (slow heartbeat)
    Tachycardia (fast heartbeat)
    Loss of consciousness
    Convulsions
    Flaccid paralysis
    Loss of bladder and bowel control
    Apnea (breathing stopped)

    In the case of apnea, you can’t use mouth to mouth (unless you want to share the victim’s symptoms); you just get to watch the victim die.

  329. dp says:

    markstoval says:
    March 18, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    “I love the man and his gifts for debate but he’s mixed up the freedom of speech to include a guarantee of an audience.”

    He was invited to a public institution that receives millions each year in federal funds. The right of all of us to hear an invited guest in a public venue is covered under the first amendment. A small group tried to prevent all interested parties from hearing the invited guest. (typical “progressive” behavior I might add)

    Seek legal advice on this if you still don’t see it.

    They were their to oppose him. That is allowed. They passed no law, they failed at their task if it was to prevent his speaking, but nothing they did was against the constitution. They were, in fact exercising their first amendment rights. He was privileged to have the audience – that was a gift, not a right. However – both he and I were speaking in the general case of the first amendment, not this specific case. It does not protect his right to an audience. He has none.

  330. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper says:

    “With just a little effort Smokey you will discover that Mann’s original hypothesis s now accepted in the climate science community, that is by the people who devote their lives to the study of climate systems.”

    I have discovered no such thing, and I have put more than ‘just a little effort’ into this thread, providing you personally with literally dozens of citations that refute your claims. Your response to everyone here is to spout baseless opinion; opinion that has been shown to be flat wrong.

    So instead of babbling your debunked talking points, provide specific citations showing that Mann’s original hypothesis conjecture [MBH98/99] has been validated seven (7) times. You made that preposterous claim, now I challenge you to back it up with specific, legitimate, verifiable citations — or admit that you simply fabricated that claim.

    Keep in mind that rather than having his work validated “seven times”, Michael Mann was forced to issue a Correction regarding his own paper. A Correction is a fairly rare occurrence, and it only happens when there are major errors uncovered. In Mann’s case, the errors were uncovered by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

    Time to man up if you can, Pepper, and provide those seven citations that you claim exist. Or everyone will see that you’re just making up stories as you go along.

  331. Larry in Texas says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    “Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.”

    That statement is one of the most historically illiterate I’ve read on this site (aside from some of the statements made by the usual trolls on this website). I suggest you read the following pieces about the Lebensborn program in Nazi Germany, and then tell me that eugenics wasn’t the same thing as a “planned breeding program.”

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,446978,00.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

  332. Larry in Texas says:

    Michael Palmer says:
    March 18, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    I’ll try this again, as my first try didn’t get through for some reason.

    Michael, here is what you said at 1:07 pm:

    “Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.”

    I suggest that your statement is ignorant of the history of Nazi Germany, especially in that the program cited below was also a larger part of Nazi ideology and racial policy. Here are a couple of links for you:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/world/europe/07nazi.html?pagewanted=all

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,446978,00.html

    Read these and then tell me that “eugenics” doesn’t include a planned breeding program or wasn’t an important of it in Nazi Germany. Regardless of the myriad of ways that you might define “eugenics.”

  333. boston12gs says:

    You are all missing the point.

    Having something validated 7 or 70 or 700 or 7,000 times is meaningless in terms of the scientific method, if that same “thing” can be invalidated even once.

    The extremists warmists “models” have been proven catastrophically (ha-ha) wrong not just once, but over and over and over again, not by some competing scientific society, but by reality itself.

    They are wrong. All that is left is the (concededly difficult) task of unwinding the billions upon billions of dollars of incentives that have led these mock-scientists and their UN “overlords” to their positions of temporary “authority”.

    It will take time, but it is now as inexorable as gravity itself. The earth will have stopped warming, despite massive continuing increases in man-made CO2, it will now begin to cool with the solar cycle (you know, that hot, bright thing in the sky), and our grand children will be taught the same fears that I was taught back in school in the 1970s–that we are all in imminent danger of a new ice age.

    Funny, that.

  334. Hugh Pepper says:

    Smokey and Rockyroad: Please check out the interview with Michael Smerconish (5 days ago) and Michael Mann. All your concerns about his (Mann’s) work are addressed in the 15 minute interview.

  335. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper,

    That is not a validation of Michael Mann, much less the seven (7) validations you claimed. Using Mann’s own self-serving apologia for his anti-science hardly qualifies as a citation.

    Either provide 7 verifiable citations for your mendacious claim that Mann’s MBH98/99 paper has been validated, as you previously asserted, or concede that you were making it up.

    You continue to babble your alarmist talking points; you are doing nothing except expressing your repeatedly debunked nonsense. Have you no sense of shame at all?? You are lying outright, in the hope that others will accept your fibs based on your say-so, and nothing more.

    Last chance: provide seven verifiable citations showing that Michael Mann’s MBH98/99 papers have been rigorously confirmed, or admit that his conjecture has been falsified. Hugh Pepper’s credibility is on the line. What will Pepper do? Own up? Or continue to prevaricate?

  336. Mike Wryley says:

    Ever notice what the lefty “utter disgust and sheer anger” crowd has an abundance of ? Hubris. They are the only ones with the vision and foresight to determine what the rest of us need without regard to cost or consequences. Mandate CFLs and oh by the way, put your domestic incandescent lamp industry out of business for good measure. Provide tax incentives for wind power that will double or triple the cost of electricity for rich and poor alike. Find a Twinkie in little Johnny’s lunchbox, confiscate the kid’s meal and give him an “approved” one. The CO2 scam has generated more useless bureaucracies, unproductive processes in business and industry, and unwarranted economic distortions to the marketplace, and probably rivals soviet communism
    in the FUBAR quotient. While the professional meddler will always be with us, we should make damn sure that public money does not continue to feed these clowns.

  337. Andrew says:

    C’mon Pepper stop stalling – otherwise we will necessarily have to assume that you are unable to substantiate your foolish and frankly hysterically funny claim that the con-Mann’s fabricated findings have been independently varified (repeated) no less than 7 times!!

    As Smokey (above) has implied: time to put up or shut up.

    …so list the citations…

  338. garymount says:

    Sam Geoghegan says:
    March 18, 2012 at 7:55 am

    -That kind of talk promotes the partisanship that I find disconcerting.
    —————-
    Maybe I was a little over the top. Let me rephrase my statement a little.
    When I said “not a shred of evidence”, I should have said “not a shred of Scientific evidence of Catastrophe”.

  339. Michael Palmer says:
    March 18, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    You are expelling ink as profusely as a cuttlefish, and the results are similarly clear.
    Hmm, yes, I’m afraid you’re right.

    “The word ‘eugenics’ has many related but not identical meanings – nobody gives a rodent’s posterior which ones you consider valid or legitimate.”
    Were you single-handedly lecturing on semiotics and etymology? I thought the actual subject matter would have been more relevant. Is this the part where I’m supposed to ask, “And how do you feel about the word ‘eugenics,’ Mikey?” Of all the lame excuses I have heard….

    “I recommend some light but regular physical exercise in lieu of blog trolling.”
    Careful with providing medical advice without seeing or even knowing the patient. It’ll wreal havoc with your insurance rates. In any case, I’m flat on me arse with pneumonia, which provides me with the opportunity to cheer and delight the mods here with a ceaseless stream of my inimitable wit and gratuitous verbosity. Thanks for serving as my bouncing board and target dummy, Doc. You performed rather poorly, especially on the comprehension front, so I shan’t need your services anymore.

  340. Louis says:

    Reproducing Mann’s hockey stick 7 times is certainly possible given this finding in the Wegman report: “the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data”. So how could they miss? To replicate Mann’s work correctly you would need the raw data, which is apparently missing. Otherwise, you are simply using the same doctored data and same methods that Mann used, which are pretty much guaranteed to give you a hockey-stick shape no matter what you do.

  341. mistergumby says:

    Hugh, you DO know that Mann’s most recent papers have had to seriously back away from the 1000 and 2000 year recons, don’t you? They can’t be validated prior 1500ce, and even that validation based on tree rings is tenuous. The bottom line, we don’t know, at all, whether today’s temps are unprecedented in scope, rate of increase, etc. It’s LIKELY that temps were higher during much of the Holocene, but we don’t really KNOW.

  342. Smokey says:
    March 18, 2012 at 8:49 pm

    Hugh Pepper….Either provide 7 verifiable citations for your mendacious claim that Mann’s MBH98/99 paper has been validated, as you previously asserted, or concede that you were making it up…Last chance: provide seven verifiable citations showing that Michael Mann’s MBH98/99 papers have been rigorously confirmed, or admit that his conjecture has been falsified. Hugh Pepper’s credibility is on the line. What will Pepper do? Own up? Or continue to prevaricate?

    LOL! That’s harsh, Smokey, let me see if I can help old Hugh out in his Dark Night of the Soul. How’s ’bout we start with, “Define seven!” Ah-hah?

    Anyway, Michael Palmer is unengaged, so feel free to chat with him. I know you’ve been chomping at the bit to do so.

  343. Bill Tuttle says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.

    Translation: I couldn’t find what I was looking for.

  344. Gail Combs says:

    David Spurgeon says: @ March 18, 2012 at 4:39 pm
    Is this what the Professor and his ilk really want?

    Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
    _____________________________________________
    Yes CAGW has always been about world government. You can trace it back to the first U.N. Earth Summit in 1972 and the Chairman Maurice Strong. Strong is also a member of the U.N. Commission on Global Governance. Ain’t that a stunning coincidence.

    In his quotes you can see how he uses CAGW and the environment to advance the idea of a world government.
    Quotes from Strong:
    “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.” -Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit.

    “If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

    “[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.” -Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

    Dr David M.W. Evans on his guest post at Jo Nova’s site brings up how close we came to dodging the bullet of a de facto world government.

    The Copenhagen Treaty was an Attempted Coup

    ….Nearly all the world leaders met in Copenhagen in late 2009, expecting to sign the “Copenhagen Treaty” to limit CO2 emissions. But China and India torpedoed the negotiations, saying more research was needed to establish whether warming is manmade and refusing to commit to any quantified emissions reduction targets. [xiii] The much weaker “Copenhagen Accord” [xiv] was signed instead.

    The draft Copenhagen Treaty is still available in a few corners of the Internet.[xv] It is 181 pages of dense, convoluted, bureaucratic language, slow and difficult to read. The draft contains options and blanks to be filled in. Nonetheless, it is clear enough.

    The Treaty would have set up a new bureaucracy with the power to regulate CO2 emissions worldwide, able to regulate any market, over-riding national governments as required.[xvi] It could also fine and tax any signatory government.[xvii] In the hands of a judge from the regulating class, it could be interpreted to give this new global bureaucracy the power to tax every signatory nation and regulate its energy use almost completely—just look at how the US Constitution has been extended by interpretation over the years, and that’s a much clearer document. A hint in the Treaty could become the basis for a full blown mechanism to do almost anything the bureaucrats wished.

    From experience with the monotonic growth of centralized power in federations of states, such as the United States or Australia, it is almost inevitable that within a few decades this new body would be parlayed up into a strong global bureaucracy regulating more than just CO2 emissions…..

    One only has to look at the European Union to see how a “Trade Treaty” has grown into an overarching government. As Richard Henley Davis puts it: The threat of Europe taking over the British democratic process comes a bit late as we are already in a democratic system where Parliament is as impotent as a neutered dog…. Parliament is little more than the rubber stamp for European policies seeing as 80% of our laws are now decided by the EU.

    And then listen to the current Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO), Pascal Lamy, salivate over the thought of pushing Global Governance to “completion”

    …If there is one place on earth where new forms of global governance have been tested since the Second World War, it is in Europe. European integration is the most ambitious supranational governance experience ever undertaken. It is the story of interdependence desired, defined, and organized by the Member States. In no respect is the work complete—neither geographically nor in terms of depth (i.e., the powers conferred by the Member States to the E.U.), nor, obviously, in terms of identity….

    Perhaps the most terrifying thing is how the newest “governing body” the World Trade Organization, actually works.

    ….Under the secretive WTO rules, countries can challenge another’s laws for restricting their trade. The case is then heard by a tribunal or court of three trade bureaucrats. They are usually influential corporate lawyers. The lawyers have no conflict of interest rules binding them, such that a Monsanto lawyer can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto. Incredibly, the names of the judges are kept secret!

    Further, there is no rule that the judges of WTO respect any national laws of any country. The three judges meet in secret without revealing the time or location. All court documents are confidential and cannot be published. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition with far more power…. http://www.publiceyeonscience.ch/images/the_wto_and_the_politics_of_gmo.doc

  345. David A says:

    The professor did, finally respond to Monckton’s comments here.
    http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/#comment-19906

    It is late and after responding to poster Eric on his asssertions, one of the few to actually make any,, I do not have time now to dismantle the professors comments. I will quickly say they are very weak and he chooses to use Abraham as his shield, ignoring Monckton’s 80 plus page rebuttal to Abraham, just as Pepper ignores many posts, including mine here, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/17/monckton-in-a-rift-with-union-college-earth-scientists-and-activists/#comment-927824

  346. Gail Combs says:

    Hugh Pepper says: @ March 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm
    The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.
    ____________________________________________
    Bill Tuttle says: @ March 18, 2012 at 9:33 pm
    Translation: I couldn’t find what I was looking for.
    _____________________________________________
    Translation:
    There is no consensus.
    The science is not settled.
    We really haven’t the foggiest notion of what is actually happening.
    The science is still in its infancy.

    An accurate summary of the state of the science.

  347. Brendan H says:

    Monckton of Brenchley: “Result: deaths from malaria, which chiefly kills children, rose from 50,000 per year before the worldwide ban to more than 1 million a year afterwards.”

    Lord Monckton is claiming that within a year of a “worldwide ban” on DDT, deaths from malaria rose 20-fold. That doesn’t sound very likely.

    The interesting aspect of this claim is the precision of the numbers (50,000, 1 million) combined with the lack of specificity regarding the actual year that the “worldwide ban” was imposed.

    “On 15 December 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi, newly-appointed head of the World Health Organization’s malaria program, announced that the WHO was lifting the DDT ban…”

    Given that India and China were still reportedly producing DDT in 2001, this is hard to reconcile with the claim of “lifting the DDT ban”.

  348. johanna says:

    “LOL! That’s harsh, Smokey, let me see if I can help old Hugh out in his Dark Night of the Soul. How’s ’bout we start with, “Define seven!”
    ————————————————–
    I’m guessing that ‘seven’ is the output of a model in this instance.

  349. Otter says:

    Coming to this thread late, and not sure anyone will see this, but:

    I noticed something different in the comments section where they published their article against Lord Moncton.

    the name of one of the supporters of rodbell and co., was for some reason blipped out.

    A whole section of comments has either been moved towards the end (as of 4am this morning, Eastern time), or for some reason, copied down en masse.

    Not sure what they are up to, but wanted someone to know.

  350. TimM says:

    Brendan H says:
    March 19, 2012 at 2:33 am
    Monckton of Brenchley: “Result: deaths from malaria, which chiefly kills children, rose from 50,000 per year before the worldwide ban to more than 1 million a year afterwards.”
    ______________________________________________________________

    I think it’s meant to be the rate rose to over a million per annum, not necessarily within 12 months of the ban.

  351. Hugh Pepper says:

    Mann, deals with the question you raise in his book The Hockey Stick….. . He asserts that the findings of the original published studies, MBH98 and MBH99, have been independently replicated, using available data and algorithm description, and that there are “nearly a dozen” studies using different types of proxy data and alternative statistical methods. The original conclusion has been conformed, namely: it is likely that the warmest period of the past thousand years is the late twentieth century. But please note, mistergunby, these studies are only a small part of the evidentiary puzzle. The conclusion that humans are altering the climate has been independently confirmed. The case does not depend on paleoclimate evidence compiled by Mann. his cohorts, and all the others who have provided confirming evidence.

    Perhaps it is the use of proxy data which you find awkward or unacceptable. One study alone would not be satisfactory as a means of establishing evidence. Hence the need to use other proxies, such as deep ocean sediments, and oxygen isotopes in ice cores, to estimate temperatures in the past. Alternative statistical methods were used in the succeeding studies to confirm the original findings. they The original findings of Mann et al were published in 1998 in Nature (779 – 787).

    Senator Inhofe has recently written that this is all a giant hoax. Imagine this: thousands of scientists whse whole lives are rooted in skepticism, have conspired to fool everyone else, and more importantly, they have managed to get the ice sheets, sea levels and ocean temperatures to participate in their scam. Wow!

    I recommend that you Google M Smerconish. There is an excellent, recent interview with Michael Mann on his site.

  352. Hugh Pepper says:

    I am not going to play your game Smokey. You can do your own investigation of the evidence. it’s out there in the form of thousands of independent studies, and summarized in books written by authors much more expert than me. If you only read Soon, Baliunas, Lindzen, Michaels and a few others, you will have a distorted, even false, impression of the reality. The climate scientists who publish their work in the accepted, peer reviewed fashion, who actually do research, have credibility. The rest……not so much!

  353. johanna says:
    March 19, 2012 at 2:36 am
    I’m guessing that ‘seven’ is the output of a model in this instance.
    ———————————-

    Or it doesn’t get deeper than this:

    Fool : The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
    King Lear : Because they are not eight?
    Fool : Yes, indeed, thou wouldst make a good fool.

  354. Dinesh F says:

    Why does Monckton refer to the historical temperature in England to ‘prove’ his point regarding warming over the whole planet – an elementary error and highlights his lack of scientific rigour and selective use of data. Remember January 2010 when the UK was suffering a major cold snap? At exactly the same time Australia was suffering record high temperatures and the Winter Olympics was suffering from a lack of snow due to unseasonally warm temperatures.

  355. Hugh Pepper said @ March 19, 2012 at 7:39 am

    I am not going to play your game Smokey. You can do your own investigation of the evidence. it’s out there in the form of thousands of independent studies, and summarized in books written by authors much more expert than me. If you only read Soon, Baliunas, Lindzen, Michaels and a few others, you will have a distorted, even false, impression of the reality. The climate scientists who publish their work in the accepted, peer reviewed fashion, who actually do research, have credibility. The rest……not so much!

    Here’s a list of scientists whose work contradicts Mann’s 1998. Notice that Mann was Ababneh’s thesis supervisor. Note also that these scientists are on the list because they have had their work accepted in peer reviewed literature and therefore, according to your criteria, have credibility.

    Ababneh, L., Abbott, M.B., Abrantes, F., Aceves, H.L., Addyman, P.V., Adhikari, D.P., Agnihotri, R., Ai, L., Airo, A., Alden, H.A., Alenius, T., Alessio, S., Alexander, C., Almeida-Lenero, L., Almogi-Labin, A., Alvarez-Iglesias, P., An, Z., Andersen, K.K., Anderson, D.E., Anderson, D.M., Anderson, R.S., Anderson, S.P., Andersson, C., Andrade, A., Andreev, A.A., Andrews, J.T., Andrén, E., Andrén, T., Antognini, M., Aono, Y., Appleby, P., Aravena, J.-C., Arnaud, F., Arsenelault, D., Astor, Y., Austin, W.E.N., Axford, Y., Ayalon, A., Ayenew, T., Badura, M., Bahk, J.J., Bakker, J., Balsam, W., Baltzer, A., Bao, Y., Baofu, N., Baolin, H., Bar-Matthews, M., Barber, K.E., Barclay, D.J., Barnola, J.-M., Baroni, C., Barron, J.A., Bartels-Jónsdóttir, H., Bartholdy, J., Bartholin, T.S., Battarbee, R.W., Baumgartner, T.R., Beaty, R.M., Becagli, S., Beer, J., Behling, H., Beilman, D.W., Bell, R.E., Belt, S.T., Benito, G., Bennike, O., Bentaleb, I., Berge, J., Bernabeu, A.M., Bernard, S., Bernasconi, S., Berstad, I.M., Bertin, X., Bertler, N.A.N., Bertrand, S., Besonen, M.R., Betancourt, J.L., Bezada, M., Bhattacharyya, A., Bhushan, R., Bickert, T., Billeaud, I., Birks, H.J.B., Birks, S.J., Bischoff, J.L., Bjorck, S., Bjune, A.E., Blaauw, M., Black, D.E., Blanco, N., Blazauskas, N., Bodri, L., Boettger, T., Booth, R.K., Borromei, A., Borsato, A., Bouaouina, F., Box, J.E., Bracht, B., Bradley, R.S., Brauer, A., Bräuning, A., Brenner, M., Briffa, K.R., Brook, G.A., Brooks, S.J., Brown, T.A., Brutsch, S., Bryson, R.A., Brubaker, L.B., Budeus, G., Bukry, D., Bunn, A.G., Burnett, A.W., Buster, N.A., Byrne, A.R., Büntgen, U., Cage, A.G., Cai, Q., Cai, Y., Calanchi, N., Calkin, P.E., Calvert, S.E., Came, R.E., Campbell, C., Campbell, I.D., Cane, M.A., Cannariato, K.G., Cao, Q.-Y., Carbotte, S.M., Carson, E.C., Carter, L., Carter, T., Castellano, E., Catalan, J., Causey, D., Cazelles, B., Cermák, V., Chacornac-Rault, M., Chambers, F.M., Chang, X.L., Chaudhary, V., Chauhan, M.S., Chaumillon, E., Chen, F.H., Chen, JianHui, Chen, Jiaqi., Chen, Jun., Chen, L., Chen, S.-H., Chen, T., Chen, Z., Cheng, G., Cheng, H., Cheng, W., Chepstow-Lusty, A., Chipman, M.L., Chivas, A.R., Chou, M., Christiansen, C., Christie, D.A., Chu, G., Chuang, P.-P., Cini Castagnoli, G., Clague, J.J., Clarke, G.H., Clausen, H.B., Cleef, A.M., Clegg, B.F., Cohen, A.L., Cohen, A.S., Cohen, M.C.L., Collerson, K.D., Conrad, M.E., Cook, E.R., Cook, T.L., Cooper, G.R.J., Corbett, D.G., Corona, C., Cremer, H., Cronin, T.M., Cucchi, F., Cui, H.T., Cumming, B.F., Cundy, A., Curry, B.B., Curry, W., Curtis, J.H., D’Arrigo, R., Dabrio, C.J., Dahl, S.O., Dahl-Jensen, D., Daimaru, H., Dallimore, A., Daniels, J.M., Dansgaard, W., Darbyshire, I., Daryin, A.V., Das, M., Datsenko, N.M., Davi, N., Davis, M.E., Dawson, A.G., Dawson, S., De Deckker, P., de Vernal, A., Dean, W.E., Debenay, J.-P., Degiovanni, C., Delany, D.L., Deline, P., deMenocal, P., Demezhko, D.Yu., Demory, F., Denelle, N., Denton, G.H., Desmet, M., Desprat, S., Diekmann, B., Dinelli, E., Dippner, J.W., Dominguez-Vazquez, G., Drenzek, N.J., Dullo, W.-C., Dutta, K., Dwyer, G.S., Eden, D.N, Edouard, J.-L., Edwards, R.L., Edwards, T.W.D., Eglinton, T.I., Eiríksson, J., Eitel, B., Elliott, L., Emslie, S.D., Engstrom, D.R., Eniou, Z., Erasto, P., Eronen, M., Esper, J., Ezat, U., Fallot, J.-M., Fang, X., Fastook, J.L., Feliks, Y., Fengming, C., Fiebig, J., Field, D.B., Figueroa, D., Figueroa-Rangel, B.L., Filippi, M.L., Fjellsa, A., Flower, B.P., Flower, R.J., Fontugne, M., Fortin, M.-C., Foster, I., Fowler, A., Fraedrich, K., Franca, Z., Francus, P., Frank, D.C., Frisia, S., Fritz, S.C., Frogley, M., Gaggeler, H.W., Gajewski, K., Gao, S., Garcia, M.J.G., Garcia-Rodeja, E., Gasiorowski, M., Gauthier, E., Gavin, D.G., Gayo, E., Ge, Q., Geirsdóttir, A., Gemmer, M., Gerstengarbe, F.-W., Ghil, M., Gil, I.M., Giraudi, C., Gischler, E., Goldberg, E., Golovanova, I.V., Goni, M.A., Goni, M.F.S., Gonzalez-Samperiz, P., Goto, S., Graumlich, L.J., Gray, S.T., Gregory, T.R., Griessinger, J., Grimalt, J.O., Grinsted, A., Grosjean, M., Grøsfjeld, K., Grudd, H., Gu, Z., Guibal, F., Guijian, L., Guilderson, T., Guilizzoni, P., Guiot, J., Gulliksen, B., Gundestrup, N., Gunnarson, B.E., Gupta, A.K., Hadley, E.A., Haflidason, H., Hald, M., Hall, B.L., Hall, V.A., Hallett, D.J., Haltia-Hovi, E., Hamamoto, H., Hammer, C.U., Hansen, C.V., Hansson, M., Hantemirov, R.M., Hao, Z., Harff, J., Harris, P.T., Hass, H.C., Hassan, F.A., Hay, M.B., He, S.-F., Hebbeln, D., Hebda, R.J., Heikkila, M., Heinemeier, J., Heiri, O., Heiss, G.A., Helama, S., Helle, G., Hemer, M.A., Henderson, A.C.G., Hendy, C.H., Herve, F., Hickey, K., Hidalgo, H.G., Hille, S., Hiller, A., Hills, L.V., Hodell, D.A., Hoelzel, A.R., Hoffmann-Wieck, G., Hollander, D.J., Holmes, C.W., Holmgren, K., Holmstrom, L., Holopainen, J., Holt, T., Holzhauser, H., Holzkamper, S., Hong, B., Hong, Y.T., Honghan, Z., Hood, J.S.R., Hooghiemstra, H., Hu, F.S., Huang, J., Huang, S.-Y., Huang, Y., Hubberten, H.-W., Huffman, T.N., Hughen, K.A., Hughes, M.K., Hughes, P.D.M., Husum, K., Hunziker, J., Hutterli, M., Ikeda, S., Ingram, B.L., Irino, T., Irving, W.N., Isaksson, E., Islebe, G.A., Isono, D., Ito, E., Ivanova, E., Jackson, S.T., Jacob, J., Jacoby, G., Jansen, E., Jarockis, R., Jaubert, R., Jennings, A.E., Jensen, K.G., Jewson, D., Ji, J., Ji, S., Jianfeng, H., Jiang, H., Jiang, H.B., Jiang, J., Jin, H.J., Johnsen, G., Johnsen, S.J., Johnson, C., Johnson, T.C., Jolly, D., Jount III, E.H., Jun, Y., Jones, P.D., Jones, V.J., Jordan, J., Jordan, T.E., Julia, R., Jull, A.J.T., Justwan, A., Kadereit, A., Kagan, E.J., Kajimoto, T., Kalugin, I.A., Kamenik, C., Kamite, M., Kamiya, T., Kandiano, E., Kang, C.Y., Kang, S.J., Kang, X., Kaniewski, D., Kaplan, A., Kaplan, M.R., Karhu, J.A., Karlen, W., Karlsson, S., Kaufman, D.S., Kauppila, T., Kausrud, K.L., Kawahata, H., Kawamura, K., Keigwin, L.D., Kekonen, T., Kellerhals, T., Kenward, H.K., Khassanov, B.F., Khim, B.-K., Khlystov, O., Khromova, N., King, D.N.T., King, J.C., Kiseleva, N.K., Kissel, C., Kitagawa, H., Kjallgren, L., Knox, J.C., Knudsen, K.L., Knusel, S., Kobashi, T., Koffman, T., Kohn, M.H., Kolstrom, T., Kondrashov, D., Kong, Z.-C., Kongshavn, K., Konradi, P., Korhola, A., Koç, N., Kremenetski, C., Kremenetski, K.V., Kromer, B., Ku, T.-L., Kubler, B., Kuhl, N., Kuhry, P., Kuijpers, A., Kukkonen, M., Kullman, L., Kumon, F., Kunzendorf, H., Kurdyla, D., Kuttel, M., Kutzbach, J.E., Kutzbach, J.K., Laird, K.R., Lamb, H.F., Lambert, P., Lambiel, C., Lami, A., Lamy, F., Langdon, P.G., Lange, C., Langone, L., Laperriere, L., Lara, A., Lara, R.J., Larocque, I., Larsen, D.J., Larsen, J.A., Lassen, S.J., Latalowa, M., Latorre, C., Le Boeuf, B.J., Le Roux, J.P., Lebreiro, S., Lee, J.-Y., Lee, P.-F., Lee, T.-Q., Lee-Thorp, J.A., Lefèvre, C., Lehman, S.J., Leipe, T., Leng, M.J., Leng, X.T., Leonard, J.A., León, T., Leroy, V., Li, B.-Y., Li, D.-L., Li, G.X., Li, H.-C., Li, H.E., Li, M.-Q., Li, Q., Li, S.-F., Li, T.-G., Li, X.-S., Li, Y.Y., Li, Z., Lihua, Z., Lin, P.-N., Lin, Q.-H., Linderholm, H.W., Lindholm, M., Linsley, B.K., Liu, C.-Q., Liu, J., Liu, L., Liu, T., Liu, T.S., Liu, Xiaodong, Liu, Xingqi, Liu, Yong, Liu, Yu, Liu, Zhengyu, Liu, Zhonghui, Lloyd, A.H., Lloyd, J.M., Loader, N.J., Lockett, P., Loope, D.B., Lopes, C., Lopez-Pamo, E., Lorrey, A., Loso, M.G., Loutre, M.-F., Lowell, T.V., Lu, H., Lucchini, F., Lucke, A., Luckge, A., Luckman, B.H., Lund, D.C., Lund, S.P., Lundblad, K., Luoto, T.P., Luterbacher, J., Ma, C.-M., Ma, H., Ma, Y.Y., MacDonald, G.M., MacGregor, A., Machtle, B., Mackay, A.W., Maddy, D., Magny, M., Makaya, M., Maley, J., Malmgren, B.A., Malmström, M., Man, Z., Manca, M., Mangini, A., Marchetto, A., Martin, T., Martín-Chivelet, J., Martinez-Cortizas, A., Martma, T., Mashiotta, T.A., Mason, J.A., Masse, G., Masson-Delmotte, V., Mathewes, R.W., Matthews, J.A., Matsumoto, E., Mauquoy, D., Mayes, M.T., Mayewski, P., Mazepa, V.S., McGann, M., McHugh, C., McKay, N.P., Mediavilla, R., Meeker, L.D., Meitao, L., Melles, M., Menier, D., Merilainen, J., Meyer, G.A., Meyer, N., Michelutti, N., Mickelson, D.M., Mielikainen, K., Mikkelsen, N., Millar, C.E., Miller, G.H., Miller, H., Miller, U., Millet, L., Mischke, S., Moberg, A., Moller, P., Montanari, B., Moore, J.C.B, Moore, J.J., Morales, M., Mordenti, A., Moreno, A., Moros, M., Moschen, R., Mosley-Thompson, E., Muller-Karger, F., Mullins, H.T., Muñoz-García, M.B., Murayama, M., Murdmaa, I., Musazzi, S., Muscheler, R., Nakaegawa, T., Nakamura, T., Naurzbaev, M.M., Nefedov, V.S., Neil, H., Nelson, D.M., Nester, P.L., Neukom, R., Newton, A., Ngomanda, A., Ni, J., Nicolussi, K., Nievergelt, D., Nilsen, F., Nitsche, F., Noon, P.E., Noone, D., Noone, S., Nordberg, K., Nordt, L., Notaro, M., Novoa-Muñoz, J.C., Nowaczyk, N., Nyberg, J., Nørgaard-Pedersen, N., Oba, T., Oberg, L., Odada, E., Oglesby, R.J., Ogurtsov, M.G., Ohtani, Y., Ojala, A.E.K., Okamoto, T., Okuno, M., Olafsdottir, K.B., Oliveira, P., Olvera-Vargas, M., Oppo, D.W., Orombelli, G., Ortega, A.I., Ortiz, J., Oschmann, W., Oslisly, R., Overpeck, J.T., Overturf, B., Page, M.J., Palmer, J., Panin, A.V., Pant, R.K., Pantoja, S., Park, J., Partridge, T.C., Patridge, W., Patterson, W.P., Paulissen, E., Paulsen, D.E., Payette, S., Pederson, D.C., Peeters, F.J.C., Peltola, H., Peramaki, P., Perez-Cruz, L., Perner, K., Persico, L., Peteet, D.M., Peters, S., Peterson, L. C., Petit, J.R., Peyron, O., Phadtare, N.R., Pienitz, R., Pierau, R., Pierce, J.L., Pla, S., Plessen, B., Podritske, B., Pohjola, V., Polissar, P.J., Polyak, L., Pontevedra-Pombal, X., Poore, R.Z., Porter, S.C., Possnert, G., Power, M., Proust, J.-N., Qian, W., Qiang, M., Qin, D., Qin, N.-S., Qin, X.G., Quamar, M.F., Quattrocchio, M., Quinn, T.M., Rabenkogo, N., Railsback, L.B., Ramesh, R., Rampino, M.R., Ran, L., Reech, N., Reeder, P.P., Reimer, P.J., Rein B., Reinhardt, L., Ren, J., Rey, D., Reynard, E., Reynolds, C.P., Reyss, J.L., Richey, J.N., Richter, T.O., Rico, M., Riera, S., Rioual, P., Risberg, J., Risebrobakken, B., Rittenour, T., Robert, C., Robertson, I., Rodrigues, T., Rolland, N., Roncaglia, L., Rosen, P., Rosenbaum, J., Rosenthal, Y., Rosqvist, G., Rossignol, I., Roth, M., Rousse, S., Rowe, C.M., Rørvik, K.-L., Röhl, U., Rubenstone, J., Rubio, B., Rull, V., Russell, J.M., Ryan, W.B.F., Ryves, D.B., Saarinen, T., Saarnisto, M., Sabbe, K., Saenger, C., Saito, S., Saito, Y., Saito-Kato, M., Saliège, J.F., Salinger, J., Sandgren, P., Sannel, A.B.K., Santisteban, J.I., Santos, C., Sarnthein, M., Saurer, M., Savinetsky, A.B., Scapozza, C., Schevin, P., Schilman, B.,, Schleser, G.H., Schmidhalter, M., Schmidt, R., Schoeneich, P., Scholz, D., Schwede, S., Schwikowski, M., Scott, L., Seager, R., Seiriene, V., Sejrup, H.P., Selegei, V., Semah, A.-M., Seppa, H., Sepúlveda, J., Seret, G., Severi, M., Severinghaus, J.P., Shah, S.K., Shao, X., Sharma, J., Shemesh, A., Shen, C., Shen, J., Shi, J., Shi, X.-H., Shinn, E.A., Shinozuka, Y., Shishov, V.V., Shiyatov, S.G. Shotyk, W., Sial, A.N., Sicre, M.-A., Sidorova, O.V., Sienkiewicz, E., Sigl, M., Singh, I.B., Sinha, A., Sinkunas, P., Sirocko, F., Sithaldeen, R., Slagle, A., Slagstad, D., Smart, C.W., Smith, D.E., Smol, J.P., Smolyaninova, L.G., Snowball, I., Solari, M.A., Soliz-Gamboa, C., Solomina, O., Somayajulu, B.L.K., Sonechkin, D.M., Song, H., Sorensen, S.A., Sorrel, P., Spielhagen, R.F., Spotl, C., Sridhar, V., Srur, A., St. Jacques, J.-M., Stager, J.C., Stahle, D.W., Stancikaite, M., Steffensen, J.P., Stenseth, N.C., Sterken, M., Stevens, L., Stige, L.C., Stiger, M., Stoner, J.S., Stott, L.D., Sturm, M., Sumin, W., Sun, J., Sun, L., Sun, Q., Sun, X.Y., Sundqvist, H.S., Svanered, O., Svarverud, R., Sveinbjörnsdottir, A.E., Swarzenski, P.W., Swieta-Musznicka, J., Swinehart, J.B., Szmeja, J., Takahashi, H.A., Talma, A.S., Tan, L., Tanabe, S., Tandong, Y., Tappa, E.J., Taricco, C., Taylor, A.H., Teece, M.A., Tegu, C., Telford, R.J., Tessier, B., Tesson, M., Thomas, A., Thompson, L.G., Thomson, R.E., Thordarson, T., Thorndycraft, V.R., Thouveny, N., Thunell, R.C., Tian, H., Tian, J., Tiegang, L., Tierney, J.E., Tieszen, L., Tiljander, M., Tillman, P.K., Timonen, M., Tinner, W., Topf, A.L., Trachsel, M., Traini, C., Traversi, R., Treydte, K.S., Tubbs, J., Tuomenvirta, H., Turon, J.-L., Turrero, M.J., Tyson, P.D., Udisti, R., Umer, M., Unkel, I., Urban, D.L., Urrutia, R., Vaganov, E.A., Valero-Garces, B.L., Van Campo, E., van Geel, B., Van Lerberghe, K., van Weering, T.C.E., Vance, R.E., Vanhoutte, K., Vanniere, B., Vare, L.L., Varela, R., Vartiainen, M., Velle, G., Verdes, P., Verleyen, E., Vermot-Desroches, B., Verneaux, V., Verschuren, D., Verstege, A., Vigliotti, L., Vilas, F., Villa, I.M., Villalba, R., Vinther, B.M., Virkkunen, K., Vivaldo, G., Voelker, A.H.L., Vogel, J.C., Vollweiler, N., von Fischer, J., von Gunten, L., Vos, H., Voss, M., Vu, Q.L., Vyverman, W., Wacker, L., Wadhams, P., Wagner, B., Wagner, G., Walker, I.R., Walker, R.C., Wambach, E., Wang, F.-B., Wang, L., Wang, L.-C., Wang, Q.-C., Wang, S., Wang, S.L., Wang, W., Wang, W.-C., Wang, Yongji, Wang, Yu., Wang, Yuhong, Wang, Yun-Sen, Wanner, H., Wansard, G., Wastegard, S., Wayne, R.K., Weber, N., Weber, O., Webster, J.W., Weckstrom, J., Wefer, G., Wehrli, M., Weijian, Z., Weimer, L.M., Weiner, N.J., Weiss, H., Wells, S.G., Wen, X., Werner, K., Werner, P.C., West, D.L., Westerberg, L.-O., Westfall, R.D., White, J., Whitlock, C., Wiles, G.C., Willard, D.A., Williams, D., Williams, P.W., Willis, K.J., Wilson, A.T., Wilson, R., Wilson, R.J.S., Winter, A., Wirrmann, D., Witkowski, A., Witon, E., Witt, L., Wolf, A., Wolfe, A.P., Woodworth, M.P., Wu, J.-T., Xia, X.-C., Xia, W.-L., Xiaozhong, L., Xie, Z., Xoplaki, E., Xuexian, H., Yadava, M.G., Yafeng, S., Yamada, K., Yamamoto, M., Yamano, M., Yan, H., Yan, S., Yang, D.Y., Yang, T.-N., Yang, Y., Yang, Z.-J., Yao, T., Yasuda, Y., Yasuyuki, S., Yi, L., Yi, S., Yiou, P., Yoon, H.I., Yoshioka, T., Zabenskie, S., Zamelczyk, K., Zapata, M.B.R., Zhang, C., Zhang, E.L., Zhang, J., Zhang, P., Zhang, P.-Z., Zhang, Qi-Bin, Zhang, Qiang, Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhangdong, J., Zhao, J.-X., Zhao, L., Zhao, M.-X., Zheng, J., Zhou, A., Zhou, L.P., Zhu, H.-F., Zhu, L.-P., Zhu, X.-D., Zhu, Y., Zhu, Y.-X., Zicheng, P., Zumbuhl, H.J., ,

  356. Dinesh F said @ March 19, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Why does Monckton refer to the historical temperature in England to ‘prove’ his point regarding warming over the whole planet – an elementary error and highlights his lack of scientific rigour and selective use of data.

    For exactly the same reasons as we infer global temperatures from the ice cores taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. If a rising tide raises all ships, it matters not where you measure the tide, even though the timing be different in different places.

  357. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 9:15 am

    “For exactly the same reasons as we infer global temperatures from the ice cores taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. If a rising tide raises all ships, it matters not where you measure the tide, even though the timing be different in different places.”
    ===============================================
    Giving another example of someone else using the same method does not prove the method is correct.

    To your example with tide, if we want to prove, that a worldwide tide exists, we can not just point out to a single raised ship.

  358. THE INCREDIBLE MYSTERY OF HUGH PEPPER’S SEVEN PROOFS

    Something truly odd is happening in these pages. Our Hugh Pepper inadvertantly uttered what we can only assume is a deep secret from The Algorythmic Mysteries of the Al Gorian Meditation, and rather than reveal the hidden proovings, Hugh has heroically faced inquiries, questions, mockery, pressures and no soon, no doubt, unbearable agonies, as the Grand Inquisitore Smoccaius (a.k.a., “Smokey”) prepares the irons and the rack.

    The Prime Utterance

    Hugh Pepper to Smokey: My view is that “facts” follow acceptable (yes, peer reviewed) empirical research. YOu often mock Michael Mann and his “hockey stick”, failing to acknowledge that his work has been replicated seven times.

    Smokey: Folks, we have a comedian!

    Hugh Pepper: ….I mentioned in another post that the ground-breaking work of Mann et al has been repeated seven times. Each of the other researchers, in this instance, got a similar result, thereby conforming the original hypothesis. Science is all about repetition and the journals are full of this work, which is often confirming, but not always.

    Anthony to Hugh: Then provide citations to prove it, otherwise you are just babbling.

    Hugh to Anthony: Read Michael Mann’s book Rocky. There are several references to this research in the book. From Mann’s references you can locate the original research.

    Hugh to no one in particular: The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.

    Smokey: BTW, still waiting for those citations showing that Mann’s MBH98/99 papers have been “replicated seven times.” That’s a new one, so I’d like to see the source. While you’re at it, Hugh, show us where Mann’s original MBH99 graph was published by the IPCC after 2007.

    Hugh (still no Seven): With just a little effort Smokey you will discover that Mann’s original hypothesis s now accepted in the climate science community, that is by the people who devote their lives to the study of climate systems. I’m sorry, you may actually have to read Mann’s book to discover that the science of paleoclimatology is robust.

    Smokey: ….Keep in mind that rather than having his work validated “seven times”, Michael Mann was forced to issue a Correction regarding his own paper. A Correction is a fairly rare occurrence, and it only happens when there are major errors uncovered. In Mann’s case, the errors were uncovered by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick……..Time to man up if you can, Pepper, and provide those seven citations that you claim exist. Or everyone will see that you’re just making up stories as you go along.

    People are Beginning to Notice

    boston12gs: Having something validated 7 or 70 or 700 or 7,000 times is meaningless in terms of the scientific method, if that same “thing” can be invalidated even once.

    Hugh (the red herring thrown): Smokey and Rockyroad: Please check out the interview with Michael Smerconish (5 days ago) and Michael Mann. All your concerns about his (Mann’s) work are addressed in the 15 minute interview.

    A brilliant move by Hugh, alas the aluring scent of the red herrings failed to throw off the remorseless Smokey.

    Smokey: Using Mann’s own self-serving apologia for his anti-science hardly qualifies as a citation….Either provide 7 verifiable citations for your mendacious claim that Mann’s MBH98/99 paper has been validated, as you previously asserted, or concede that you were making it up.

    Now, People are Talking

    Andrew: C’mon Pepper stop stalling – otherwise we will necessarily have to assume that you are unable to substantiate your foolish and frankly hysterically funny claim that the con-Mann’s fabricated findings have been independently varified (repeated) no less than 7 times!!

    Louis: Reproducing Mann’s hockey stick 7 times is certainly possible given this finding in the Wegman report: “the MBH method creates a hockey-stick shape even when supplied with random input data”. So how could they miss? To replicate Mann’s work correctly you would need the raw data, which is apparently missing. Otherwise, you are simply using the same doctored data and same methods that Mann used, which are pretty much guaranteed to give you a hockey-stick shape no matter what you do.

    Peter Kovachev: LOL! That’s harsh, Smokey, let me see if I can help old Hugh out in his Dark Night of the Soul. How’s ’bout we start with, “Define seven!” Ah-hah?

    Bill Tuttle: Hugh Pepper (March 18, 2012 at 4:19 pm) said ,”The literature is FULL of both confirming and disconfirming information. Everywhere you look you will finds this data, hundreds of relevant papers in any given month. I don’t think this needs specific citation.”……Translation: I (Hugh) couldn’t find what I was looking for.

    Johanna: I’m guessing that ‘seven’ is the output of a model in this instance.

    But wait, there’s more!

    Hugh: Mann, deals with the question you raise in his book The Hockey Stick….. . He asserts that the findings of the original published studies, MBH98 and MBH99, have been independently replicated, using available data and algorithm description, and that there are “nearly a dozen” studies using different types of proxy data and alternative statistical methods.

    More than dozen! That means Hugh may proovide us with a couple, or even just one example to tease our growing apetites. But no. Instead rebellion and forget seven or dozens, try THOUSANDS!

    Hugh: I am not going to play your game Smokey. You can do your own investigation of the evidence. it’s out there in the form of thousands of independent studies, and summarized in books written by authors much more expert than me.

    Peter Kovachev:
    Fool : The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason.
    King Lear : Because they are not eight?
    Fool : Yes, indeed, thou wouldst make a good fool.

    The plot thickens as it no doubt continues.

  359. Bill Tuttle says:

    Hugh Pepper says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:26 am
    Mann, deals with the question you raise in his book The Hockey Stick….. . He asserts that the findings of the original published studies, MBH98 and MBH99, have been independently replicated, using available data and algorithm description, and that there are “nearly a dozen” studies using different types of proxy data and alternative statistical methods.

    My emphasis. Using Mann’s algor(e)ithm, any data, including random numbers plucked from a telephone book, will result in the Hockey Stick.

    The original conclusion has been conformed, namely: it is likely that the warmest period of the past thousand years is the late twentieth century.

    It may have been conformed, but it certainly wasn’t confirmed. If the late twentieth century was the warmest period in the past thousand years, why aren’t the Greenlanders able to grow the same crops — and in the same abundance — today that the Viking settlers were growing there a millennium ago?

    But please note, mistergunby, these studies are only a small part of the evidentiary puzzle. The conclusion that humans are altering the climate has been independently confirmed.

    It’s been confirmed that we’ve been able to alter local temperatures, i.e., UHI. Local temperatures are not climate.

    The case does not depend on paleoclimate evidence compiled by Mann. his cohorts, and all the others who have provided confirming evidence.

    Mann and his cohorts *ignore* the evidence that the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods were warmer than the present.

  360. Brendan H says:

    TimM: “I think it’s meant to be the rate rose to over a million per annum, not necessarily within 12 months of the ban.”

    That sounds reasonable, although it would be interesting to know when the “worldwide ban” on DDT came into force.

  361. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper says:

    “I am not going to play your game Smokey.”

    It’s not a game, it’s a credibility test. You made the assertion, I simply asked you to cite your seven sources. Your modus operandi is to make incredible, fact-free assertions. You do it all the time. I think you are a serial fabricator because your only other option is to admit that skeptical climate realists have by far the best arguments. Rather than admit that, you make up stories. Maybe someone should nominate you for the Peter Gleick Ethics Award.☺

  362. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 9:46 am

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 9:15 am

    “For exactly the same reasons as we infer global temperatures from the ice cores taken from the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. If a rising tide raises all ships, it matters not where you measure the tide, even though the timing be different in different places.”

    ===============================================
    Giving another example of someone else using the same method does not prove the method is correct.

    To your example with tide, if we want to prove, that a worldwide tide exists, we can not just point out to a single raised ship.

    It is widely accepted that there is a reasonable correlation between GISP1 & 2 temperature reconstructions and Northern hemisphere temperatures. Likewise, the Law Dome & Vostock ice core temperature reconstructions correlate well with Southern hemisphere temperatures. For some odd reason, when “global” temperatures are referred to, the reconstruction is Northern hemisphere only. Or perhaps you haven’t read the IPCC Assessment Reports.

  363. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    It is widely accepted that there is a reasonable correlation between GISP1 & 2 temperature reconstructions and Northern hemisphere temperatures. Likewise, the Law Dome & Vostock ice core temperature reconstructions correlate well with Southern hemisphere temperatures.
    ============================================
    Generally, correlation does not prove anything and is at most a reason to look into the matter. And of course, opposite trend may correlate well, too. Naturally temperatures always correlate well. You know, winter, summer, day, night…

    Look, two opposite trends show a very good correlation: (5-5-5-5-5-5-55-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-6-7-8) and (5-5-5-5-5-5-55-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-4-3-2).

    And please, give me a link to a scientific paper, that proves, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative.

  364. Hugh Pepper says:

    Are you saying that each of these persons listed are paleoclimatologists who have published evidence refuting Mann’s original work? I seriously doubt this.

  365. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Try reading this: Frozen Annals – Greenland Ice Sheet Research by Professor Willi Dansgaard.

  366. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper,

    The Git has credibility. You don’t.

  367. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm

    “Try reading this: Frozen Annals – Greenland Ice Sheet Research by Professor Willi Dansgaard.”
    ===========================================
    No, thanks. I did not ask, how they “reconstructed” temperatures.

    I am simply asking, why it is correct to consider those “reconstructed” temperatures representative for the whole world.

    It would be nice, if you could simply describe the method of proving such a thing.

  368. Smokey said @ March 19, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Hugh Pepper,

    The Git has credibility. You don’t.

    Thanks Smokey :-) I was beginning to wonder after Tallbloke called me a “mine of disinformation” the other day.

  369. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    It is widely accepted that there is a reasonable correlation between GISP1 & 2 temperature reconstructions and Northern hemisphere temperatures. Likewise, the Law Dome & Vostock ice core temperature reconstructions correlate well with Southern hemisphere temperatures.

    ============================================
    Generally, correlation does not prove anything and is at most a reason to look into the matter. And of course, opposite trend may correlate well, too. Naturally temperatures always correlate well. You know, winter, summer, day, night…

    Look, two opposite trends show a very good correlation: (5-5-5-5-5-5-55-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-6-7-8) and (5-5-5-5-5-5-55-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-4-3-2).

    And please, give me a link to a scientific paper, that proves, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative.

    What makes you believe that there is a single scientific paper that encompasses the reasoning behind palynology, sedimentology, Köppen climate classification etc? I suspect that you are either ignorant, or a troll.

  370. Dr. Dave said @ March 17, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    For those interested in DDT I strongly recommend this article by the late Dr. Edwards. It is perhaps the single best, succinct description of DDT I have ever read.

    http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

    Many thanks Dave; that info is definitely going into my next book!

  371. Shooter says:

    WATER RIGHTS?!? HAHAHAHAHA! Water can have a right! It’s a non-living thing! Oh, God, that’s hilarious!

  372. Shooter says:

    @Kasuha:

    Mosquitoes weren’t becoming immune to DDT. It was banned because it was believed to be thinning egg shells. The “immune mosquitoes” is a fallacy and you better check into that.

  373. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm
    ———————
    Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm
    And please, give me a link to a scientific paper, that proves, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative.
    ———————
    What makes you believe that there is a single scientific paper that encompasses the reasoning behind palynology, sedimentology, Köppen climate classification etc?
    ===============================================
    May I interpret your answer as” there is no scientific proof, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative for the whole world”? Thank you.

    Then the claims based on considering those “reconstructed” temperatures representative for the whole world are not based on a scientific method and hence are not results of a scientific work. Although they use scientific terms, their claims are essentially an unproven bull***t.

    Now let us forget the “reconstructed” temperatures and talk a little bit about existing weather stations. Is there a scientific paper, that proves scientifically, that the set of existing weather stations is representative for the whole world?

    This is a very important question, because if it is not, we can not even call the calculated warming “global”.

    I am not sure, whether Lord Monckton checked the issue, before he claimed the world had been warming. We can do it for him now.

  374. kakatoa says:

    Lord Monckton has two public meetings scheduled in Sacramento later this week on MARCH 21st- One with the legislature and one at Sacramento State as noted below-

    1) Viscount Monkton “will be joined by Tom Tanton, expert on energy and California public policy.

    1:30 PM – California State Capitol, Room 127

    1315 10th Street, Sacramento

    Panel discussion with Lord Christopher Monckton, Tom Tanton, and members of the California state legislature.

    Free and open to general public.”

    2) 7:00 PM – Hinde Auditorium, Sacramento State University Union

    6000 J Street, Sacramento

    Presentations by Lord Christopher Monckton and Tom Tanton

    Moderated by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (Bakersfield – 32nd District)

    Free and open to general public – Audience questions welcome.”

  375. johanna says:

    Dinesh F says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:59 am

    Why does Monckton refer to the historical temperature in England to ‘prove’ his point regarding warming over the whole planet – an elementary error and highlights his lack of scientific rigour and selective use of data. Remember January 2010 when the UK was suffering a major cold snap? At exactly the same time Australia was suffering record high temperatures and the Winter Olympics was suffering from a lack of snow due to unseasonally warm temperatures.
    ————————————————————
    Your reading comprehension needs more work.

    Chris Monckton didn’t claim that this record was a proxy for world weather conditions. But if there is such a thing as global climate, then the records of one place over a long period are a reasonable benchmark for assessing change.

    BTW, your use of terms such as ‘cold snap’ and ‘unseasonally warm’ while claiming cherry-picking by others is a bit of a hint about your views on the role of natural variation.

  376. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    [snip]

    May I interpret your answer as” there is no scientific proof, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative for the whole world”? Thank you.

    Then the claims based on considering those “reconstructed” temperatures representative for the whole world are not based on a scientific method and hence are not results of a scientific work. Although they use scientific terms, their claims are essentially an unproven bull***t.

    Now let us forget the “reconstructed” temperatures and talk a little bit about existing weather stations. Is there a scientific paper, that proves scientifically, that the set of existing weather stations is representative for the whole world?

    This is a very important question, because if it is not, we can not even call the calculated warming “global”.

    I am not sure, whether Lord Monckton checked the issue, before he claimed the world had been warming. We can do it for him now.

    I do not wish to get into an argument about scientific proof when there is no such thing, nor what “a scientific method” might be when it’s at home. There are logical and mathematical proofs, but scientific theories are not mathematics, or logic. It’s hard to conceive of a common scientific method behind Charles Darwin’s decade long investigation of barnacles and Einstein’s derivation of Relativity from James Clerk Maxwell’s equations.

    IPCC’s First Assessment Report contained a very important chart of estimated average temperature of the Northern hemisphere that was clearly inspired by Hubert Lamb’s work. It shows the Holocene Optimum, Roman Optimum, Vandal Minimum, Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The later periods of cooler and warmer climate are reflected in gardeners’ diaries in Europe and Asia as well as the USA following settlement by Europeans. Lamb’s climatic epochs were inferred largely from the Northern tree limit throughout Asia and Canada. In warmer periods this approaches close to the Arctic Circle, in cooler periods it is further away. Currently, it is much further away than during the Holocene Optimum, or the Roman Optimum and is similar to where it was during the Medieval Warm Period.

    Trees, like all land plants, can only grow successfully when temperatures fall between limits determined by the tree species. So, not only do we have the Northern tree limit to infer temperature, but corollary from pollen grains of differing tree species.

    During the 20thC the Köppen Climate Boundary in the USA was furthest North during the 1930s, furthest South during the 1970s. Oddly enough, this was determined by thermometer readings in order to enable changes to seed sowing charts published by the USDA. I know this will be a shock to you, but garden plants and crops, as well as trees will only grow between certain temperature limits varying by species — just like trees. And these changes in the Köppen Climate Boundary in the USA correlate with changes in the calculated average temperature of the Northern hemisphere no matter how much we may dislike the admittedly dubious concept of averaging an intensive variable.

    So, noting the fact that a temperature “signal” is very noisy and therefore not particularly precise, I can state with considerable confidence that the very long thermometer record of CET is just as informative as averaging records from a bunch of stations scattered unrandomly throughout the Northern hemisphere.

  377. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    “I do not wish to get into an argument about scientific proof when there is no such thing, nor what “a scientific method” might be when it’s at home. …scientific theories are not mathematics, or logic.”
    ==============================================
    No problem, then calculations of “global warming” are pure fantasy products, disguised as science.

    You can not claim you had discovered a “global” trend if you do not have representative data. If you knowingly do it, then it is a fraud.

    You can not determine temperatures in areas, where there has never been a thermometer referring to correlation of other areas without proving, that such a “method” produces correct results. Not simply results, I mean CORRECT results. You can not just combine numbers as you like and claim it to be science. It is not science.

  378. Greg House says:

    johanna says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    “Chris Monckton didn’t claim that this record was a proxy for world weather conditions. But if there is such a thing as global climate, then the records of one place over a long period are a reasonable benchmark for assessing change.”
    =================================================
    I really like your “if”, Johanna. It looks like you know that there is no “global climate”, climate had normally been defined as a regional phenomenon, before the AGW guys came.

    Just tell me please, for what area you can use the Central England record as a “reasonable benchmark for assessing change”, especially how high the uncertainty would be. Statistically, you know. And why, please.

    You can start wit the area of Central England itself, it would be nice to learn, how high the uncertainty for this area is. Then we can talk (based on the Central England record) about Europe, Africa, and of course about the whole world too.

  379. Greg House says:

    Dinesh F says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:59 am

    “Why does Monckton refer to the historical temperature in England to ‘prove’ his point regarding warming over the whole planet – an elementary error and highlights his lack of scientific rigour and selective use of data.”
    ================================================
    The funny thing is, Dinesh, that Monckton or someone else can beat AGW guys in a debate by selective use of data, and they can not even successfully criticise him for that, because they do the same. If they raise a question about Central England record, he can talk about trees and so on. A kind of “mutual destruction”, the AGW guys would not like it.

    But a lasting victory can not be achieved this way.

  380. Smokey says:

    Greg House,

    The 2nd Law makes clear that you cannot have an energy imbalance that persists for centuries. The CET is thus a very good indicator of global temperature trends. And we can see that many other long term records show the same mildly rising temperature trend line that the CET records. The obvious conclusion is that the planet has been warming naturally since the LIA.

    And based on the verifiable fact that the long term temperature trend line has not accelerated [it is the same both before and after the rise in CO2], the inescapable conclusion is that the effect of rising CO2 on temperature is so small that it is unmeasurable; there may be climate sensitivity to CO2, but for all practical purposes it is essentially zero.

    The current and projected rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. I understand that this concept causes dizziness in some folks who have been weaned on the demonization of “carbon”. But think about it. If rising CO2 caused runaway global warming, we would certainly see some evidence following the ≈40% rise in CO2, would we not? But there is no such evidence. What does that tell you?

  381. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    The 2nd Law makes clear that you cannot have an energy imbalance that persists for centuries. The CET is thus a very good indicator of global temperature trends.
    ==============================================
    I see, not for centuries, but for 1 century it must be OK, right? A very interesting understanding of the 2nd Law. But let us talk about “indicators”.

    The whole “global warming” thing is based on statistics. You can not hold a thermometer somewhere and measure the “global temperature”. The “global temperature” is not a real physical temperature, it is a statistical product.

    We are talking about samples here. You need to understand, that if you measure the temperature twice a day and calculate the average, you do not get a real physical temperature as a result, but merely a statistical value. If you have several thermometers scattered throughout an area, then you have a sample. Samples can be of very different quality. And so on. That is why I am asking questions about uncertainties.

    What you are saying about indicators looks like a sort of wishful thinking to me. Of course, it would be nice to have a good one, but you need to prove first, that your indicator is good. If you can not, then you do not have one, so simple is that.

  382. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    “I do not wish to get into an argument about scientific proof when there is no such thing, nor what “a scientific method” might be when it’s at home. …scientific theories are not mathematics, or logic.”

    ==============================================
    No problem, then calculations of “global warming” are pure fantasy products, disguised as science.

    So you are denying the existence of climate change. Interesting… not!

  383. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:52 pm

    If rising CO2 caused runaway global warming, we would certainly see some evidence following the ≈40% rise in CO2, would we not?
    ===============================================
    No, not necessarily. I have already addressed the issue of the absent correlation on this page, must be easy to find.

  384. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 9:17 pm

    So you are denying the existence of climate change. Interesting… not!
    ===================================
    … and for that I will be certainly go to hell, won’t I? (LOL)

    No, actually I simply do not see the claims about “climate change” scientifically proven and I suspect a lot of fraud there.

  385. Smokey says:

    Greg House says:

    “The whole ‘global warming’ thing is based on statistics.”

    Absolutely wrong. Global warming — which has been occurring naturally since the LIA — is reflected in the steadily rising temperature trend line, which has not accelearated despite a hefty increase in CO2. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that more CO2 is not jacking up global temperatures… and there goes your CO2=CAGW conjecture, which is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: the planet itself.

    So who should we believe? The climate alarmist crowd? Or Planet Earth? Because they can’t both be right.

  386. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:52

    The current and projected rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
    =====================================
    I do not buy the claims about “harmless CO2″ with regards to “climate sensitivity”.

    Since we are on the Monckton thread, I read his reference to a 1859 experiment that allegedly proved the “green house effect”. What that experiment really proved is that certain gasses including CO2 can absorb and re-emit IR radiation, but it did not prove that this effect can cause a significant warming. Like a foot stomping can cause some vibration, but not an earthquake. I have already posted some information about it on the parallel thread, there is no need to double it here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates-new-good-news/#comment-928622

  387. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 19, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    Greg House says:

    “The whole ‘global warming’ thing is based on statistics.”
    ————-
    Absolutely wrong. Global warming — which has been occurring naturally since the LIA — is reflected in the steadily rising temperature trend line,
    ====================================================
    I am sorry, the “temperature trend line” is not statistics? You did not really mean that, did you?

  388. johanna says:

    Greg House says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    johanna says:
    March 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    “Chris Monckton didn’t claim that this record was a proxy for world weather conditions. But if there is such a thing as global climate, then the records of one place over a long period are a reasonable benchmark for assessing change.”
    =================================================
    I really like your “if”, Johanna. It looks like you know that there is no “global climate”, climate had normally been defined as a regional phenomenon, before the AGW guys came.

    Just tell me please, for what area you can use the Central England record as a “reasonable benchmark for assessing change”, especially how high the uncertainty would be. Statistically, you know. And why, please.

    You can start wit the area of Central England itself, it would be nice to learn, how high the uncertainty for this area is. Then we can talk (based on the Central England record) about Europe, Africa, and of course about the whole world too.
    ____________________________________________________
    Huh?

    I never said any of the things you extrapolated. For the record, I certainly believe in global climate to the extent that I believe that very much colder and warmer periods have occurred in Earth’s history. As I am a sentient being, I also believe in regional climate, and regional climate variation.

    I am sceptical about global temperature as currently modelled (not measured, because they can’t do it). That doesn’t mean I don’t comprehend that global temperature changes – there is irrefutable proof that it does.

    The Central England record is a marker, an indicator, and one of the longest running ones we have. It is not ‘proof’ of anything – but I would back it in favour of many of the models that currently infest what is revealingly called ‘the science’. If the Central England records showed (for example) that it got colder over 50 years, and some model claimed the opposite, I know where my money would be. The people who compiled the Central England records were not in the grip of a scientific fashion, or financially rewarded (at least systematically) for producing particular results.

    The hardest thing about evaluating evidence is weighting it. The fact that you give more weight to one thing than another doesn’t mean that you agree 100% with the first, and give 0% to the second. Monckton’s use of this example did not mean that he gave it 100% universal application, and nor did I. But if a model pops up that claims that it is a load of bollocks, it is a very defensible data source.

    I hope that clears things up.

  389. Smokey says:

    Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 19, 2012 at 8:52

    The current and projected rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
    =====================================
    I do not buy the claims about “harmless CO2″ with regards to “climate sensitivity”.

    So what? That is only your unsupported opinion; your conjecture, based on your belief, not on the scientific method. You can “buy” all the nonsense you can afford. But the fact is that there exists no testable, verifiable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, that CO2 is causing any global damage or harm.

    I have provided a testable hypothesis: ‘At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.’ Falsify that, if you think you can. But like the others I have little doubt that you will come up short.

    CO2 is absolutely beneficial to the biosphere. Agricultural productivity has increased in lockstep with the rise in CO2. If you would like me to re-post citations proving that fact I will, but it gets tedious providing links to true believers. Those factual citations seem to have no effect at all. But ask, and you shall recieve.

    And per the scientific method, CO2 has caused no global harm. Therefore, CO2 is ipso facto “harmless”. A little education on the climate null hypothesis would be helpful in showing that nothing unusual is occurring. Use the WUWT archive search function to educate yourself on the null hypothesis, and to understand how it decisively falsifies the CO2=CAGW nonsense.

  390. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 19, 2012 at 9:59 pm

    Greg House says:

    I do not buy the claims about “harmless CO2″ with regards to “climate sensitivity”.
    ————–
    So what? That is only your unsupported opinion;
    ====================================================
    I am sorry, shame on me, I somehow misread your words I quoted. I answered it as if you said “both harmful and beneficial”, not harmless. Sorry again.

    Of course, CO2 is harmless, I meant it so in that posting.

  391. For the benefit of Greg House (and other scientific illiterates)

    Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
    Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
    Published on November 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

    Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. I have dispelled some of them (misconceptions, not scientists) in earlier posts (for example, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, beauty is only skin-deep, and you can’t judge a book by its cover). Unfortunately, there are many other misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

    Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

    Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

    In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

    Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.

    In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

    The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.

    The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.

  392. Greg House says:

    johanna says:
    March 19, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    That doesn’t mean I don’t comprehend that global temperature changes – there is irrefutable proof that it does.
    =================================================
    And that irrefutable proof is…?

    BTW, is it correct that if a proof is refutable, than it is not a proof at all?

    I am thinking, why would you use such a doubling, if you are not a little bit uncertain about the quality of that proof? But it does not really matter, let us talk about that irrefutable proof, I am very curious.

    I just hope it is not something like a dead polar bear or 200 Gt Greenland ice invisibly melted away.

  393. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 10:20 pm
    “Scientific proof”
    Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
    Published on November 16, 2008 by Satoshi Kanazawa in The Scientific Fundamentalist

    …Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.
    ===============================================
    Yeah, mathematics is not science, I see.

    But things like “95%” are mathematics, right? Hence if someone calculates 95% as a result, he must provide the proof, that the calculation is correct, right?

    As far as I know, the IPCC stated that the probability of certain warming in the future is 95%.

    Has anybody seen that calculation?

    @ all the AGW proponents here: would you be so kind and provide the proof, that this calculation is correct? It must be easy, if such a proof exists…

  394. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Yeah, mathematics is not science, I see.

    But things like “95%” are mathematics, right?

    You could not be wronger! Mathematics (Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100. You really should consider obtaining an education. Seriously.

  395. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.
    ========================================
    Yes, very nice. But the question remains: how did the IPCC guys or whoever get this mathematical result?

    Another possibility could be, of course, that they simply lied.

  396. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    As far as I know, the IPCC stated that the probability of certain warming in the future is 95%.

    Has anybody seen that calculation?

    Of course not! See GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS by Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong. A guess with the number “95%” attached is still a guess and cannot be quantified.

  397. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:11 am

    A guess with the number “95%” attached is still a guess and cannot be quantified.
    ==============================
    Looks like a fraud to me.

  398. Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.

    ========================================
    Yes, very nice. But the question remains: how did the IPCC guys or whoever get this mathematical result?

    It is not a mathematical result. You would know that under the following conditions:

    * You knew what mathematics means
    * You knew what science means
    * You had read at least one IPCC Assessment Report

  399. garymount says:

    Briggs has a good series of articles on trend lines in temperature series. I will point you to the last one were you can find links to the rest of the series.
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5190
    —-
    Git, don’t forget about axioms, they come before proofs.

  400. Greg House said @ March 20, 2012 at 12:19 am

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:11 am

    A guess with the number “95%” attached is still a guess and cannot be quantified.

    ==============================
    Looks like a fraud to me.

    The empty drum makes sounds, but has no idea of their meaning.

  401. garymount said @ March 20, 2012 at 1:27 am

    Briggs has a good series of articles on trend lines in temperature series. I will point you to the last one were you can find links to the rest of the series.
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=5190
    —-
    Git, don’t forget about axioms, they come before proofs.

    This is a most important point. The Git’s learning has included the discovery that much of what we take to be axiomatic is false. Unlearning as it were.

    Briggs/Matt/William [delete whichever is inapplicable] is excellent value and has taught me much. The Git very much looks forward to sharing a beer with him as suggested in the flyleaf of the copy of his book he sent the Git. Perhaps even some Marlborough district dry white wine and a gourmet meal prepared by his Gitness. Stranger things have been known to happen…

  402. Myrrh says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm
    Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Yeah, mathematics is not science, I see.

    But things like “95%” are mathematics, right?

    You could not be wronger! Mathematics (Greek μάθημα máthēma, “knowledge, study, learning”) is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. Mathematicians seek out patterns and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proof. So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100. You really should consider obtaining an education. Seriously.

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:23 am
    Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.

    ========================================
    Yes, very nice. But the question remains: how did the IPCC guys or whoever get this mathematical result?

    It is not a mathematical result. You would know that under the following conditions:

    * You knew what mathematics means
    * You knew what science means
    * You had read at least one IPCC Assessment Report

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 2:21 am
    Greg House said @ March 20, 2012 at 12:19 am

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:11 am

    A guess with the number “95%” attached is still a guess and cannot be quantified.

    ==============================
    Looks like a fraud to me.

    The empty drum makes sounds, but has no idea of their meaning.

    ============

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mathematics

    “Mathematics
    Branches of mathematics
    algebra, analysis, analytical geometry or coordinate geometry, applied mathematics, arithmetic, Boolean algebra, calculus, chaos geometry, conics, differential calculus, Euclidean geometry, game theory, geometry, group theory, integral calculus, nomography, non-Euclidean geometry, number theory, numerical analysis, probability theory pure mathematics, set theory, statistics, topology, trigonometry
    Mathematical terms
    acute angle, addition, algorithm or algorism, angle, arc, area, average, axis, base, binary, binomial, cardinal number, Cartesian coordinates, chord, circle, circumference, closed set, coefficient, common denominator, common factor, complex number, concentric, cone, constant, coordinate or co-ordinate, cosecant, cosine, cotangent, cube, cube root, cuboid, curve, cusp, cylinder, decagon, decimal, denary, denominator, diagonal, diameter, digit, division, dodecahedron, ellipse, equals, equation, equilateral, even, exponential, factor, factorial, formula, fraction, frequency, function, graph, helix, hemisphere, heptagon, hexagon, hyperbola, hypotenuse, icosahedron, imaginary number, improper fraction, index, infinity, integer, integral, intersection, irrational number, isosceles, locus, logarithm or log, lowest common denominator, lowest common multiple, Mandelbrot set, matrix, mean, median, minus, mode, multiplication, natural logarithm, natural number, node, nonagon, number, numerator, oblong, obtuse angle, octagon, octahedron, odd, open set, operation, operator, ordinal number, origin, parabola, parallel, parallelogram, pentagon, percentage, perfect number, pi, plus, polygon, polyhedron, polynomial, power, prime number, prism, probability, product, proof, proper fraction, Pythagoras’ theorem, quadrant, quadratic equation, quadrilateral, quotient, radian, radius, ratio, rational number, real number, reciprocal, rectangle, recurring decimal, reflex angle, remainder, rhombus, right angle, right-angled triangle, root, scalar, scalene, secant, sector, semicircle, set, significant figures, simultaneous equations, sine, slide rule, solid, sphere, square, square root, strange attractor, subset, subtraction, sum, surd, tangent, tetrahedron, torus, trapezium, triangle, union, universal set, value, variable, vector, Venn diagram, volume, vulgar fraction, x-axis, y-axis, z-axis, zero
    Mathematicians
    Maria Gaetana Agnesi (Italian), Howard Hathaway Aiken (U.S.), Jean Le Rond Alembert (French), André Marie Ampère (French), Anaximander (Greek), Apollonius of Perga (Greek), Archimedes (Greek), Charles Babbage (English), Johann Jakob Balmer (Swiss), Daniel Bernoulli (Swiss), Jacques Bernoulli (Swiss), Jean Bernoulli (Swiss), Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel (German), Hermann Bondi (British), George Boole (English), Henry Briggs (English), Augustin Louis Cauchy (French), Arthur Cayley (English), Rudolf Julius Clausius (German), Isidore Auguste Comte (French), George Howard Darwin (English), Julius Wilhelm Richard Dedekind (German), John Dee (English), René Descartes (French), Diophantus (Greek), Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (German), Albert Einstein (U.S.), Eratosthenes (Greek), Euclid (Greek), Eudoxus of Cnidus (Greek), Leonhard Euler (Swiss), Pierre de Fermat (French), Leonardo Fibonacci (Italian), Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier (French), Galileo (Italian), Karl Friedrich Gauss (German), Josiah Willard Gibbs (U.S.), Kurt Gödel (U.S.), Edmund Gunter (English), Edmund Halley (English), William Rowan Hamilton (Irish), Hero (Greek), David Hilbert (German), Karl Gustav Jacob Jacobi (German), Herman Kahn (U.S.), Andrei Nikolaevich Kolmogorov (Soviet), Joseph Louis Lagrange (French), Pierre Simon Laplace (French), Adrien Marie Legendre (French), Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz (German), Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky (Russian), Ada Lovelace (English), Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (French), Gerardus Mercator (Flemish), Hermann Minkowski (German), John Napier (Scottish), Isaac Newton (English), Omar Khayyám (Persian), Nicole d’Oresme (French), Pappus of Alexandria (Greek), Blaise Pascal (French), Karl Pearson (English), Charles Sanders Peirce (U.S.), William George Penney (English), Roger Penrose (English), Jules Henri Poincaré (French), Siméon Denis Poisson (French), Ptolemy (Greek), Pythagoras (Greek), Johann Müller Regiomontanus (German), Georg Friedrich Bernhard Riemann (German), Bertrand Russell (English), Claude Shannon (U.S.), Brook Taylor (English), Thales (Greek), Evangelista Torricelli (Italian), Alan Mathison Turing (English), John von Neumann (U.S.), Hermann Weyl (U.S.), Alfred North Whitehead (English), Norbert Wiener (U.S.)”

    I don’t see Pompous Git in that list, I do see “percentage” as a mathematical term. Not that the list is exhaustive, they forgot to include you, but axiom and proportion don’t make an appearance. I’ve turned to my battered COD for proportion, it says:

    proportion n. & v.t. 1. n. Comparative part, share, ( a large proportion of the earth’s surface, of the profits); comparative relation; ration, (the proportion of births to the population); price will be raised in ~ (to the cost etc., or abs.), by the same factor. 2. Correct relation of one thing to another or between parts of a thing (windows are in admirable proportion; his success bore no proportion to his abilities; exaggerated out of all proportion); hence ~LESS a. 3. (in pl.) Dimensions, size, (athlete, building, of magnificent proportions). 4. (Math.) Equality of ratios between two pairs of quantities (3, 5, 9 and 15 are in proportion); set of such quantities, (Arith.) RULE of three; DIRECT, INVERSE, proportion. 5. v.t. Make (thing etc.) proportionate to (must proportion the punishment to the crime); hence, etc.”

    “So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100. You really should consider obtaining an education. Seriously”

    So, percentage and proportion is mathematics, as in “is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change.” Here it is the quantity of probability.

    Greg House – So, it can and has been quantified as probability, and the IPCC has set out, though not without disjunction in probables and possibles, what the numbers mean in terms of “likelies”, which is how they’re most often given. I don’t recall now where I posted an analysis of this, somewhere in an argument about prediction versus projection, but it shows the usual obfuscation.. However, the link the Git gave to Green and Armstrong well worth reading. They conclude according to strict constraints in modelling that these are opinions masquerading as mathematics to give them an appearance of credibility.

  403. In assigning numerical values to the probabilities of various degrees of warming, climatologists apply Bayesian parameter estimation to the task of assigning a numerical value to the equilibrium climate sensitivity (TECS). Supposedly, TECS is the proportionality constant in a linear functional relation that maps the logarithm of the atmospheric CO2 concentration to the equilibrium global average surface air temperature. Under Bayesian parameter estimation, Bayes’ theorem maps the prior probability density function (prior PDF) of TECS plus the observational data to the posterior probability density (posterior PDF) of TECS. The posterior PDF contains sufficient information for numerical values to be assigned to probabilities of various levels of warming.

    However, there are a couple of catches in this scenario. First, that TECS is a constant is unproved. Second, the identity of the prior PDF is unclear.

    By definition, the “prior PDF” represents the state of knowledge in the interval before the observational data were collected. In this interval, information about the value of TECS was absent. Thus, the prior PDF must be uninformative about the value of TECS. It can be shown that uninformative prior PDFs are of infinite number. Each such prior PDF results in a different posterior PDF. Thus, even if TECS were a constant, the conclusion that the probability of a particular degree of warming had a particular numerical value would be unproved. Thus, for example, that 95% was assigned to the probability that the degree of warming from a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lie between 1.4 and 7.7 Celsius would be unproved.

    Furthermore, as the equilibrium temperature is not observable, the proposition that TECS has a particular numerical value is non-falsifiable, thus lying outside science. In view of the non-falsifiability, TECS is a scientifically illegitimate concept. Nontheless, it plays a leading role in the IPCC’s argument for CAGW and in Lord Monckton’s argument for non-CAGW. Both arguments are scientifically illegitimate.

  404. Sun Spot says:

    Last evening I had the pleasure of attending a University of Western Ontario lecture where The Rt. Hon. Christopher Moncton of Brenchley spoke eloquently and humorously. This University Department of Applied Math actually had an open enough mind to invite Mr. Moncton to speak at the “Nerenburg Lecture” series. The Rt. Hon. Moncton was most informative, humorous and civilized in the mathematics he presented and in his evisceration of cAWG.

  405. Myrrh said @ March 20, 2012 at 4:31 am

    “So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100. You really should consider obtaining an education. Seriously”

    So, percentage and proportion is mathematics, as in “is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change.” Here it is the quantity of probability.

    Greg House – So, it can and has been quantified as probability, and the IPCC has set out, though not without disjunction in probables and possibles, what the numbers mean in terms of “likelies”, which is how they’re most often given. I don’t recall now where I posted an analysis of this, somewhere in an argument about prediction versus projection, but it shows the usual obfuscation.. However, the link the Git gave to Green and Armstrong well worth reading. They conclude according to strict constraints in modelling that these are opinions masquerading as mathematics to give them an appearance of credibility.

    By your argument then a molecule of CO2 is chemistry and the broccoli in my garden is horticulture. Wrong. The study of something is different to the objects of that study.

    If you had read the IPCC Assessment Reports carefully, you would know that the “95%” is a subjective assessment of a guess about quantity, not a mathematically calculated probability. For example, I could claim that the salmon, prawns, cream, French bean and pasta dish I cook tonight will be 15.54% tastier than the version I cooked with asparagus on a certain date in the spring. Grammatically this makes sense, but it’s nonsense mathematically.

    No Myrrh, even though there are several mathematical Sturms, the Git is not a famous mathematician, not even an infamous one. He is however the world’s most famousest Pompous Git according to Google.

  406. Terry Oldberg said @ March 20, 2012 at 11:18 am

    Furthermore, as the equilibrium temperature is not observable, the proposition that TECS has a particular numerical value is non-falsifiable, thus lying outside science. In view of the non-falsifiability, TECS is a scientifically illegitimate concept. Nontheless, it plays a leading role in the IPCC’s argument for CAGW and in Lord Monckton’s argument for non-CAGW. Both arguments are scientifically illegitimate.

    It is however perfectly legitimate to accept the premises of your opponents and shew the flaws in their argument.

    There is an example of a non-falsifiable theory that is widely accepted as scientific: Darwinian evolution.

    Any situation where species exist is compatible with the Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted, they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment. Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory power, for everything is ruled in.

    This would also appear to fall outside of your claim that to be scientific, a theory must necessarily be reducible to a mathematical equation.

  407. The Pompous Git:

    I stand by my claim that Monckton’s argument for non-CAGW and the IPCC’s argument for CAGW are both scientifically illegitimate and for the same reason. This is evident by the absence from either argument of reference to the statistical population by which the claims of either Monckton or the IPCC could be tested. I don’t believe you’ve shot down my argument.

  408. Greg House says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    There is an example of a non-falsifiable theory that is widely accepted as scientific: Darwinian evolution.
    ==================================================
    The difference is, that acceptance of the Darwinian evolution is harmless.

    AGW is not harmless.

    A lot of people do not care about what the Darwinists say and are not interested in the discussions with them. To put it in a simple way, Darwinism does not matter, it is irrelevant for our lives.

    AGW is different because it has been used as a political lever. The AGW people want our money and our freedom. If it were just an internal harmless theory, nobody would care.

  409. RockyRoad says:

    Oh, man, I knew I shouldn’t have come back to this thread. It now has me all excited to see who has won this great discussion between Smokey, Git, and House. All very thought-provoking and had I another day to assimilate it all, I’d award a winning certificate (or two)–or at least proffer an opinion. However, it is easy to see who the definite loser is from this whole discussion:

    The IPCC. And their “methodology”–wherever that is.

    That’s as transparent as crystalline ice.

  410. Terry Oldberg said @ March 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    The Pompous Git:

    I stand by my claim that Monckton’s argument for non-CAGW and the IPCC’s argument for CAGW are both scientifically illegitimate and for the same reason. This is evident by the absence from either argument of reference to the statistical population by which the claims of either Monckton or the IPCC could be tested. I don’t believe you’ve shot down my argument.

    Terry, I was not attempting to demolish your argument; I believe our arguments are orthogonal. My view of what qualifies as scientific appears to be somewhat broader and more ill-defined than yours.

  411. Greg House said @ March 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    There is an example of a non-falsifiable theory that is widely accepted as scientific: Darwinian evolution.
    ==================================================

    The difference is, that acceptance of the Darwinian evolution is harmless.

    Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, extended Darwinism in the 1870s and this became known as Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism espouses the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, fascism, Nazism and the struggle between national or racial groups. This in turn led to the legalised murder of millions in the death camps of the 20thC. I’d say our views on what is harmless are incommensurate.

  412. RockyRoad said @ March 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    Oh, man, I knew I shouldn’t have come back to this thread. It now has me all excited to see who has won this great discussion between Smokey, Git, and House. All very thought-provoking and had I another day to assimilate it all, I’d award a winning certificate (or two)–or at least proffer an opinion. However, it is easy to see who the definite loser is from this whole discussion:

    The IPCC. And their “methodology”–wherever that is.

    That’s as transparent as crystalline ice.

    Rocky, I wish I were as sanguine about this as you. It seems clear that The Team can break the laws of the land with impunity. In a world where rationality prevailed, the miscreants at the IPCC, CRU, GISS etc would not be above the law. In the battle for mind-share where it counts — in Congress and Parliaments — they are not losing. This saddens me…

  413. Myrrh says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:19 pm
    Myrrh said @ March 20, 2012 at 4:31 am

    By your argument then a molecule of CO2 is chemistry and the broccoli in my garden is horticulture. Wrong. The study of something is different to the objects of that study.

    The object of study is the climate.. I didn’t say that was mathematics.

    If you had read the IPCC Assessment Reports carefully, you would know that the “95%” is a subjective assessment of a guess about quantity, not a mathematically calculated probability. For example, I could claim that the salmon, prawns, cream, French bean and pasta dish I cook tonight will be 15.54% tastier than the version I cooked with asparagus on a certain date in the spring. Grammatically this makes sense, but it’s nonsense mathematically.

    What are doing here? You could have stuck to that theme instead in your replies, but you moved the goal posts – why don’t you re-read your disdainful replies to Greg House who asked sensible questions.

    —————————

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:23 am
    Greg House said @ March 19, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 19, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    So no, “95%” is not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.

    ========================================
    Yes, very nice. But the question remains: how did the IPCC guys or whoever get this mathematical result?

    It is not a mathematical result. You would know that under the following conditions:

    * You knew what mathematics means
    * You knew what science means
    * You had read at least one IPCC Assessment Report

    —————————

    You were doing quite well until you blew it with “So no, “95%” in not mathematics, it is the ratio of 95 and 100.”

    No Myrrh, even though there are several mathematical Sturms, the Git is not a famous mathematician, not even an infamous one. He is however the world’s most famousest Pompous Git according to Google.

    Oh that’s alright then, I don’t expect have you make mathematical sense in any further comments… :)

    Anyway, I think Terry Oldberg has given more detail of why the 95% doesn’t come from a properly constructed mathematical discipline/method required for such claims.

    ———-
    Greg House says:
    March 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    There is an example of a non-falsifiable theory that is widely accepted as scientific: Darwinian evolution.
    ==================================================
    The difference is, that acceptance of the Darwinian evolution is harmless.

    How is it harmless? It postulates ‘survival of the fittest’ which is clearly falsified, just look around.., include a mirror. And that has created no end of strange and dangerous thinking, it’s what’s driving the CAGW scare. [Which is why the eugenic ideology should be seen as not science, but opinion masquerading as science, as Monckton notes.]

    It, Darwinian evolution, might well insist it be called science, but it comes with no clear proofs of anything like cause and effect, it’s all random opinion dressed up as science, exactly as the IPCC presents its opinions..

    AGW is not harmless.

    Yes it is. Unless you’re in a hollow near a vent on a volcano in which case it can be very dangerous indeed. Because it is heavier than air, one and half times heavier, it will sink displacing oxygen and if that vent is venting loads of it and you are in the hollow beneath and in its path you could easily be killed, suffocated by a big heavy fluid gas pillow cutting off your oxygen supply. You most definitely need to bear that in mind if you’re ever invited to a p*ss up in a brewery, don’t fall asleep on the floor..

    Carbon dioxide is essential to life, the food of life in our Carbon Life food chain beginning with plants using the Sun’s visible energy directly to power the chemical change of carbon dioxide to sugars. Which reminds me, do you know of this alternative theory of evolution? That plants have driven the creation of the rest of life? To disperse their seeds with more variety. We were only created by them to produce more carbon dioxide because supplies were going to be running low.. That’s forward thinking, intelligence.

    A lot of people do not care about what the Darwinists say and are not interested in the discussions with them. To put it in a simple way, Darwinism does not matter, it is irrelevant for our lives.

    AGW is different because it has been used as a political lever. The AGW people want our money and our freedom. If it were just an internal harmless theory, nobody would care.

    Good point in the last, though it isn’t different from Darwinism as it’s a continuation of it, they want our money and our freedom, and more. They think they are the most fit to survive and mass murder of oiks redundant to their requirements is on their agenda. And to this end they have created a fictional fisics to promote fear.

    All the more necessary then that we get the science right. So first correction, Carbon dioxide is not harmful, it is not a toxic. A toxic is a poison, carbon dioxide is not a poison. Science has already worked out these categories, carbon monoxide is a poison, carbon dioxide isn’t. Carbon monoxide is harmful, carbon dioxide isn’t. There, don’t you feel better now that your own body is producing enough carbon dioxide to make the air you breathe in be a mix of 6% carbon dioxide in every lungful?

    Breathe deeply, carbon dioxide is essential to your well being, without it that oxygen wouldn’t get transported through your system, and more besides. Breathe out, you’ve used 2 of that 6%, expelling 4 into the atmosphere. If there’s a plant around and it’s sunny, have a chat. The rest of the time it too will be breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide.

    As for the central England temp records – it is a good indication of state of play of climate changes, because during glacials in our present Ice Age it gets covered one or two miles deep in ice and this usually doesn’t get further to the southern bits. Sort of on the edge as it were of the gazzillion tons of ice over the northern hemisphere.

    There’s an ancient Cornish saying about glacials – if white you see turn the fox and the hare, beware…

    From 2010:
    http://www.sott.net/articles/show/219594-Ice-Age-Alert-Central-England-has-coldest-introduction-to-winter-since-1659-

    “When you look at the two-week period, says Bastardi, the last week of November and the first week of December, it’s the coldest since CET records began in 1659.

    This puts central England back to the temperatures of the Little Ice Age.

    And there’s more to come, Bastardi warns.”

    http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=winter-history;sess=
    The history of British winters
    “Written by D.Fauvell and I.Simpson this page cover’s many winters from the 17th Century right up to the current day.”

    This temperature record is invaluable because of where it is, not just because of the length of the record.

    IIRC correctly, in the interglacial before our own now, southern England was african savannahish, hippos swimming in the Thames or something.

  414. The Pompous Git:

    In common English, the term “science” ambiguously references the disparate ideas of “demonstrable knowledge” and “the process that is operated by people calling themselves ‘scientists’ ” That it references the first of the two ideas and does not reference this idea negates Aristotle’s law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is a true proposition. The negated law is a false proposition.

    Using the negated law as the premise to a specious argument, it is possible for a swindler to lead his dupes to believe that the conclusion of an argument is true when this conclusion is false or unproved. Thus, from ethical and societal perspectives, the ambiguity of reference by “science” in common English is undesirable.

    In the United States this undesirability has been addressed by the federal courts and by many of the courts of the separate states. A consequence from this consideration is the Daubert standard. Under this standard, “science” is defined as I have defined it in conversing with you as “demonstrable knowledge.”

  415. Greg House says:

    Myrrh says:
    March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    Greg House says:
    March 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm

    AGW is not harmless.
    ——————————————
    Yes it is.
    =========================================
    I am sorry, I meant “AGW concept is not harmless”. That’s why a later in that post talked about it being used as a lever by certain groups.

    As for Darwinism, I did not want the discussion to move in that direction. I mean Darwinism does not present a substantial immediate danger to the mankind and it is not such a hot issue unlike the AGW concept.

    No one proposes to build a world government to prevent people from hurting evolution, there is no evolution tax and so on, they have not even created an International Evolution Panel. So, evolution is not a clear and present danger, but the AGW concept is.

  416. Greg House says:

    Myrrh says:
    March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    As for the central England temp records – it is a good indication of state of play of climate changes,
    =================================================
    No problem with indications, generally there are a lot of things, that might more or less indicate something or not, but at the moment, when someone derives a “colder world” out of such an indication, I want to see this “colder world” proven. Since they talk about “global temperature” I want it to be proven, that the “global temperature” at that times was lower than now. If they can not do that, then they can not reasonably talk about colder world 300 years ago or generally in the past.

    They may of course say “we do not know about the whole world, but the Central England was colder”, no problem. Although in this case I might ask them to prove, that they have a representative sample of indicators or that they used a correct method to calculate “Central England Temperature”, but this is another story.

  417. Smokey says:

    Greg House says:

    I am sorry, shame on me, I somehow misread your words I quoted. I answered it as if you said “both harmful and beneficial”, not harmless. Sorry again.

    Of course, CO2 is harmless, I meant it so in that posting.

    Then it appears that we are on the same page. Seriously, I am still looking for testable evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused any regional or global harm.

    If verifiable evidence of harm due to CO2 appears, I will begin to reconsider my views. But so far, there is no evidence whatever that the rise in CO2 from 0.00028 of the air, to 0.00039 of the air, has caused any problem at all. In fact, the rise has been entirely beneficial based on real world evidence.

    If I am wrong about any of this, I sincerely want to be shown the evidence. And you can be certain that the alarmist crowd is furiously searching for any shred of evidence that CO2 causes harm at current or projected concentrations. But without evidence, the CO2=CAGW [and CO2=AGW] conjecture is effectively falsified based on current knowledge.

    Finally, for some good news: Hugh Pepper seems to have finally departed the thread.☺

  418. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 20, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    Seriously, I am still looking for testable evidence that the rise in CO2 has caused any regional or global harm.
    =====================================
    What, never heard about the dead polar bear? (LOL)

  419. Smokey says:

    OK Greg, you win! A dead polar bear is sufficient evidence of climate disruption. You have finally convinced me. Now if you will excuse me, I have an urgent appointment with my astrologer.

    [/s]

  420. Myrrh says:

    Greg House says:
    March 20, 2012 at 7:45 pm
    Myrrh says:
    March 20, 2012 at 6:36 pm

    As for the central England temp records – it is a good indication of state of play of climate changes,
    =================================================
    No problem with indications, generally there are a lot of things, that might more or less indicate something or not, but at the moment, when someone derives a “colder world” out of such an indication, I want to see this “colder world” proven. Since they talk about “global temperature” I want it to be proven, that the “global temperature” at that times was lower than now. If they can not do that, then they can not reasonably talk about colder world 300 years ago or generally in the past.

    They may of course say “we do not know about the whole world, but the Central England was colder”, no problem. Although in this case I might ask them to prove, that they have a representative sample of indicators or that they used a correct method to calculate “Central England Temperature”, but this is another story.

    Science, good science, begins and ends with observation, and in a subject like global climate that is first of all obtained by gathering as much such indications as one can to build up a picture and temperature records are only a small part of the wealth of information we have gathered, (and we’d be better served here if the bozos hadn’t spent the last few decades tampering with these, which tampering kicked off in New Zealand organised by CRU). We have added to local observations globally through deliberate record keeping and through descriptions via historical events contemporaneously noted, what can only be described as mind-blowing wealth of information as the infant Science organised itself to think about what it is seeing and not seeing and to deliberately gather information in pursuit of greater understanding – in a handful of centuries that has grown like topsy with the accompanying necessary division into areas of specialisation and we through general education and the spread of knowledge by improved communication are now in the privileged position of the polymath of old if we want to be, as this blog indicates a great many do. “We” can now with great confidence give an excellent account of global climate changes – going back billions of years..

    Asking for proof outside of the context in which we have the information isn’t really very helpful. What we have is the still with boundless energy teenage geology at the forefront of information gathering into which we can fit our still growing knowledge of biology, chemistry, astronomy and so on – practically every field of science has some contribution to make in this subject of global climate change, and already has. We can with great confidence point to the central England temperature record as the precis indicator globally because we can in context fit it in and can fit into it, the wealth of knowledge we now have of global climate through the ages; knowing sufficiently well enough what it’s been and how it works to be able to do this. Which is why there were so many from the start who saw through the IPCC manipulations of real world sciences and general knowledge – what we’re seeing is the collation of information from those in the various disciplines and interests having already falsified the IPCC claims in their own field, now contributing to the spread of their proofs falsifying those claims; the Hockey Stick is broken..

    While we can’t tell, yet, exactly what will happen next in global climate or even locally, patterns are emerging from the knowledge we have and still being gathered that we’re in the all too brief period of a few thousand years of interglacial and in the end times of that. We know we don’t know enough to be accurate as to exactly when and how this comes to an end and we begin our next around 100,000 year stint in the grip of our present Ice Age which is our normal climate globally by all the information we have about this, our interglacials brief respites from these much harsher conditions for vast areas of the globe. Because we know how little we know even given our now far greater knowledge at the present time, we know we don’t know what will happen next – that’s the required default position in any science discipline, which itself is based on the general default position of intelligent rational thinking. Our whole Ice Age could end tomorrow.

    Science as a discipline is forbidden promoting speculation as if proven fact, that isn’t a restraint on speculation, but on conclusions out of speculation. For science to work it must have the freedom to speculate, to think inside and outside the box and any number of seemingly impossible things, but, unless and until any such speculation is amenable to the restrictions Science imposes on itself, it cannot call itself science.

    There have always been charlatans who’ve claimed they have knowledge of cause and effect, but they are also charlatans who claim that unless something is proved and replicable that is not fact…. These hijack Science as much as they who demand belief in unproven speculations or manipulated data. Science above all is the freedom of creative thinking about the natural world, the self imposed constraints are not a hindrance to that, but to misuse of it in describing the properties and process of the natural world, which includes ourselves.

    All this to say that to this end Science demands that any actual claims made are falsifiable. This doesn’t shut out exploration in Science or the inclusion of information found such as the central England temperature records, nor does it shut out those suggesting flimsy hypothesese or even those proposing revelations like the Higgs.., all included in Science in context, but it does shut out those who’d hi-jack Science pretending proof when as Smokey puts it, they don’t even have a hypothesis but only unscientific conjecture.

    That these warmists, catastrophic and otherwise, have now hi-jacked the scientific bodies who should be upholding the principles makes it difficult for the general public to see the scam for what it is, but that was their intention all along. The warmists generally just don’t want to take on board that Science has alreadyshut them out, that they have nothing to say to real Science because they’re peddling junk passing itself off a science and that’s been shown conclusively, they just don’t want to give up their position of power and influence – however, they’re not entirely excluded, they’re included as specimens in the study of mankind..

  421. Myrrh says:

    For interest:
    ‘AGW? I refute it THUS!’: Central England Temperatures 1659 to 2009
    If there’s anyone left you know who STILL believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, you might want to show them this chart.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2010/01/Centralenglandtemperature.-355×288.png

    The Central England Temperature dataset is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.” Climate Cycles Change provides the analysis.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/

  422. Greg House says:

    Myrrh says:
    March 22, 2012 at 11:43 am

    The Central England Temperature dataset is the oldest in the world – with 351 years of temperature records drawn from “multiple weather stations located both in urban and rural areas of England, which is considered a decent proxy for Northern Hemisphere temperatures – not perfect, but decent.”
    =================================
    Myrrh, you are welcome to make us familiar with the SCIENTIFIC method of determination whether a region can be considered a proxy for a much larger region.

    We are talking about science here, aren’t we?

    Beyond science everybody may consider whatever they want, but selling scientifically unproven considerations as science is not good.

    The same goes for the existing network of thermometers. Is it representative for the areas where there is no thermometer? If yes, why? Because it is “considered” so?

  423. Evan Green says:

    … Next, the Professor says I made “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Yet he does not mention a single one in his article, which really amounts to mere hand-waving. He then asserts that I have “no interest whatsoever in pursuing a truly scientific approach”. …
    ~ Mr. Monckton ~

    Mr. Monckton, I’ve noticed a disturbing yet very predictable pattern. On one hand, you complain that critics don’t list the already well know detail of errors and misleading information that form a significant portion of your climate presentations – you’ve made similar complaints multiple time in the past. On the other hand, when someone like Mr. Peter Hadfield confronts you with those details and with solid evidence to support his criticism, you chose to avoid directly addressing the issues raised. A WUWT thread was setup for direct engagement between you and Mr. Hadfield concerning the details of your “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Your method of avoidance in that case? … You’ve apparently chosen not to engage at all, despite promising to do so by way of email to Mr. Watts.

    Here is Peter Hadfield ‘s just released open letter to you, in video form, requesting return to engagement on the details, as you promised.

  424. Smokey says:

    Evan Green,

    Why does pothole fear a live debate with Lord Monckton? Becuase the truth is that he runs and hides out from any real debate, instead emitting his one-sided propaganda.

    So let’s have a real, live debate between Lord Monckton and chicken-boi pothole. What are you and the pothole afraid of? The truth?

  425. Greg House says:

    Smokey says:
    March 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    So let’s have a real, live debate between Lord Monckton and chicken-boi pothole.
    ======================================
    Do not expect much from this debate, Smokey. Lord Monckton will not touch the 2 core issues: the capability of CO2 of causing a significant warming and the calculations of warming. He can beat the guy, but it will not change anything, because the main lever the warmists use will remain in place: “CO2 driven warming leading to the (catastrophic) climate change”. So they will continue use that lever. At most they will admit some minor errors, like the one about Himalayas glaciers, that is all.

  426. Evan Green says:

    Smokey says: March 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    Evan Green,
    Why does pothole fear a live debate with Lord Monckton? Becuase the truth is that he runs and hides out from any real debate, instead emitting his one-sided propaganda.

    So let’s have a real, live debate between Lord Monckton and chicken-boi pothole. What are you and the pothole afraid of? The truth?

    Live debates are too short in duration, too limited in depth, and too high in rhetoric. Monckton is all about rhetorical, not the truth. Yesterday, Mr Hadfield posted an open video-letter to Mr. Monckton asking him to engage in the written debate that he promised to participate in … that is before Monckton reneged. I posted Mr. Hadfield’s open letter in my last post but the mod on duty then chose to edit it out. I’ll try again in a different format. Take a look.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54?feature=watch

    The question for you, Smokey, is: Why is Mr. Monckton so frightened oft debating Mr. Hadfield in a documented, in-depth, immediately verifiable fashion?

    REPLY: Apparently Mr. Hadfield hasn’t noticed the U.S. tour Monckton is on now, having been on a similar tour, I wouldn’t have time either. Such travel tours can be grueling. While I can’t speak for Monckton, given what I’ve noticed that Hadfield never seems to be satisfied with anything said by Monckton, and continues with his one sides video “debate” that has no debate actually in it, only pronouncements, I probably wouldn’t waste any further time on him either. Now watch, Hadfield will take this statement and put it in another video, with the usual “ah-ha’s!”. I gave Hadfield his opportunity here (even though I was under no obligation to do so) and he keeps wanting more. That’s a sign of an attention seeker. Hadfield demanded Monckton respond in the venue he chose, here, Monckton did, and Hadfield wasn’t satisfied. I say its time for Hadfield and Monckton to go one on one in public. If Hadfield has the courage to step out of his comfort zone of attack videos he and he alone controls, that would be interesting then. After all, Hadfield insists its all about facts, and thus he shouldn’t be afraid of openly debating Monckton in public where a moderator manages it. Seems fair to me. – Anthony

  427. Evan Green says:

    REPLY: Apparently Mr. Hadfield hasn’t noticed the U.S. tour Monckton is on now, having been on a similar tour, I wouldn’t have time either. … – Anthony

    Hogwash. Mr. Monckton has reserved plenty of time for multiple posts and interaction on WUWT alone. If Monckton can’t rely rhetorical flare and is, rather, forced to address issues on their own merits in a documented, in-depth, back-and-forth, verifiable way, he’s left exposed. It’s that simple. It’s Mr. Monckton who reneged on the two sided debate..

    REPLY: Hogwash yourself Mr. “Green”. Hadfield wants in-depth, drag on for days, sorts of affairs, and the WUWT posts here are fleeting missives done in between tour duties. When I was at the presentation at Sacramento, Monckton’s time was monopolized by everyone.

    Hadfield should come out of his speleological cave (Monkcton’s humorous reference to potholer54 that went over Hadfield’s head, and Hadfield took it as an ad hom instead of the wit that it was) and join Monckton on the dais. Hadfield won’t, because it is outside of his comfort zone. I had a heck of a time just getting Hadfield to write a blog post since he insists on working in video where he can control everything.

    Hadfield attacks Monckton in his presentations before a live audience, something I’m quite familiar a sa live broiadcaster with and difficult to pull off perfect ever time. Hadfield should join Monckton in the venue he attacks him in.

    The real question: aren’t you really Peter Hadfield using a proxy server in Phoenix using a fake name, fake email, and fake location to hide yourself while trying to goad me or Monckton into something? – Anthony

  428. Evan Green says:

    … The real question: aren’t you really Peter Hadfield using a proxy server in Phoenix using a fake name, fake email, and fake location to hide yourself while trying to goad me or Monckton into something? – Anthony

    Wow. Agitated to the point of multiple misspellings and conspiracy theory. Impressive. No, Mr. Watts, I assure you I’m not Mr. Hadfield. I’m sure Mr. Hadfield is perfectly willing to wait for a lull in Mr. Monckton’s schedule. The problem is that Monckton has explicitly stated his intention of non-reply. You seem compelled to defend Mr. Monckton’s renege … why? As I stated in another thread, you want “showtime” not truth … All hat, no Cattle.

    REPLY:LOL! I’m not the one doing the faking here. I noticed you ducked the other questions about all the other fakery I pointed out . All hat no cattle, indeed. Since you are using a fake persona and email, in violation of our blog policy, you’ll not be welcome to post any further. – Anthony

  429. Greg House says:

    To the issue “live debate vs. blog debate”. I would like to suggest a sort of compromise.

    What about a live debate with a moderator, but with clearly outlined and published questions, not just topics, which both debaters would agree upon in advance?

  430. Smokey says:

    Greg House,

    That’s how real debates are conducted. There is a specific Question that is debated, with a Moderator and debate rules.

    Here is a good example, with a long tradition:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/lord-monckton-wins-global-warming-debate-at-oxford-union

    IMHO, potholer54 would get slaughtered in a formal debate with Lord Monckton.

  431. Hugh Pepper says:

    Smokey et al, please understand that debates aren’t football games. A conversation is a process of moving toward truth, which often gets distorted by unbalanced presentation, and inflamed rhetoric. There are some people who regard conversation as opportunities to persuade, and they can be quite uncivil, even bullyish. Your hero Monckton resorts to this technique when pressed or challenged. Truth is the first casualty of this inflamed process.

    The climate debate requires dispassionate discussion, and we should all be prepared to engage with open minds. MAny of the climate change proponents have been demonized and their work trivialized. Michael Mann, for example, and other scientists who has made significant contributions to our knowledge of climate dynamics, have suffered this fate. Accordingly, it is very difficult to engage in a reasonable conversation, when most of the research concerning climate is relegated to the trash can, even before the debate begins.

  432. Smokey says:

    Evan Green says:

    “Live debates are too short in duration, too limited in depth…” &etc.

    Excuses, excuses, and more excuses. Face it. potholer is a chicken. Anthony generously gave him what he wanted, but now he wants more, and he wants to set the agenda again. He had his chance. Now it’s time for a real, moderated debate with Lord Monckton. But the chicken won’t debate. And now you’re carrying his water for him. Why? Are you his big brother? Tell the chicken to man up and debate.

    . . .

    Hugh Pepper:

    Quit trying to change the subject. You claimed you had seven citations verifying Mann’s MBH98/99 papers. I say you were fibbing. If not, I callenge you to produce your 7 references.

  433. Gail Combs says:

    The Pompous Git says:
    March 20, 2012 at 6:12 pm
    ….Rocky, I wish I were as sanguine about this as you. It seems clear that The Team can break the laws of the land with impunity. In a world where rationality prevailed, the miscreants at the IPCC, CRU, GISS etc would not be above the law. In the battle for mind-share where it counts — in Congress and Parliaments — they are not losing. This saddens me…
    ___________________________
    It more than saddens me, it frightens me. “….This in turn led to the legalized murder of millions in the death camps of the 20thC.”

    From what I have seen truth and the welfare of the people they represent means less than nothing to our representatives in government. They are only in office for Wealth, Fame and Power and could care less if they destroy our countries and economies while attaining them.

    People like Lord Monckton are very few and far between. It is only the internal squabbling about power that has saved us from a totalitarian world government thus far not truth.

    I just hope that there continues to be no “Honor among Thieves” and they continue to disagree on how to divide the lambs.

  434. Greg House says:

    Guys, I have another idea. A sort of hybrid blog-live-video debate.

    It goes like that: H. states something to a certain issue in an up to 1 minute long video and publishes it on the youtube. M. replies with his video, also up to 1 minute long. Each debater may publish op to 3 videos on the same issue. There could be like 10-20 issues.

    This way each debater could give well prepared arguments and at the same time we could enjoy watching them talking.

  435. Smokey says:

    Greg House,

    No. Maybe next time. But potholer wanted to set the agenda, and Anthony gave him what he wanted. In the interest of basic fairness, this time Monckton is entitled to decide the forum.

    I’ve never met the Viscount and don’t presume to speak for him. But the one receiving the challenge in a duel [Rule 16] has the choice of weapons, no? Potholer got his way; he was the challenger, but that doesn’t mean he always calls the shots. It’s Monckton’s turn now. But potholer is a chicken. He will not debate his Lord on a level playing field.

  436. Myrrh says:

    Hmm, looks like they could be censoring my posts now. Are censoring, so am posting it here for them to read as it has for some reason accepted my rebuke and link here: http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/#comment-20196

    Eric Adler March 24, 2012 at 12:18 am | Permalink | Reply
    Myrrh,
    In your above rant you said:

    “As I said, unless you know real physics you won’t understand me. Try taking my posts to your real science department – ask them what they think of the comic cartoon energy budget …”

    Here is what a real science department thinks of Trenberth’s diagram.

    oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/weather/weather1.htm

    ‘The Heat Budget,
    source Keihl & Trenberth, J. Amer. Meteorological Soc. 78(2): 197-208.
    The science department of Texas A&M likes the Trenberth Heat Budget and uses it to instruct its students.
    ===============

    I meant a real science department, where they study to know how to actually make something work – the kind of science department that if they get it wrong in the real world it actually matters.. Do you understand the difference? Applied science, where they know the difference between heat and light, where they know what gravity is, where they know that our atmosphere isn’t empty space with hard dots of the imaginary ideal gas rushing around at great speeds unrestrained by gravity, where they understand convection, where they need to know that gases can separate out..

    You’re really not paying attention here to what I’m saying. I think it’s because you don’t know any applied science at all and have no reference point.

    “A fool is someone who doesn’t learn from his mistakes”

    Quite so.

    “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts” – Richard Feynman

    That’s your mistake – you haven’t explored the physics for yourself.

    Fred – Our bodies are around 20% carbon, the rest mainly water. Every time you breathe in your own body is producing enough carbon dioxide to be around 6% of the air in your lungs, we can’t get enough from the atmosphere, we use 2% and breathe out 4%. Plants also breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, it’s during photosynthesis they breathe in carbon dioxide and use the Sun’s visible light energy to convert to chemical energy, not heat energy, to make sugars. We are Carbon Life forms. Carbon dioxide is our basic food of all life from plants being able to use it to create food for growth and also extract the oxygen to release into the atmosphere.

    We need this amount of carbon dioxide in our breathing to transport oxygen efficiently in the blood and more, to keep our ph balance and so on. When we drop to dangerous levels, around 4% in each lungful, we can’t use the oxygen we’ve also breathed in. For example, if someone is in shock and hyperventilating and having difficulty breathing, it isn’t the lack of oxygen that’s creating the problem, it’s the lack of carbon dioxide so the oxygen can’t be used – our bodies immediately try to limit our breathing to stop it being breathed out. The way to deal with it is to breathe into a paper bag to give the carbon dioxide back to your lungs which desperately need it.

    THE IMPORTANCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE TO YOUR HEALTH
    http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html

    At the moment there is a concerted effort by those who have invented this fisics to stop you thinking about it. They like nothing better than you CAGW and AGW’s waste your time arguing about the degree of warming from carbon dioxide – then you don’t think to look behind the curtain, because you don’t know there is a curtain.

    If you want an introduction to who is pulling the strings, http://www.real-science.com/

    This isn’t about science – this is about taking control of the population. What this science fiction fisics does is dumb down the oik population. Knowledge and those with knowledge have always been the first targets, think book burning, but history probably isn’t your subject either so you might not know that. But a warning here, this has been in place for several decades now and what you’ll find if you look behind the curtain is not a pretty sight.

    If you think your neighbour is your equal, then the antidote is to strive to get back your real heritage, Common Law, here’s an introduction: http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_british_constitution.htm

    And I’ll leave the discussion with this. If you can’t answer the question I’ve asked, try asking yourself why you can’t find any explanation if the “science is settled”.

    How does Carbon Dioxide heat the Earth?

  437. Bill Tuttle says:

    Smokey says:
    March 23, 2012 at 3:59 pm
    Hugh Pepper:
    Quit trying to change the subject. You claimed you had seven citations verifying Mann’s MBH98/99 papers. I say you were fibbing. If not, I callenge you to produce your 7 references.

    I amused myself over the past few days Googling “seven citations verifying MBH98/99″ and got this:

    “Other researchers have successfully implemented our methodology based on the information provided in our articles [see e.g. Zorita, E., F. Gonzalez-Rouco, and S. Legutke,..] (from an e-mail reply to Steve McIntyre) and this:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/millennium-camera.pdf (from a paper written by — *koff* — Michael Mann.

    Two statements, both from Mann, saying that *one* paper written by three researchers had described verifying his results…

  438. Smokey says:

    Bill Tuttle,

    Hugh Pepper has no shame. He makes preposterous statements, then when called on them he hides out for a day or two, then he comes back with more baseless nonsense.

    I also note that Hugh Pepper had no response to my point that as the challenged party, Lord Monckton now has the right to pick his weapon of choice. In the past it has always been a formal, moderated debate with a science-based Question. Thus, no ad hominem attacks are allowed.

    Monckton has always won his debates based on scientific facts. Therfore, his potential adversaries like potholer chicken out. They are cowards who are afraid to debate him. Basic fairness requires that this time around, it is Monckton’s turn to set the debate agenda, since potholer got to set his own agenda as the original challenger. However, fairness, courage, and honesty are alien to the climate alarmist crowd. If I’m wrong, then let’s have Peter Hadfield go toe to toe with someone who knows his facts backward and forward.

    Will Hadfield debate Monckton? He will… if he’s not a chicken.

  439. Hugh Pepper says:

    Smokey you, and your champion, Monckton,are the masters of the ad hominem attacks. This discussion is not about who is “chicken” and is not. It is, as you correctly point out, about truth. Hadfield, Sinclair and Abrahams have calmly shredded Monckton’s assertions without ambiguity. There is really nothing left for the Lord to debate.

  440. Smokey says:

    Hugh Pepper,

    Quit changing the subject. You made the assertion that you had seven (7) references confirming MBH98/99. You have been repeatedly challenged to produce them.

    Further, this discussion is most certainly about the cowardice of Monckton’s attackers. They have zero interest in science, because they know what they’re emitting is pseudo-science. Hadfield, Sinclair, Abraham and you all have one thing in common: you are all terrified of debating Monckton in a fair, moderated debate setting. You are all chickens, the lot of you. If not, then let’s have an honest debate. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for any of you to screw up your non-existent courage. Because you are, after all, chickens.

Comments are closed.