Guest post by The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
UPDATE: A new condensed rebuttal from Monckton for easier reading is available below.
Once again I have much to thank Anthony Watts and his millions of readers for. My inbox has been full of kind messages from people who have now had the chance to dip into my point-by-point evisceration of Associate Professor Abraham’s lengthy, unprovoked, and widely-circulated personal attack on me.
Latest news – sent to me by two readers of Anthony’s outstanding blog – is that Abraham, inferentially on orders from the Trustees of his university acting on advice from their lawyers, has (without telling me) re-recorded his entire 83-minute talk to take out the very many direct accusations of “misrepresentation”, “complete fabrication”, “sleight of hand” etc. etc. that he had hurled at me in the original version of his talk. For instance, he now seems to have appreciated his unwisdom in having accused me of having “misrepresented” the work of scientists I had not even cited in the first place.
Taking out his direct libels has reduced the length of his talk by 10 minutes. To my own lawyers, Abraham’s retreat will be of interest, because it is in effect an admission that his talk is libelous, and that he and his university know it is libelous. Though his new version corrects some of the stupider and more egregious errors in the original, many crass errors remain, including errors of simple arithmetic that are surely disfiguring in a “scientist” presuming to correct mine.
At several points in the new version, Abraham rashly persists in misrepresenting me to third-party scientists, getting hostile quotations from them in response to what I had not said, and using them against me. He thus persists even though – having received my long letter detailing his defalcations a month ago, long before he recorded the new version of his talk – he can no longer legitimately maintain that any of his numerous remaining libels is a mere inadvertence.
Plenty of libels indeed remain in the new version of Abraham’s talk: he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me. In the new version of Abraham’s talk, every remaining libel will be regarded by the courts as malice, because he was told exactly what libels he had perpetrated, and was given a fair chance to retract and apologize, but he has wilfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels. And when the courts find that his talk was and remains malicious, then he will have thrown away the one defense that might otherwise have worked for him – that in US law a public figure who sues for libel must be able to prove malice. I can prove it, in spades.
Several of you have posted up comments asking to see the full (and entertaining) correspondence between me, the professor, his university, and its lawyers. The ever-splendid Joanne Nova is kindly hosting the correspondence, so that we can spread the word as widely as possible across the Web to counter the malevolence of the many climate-extremist websites that are now ruing their earlier and too hasty endorsement of Abraham’s libels. Not one of them contacted me to check anything before describing me as “the fallen idol of climate skepticism”, “a sad joke”, etc., etc.
May I ask your kind readers once more for their help? Would as many of you as possible do what some of you have already been good enough to do? Please contact Father Dennis J. Dease, President of St. Thomas University, djdease@stthomas.edu, and invite him – even at this eleventh hour – to take down Abraham’s talk altogether from the University’s servers, and to instigate a disciplinary inquiry into the Professor’s unprofessional conduct, particularly in the matter of his lies to third parties about what I had said in my talk at Bethel University eight months ago? That would be a real help.
It is sometimes a cold and lonely road we follow in pursuit of the truth, and the support of Anthony and his readers has been a great comfort to me. Thank you all again.
====================
See also: A detailed rebuttal to Abraham from Monckton
And
A new condensed rebuttal for easier reading is here
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer best quality 000-152 prep resources to help you pass 1z0-051 and HP0-D07 exam in easy and fast way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are many other “plots” that you could be “unmasking” other than this global warming “conspiracy” that has been going on for 150 years or so.
Who shot JFK?
Where are the space aliens at area 51?
Sept 11 is a government plot.
AIDS was made by “crafty” Pentagon scientists to exterminate blacks, etc.
Monckton rebutted Dr. Abraham twice. Why can’t Abraham rebutt Monckton twice?
Monckton is a mouthpiece for the Russian propaganda and probably Gazprom.
However, all of a sudden the Party Line is changing. Instead of putting Monckton on Russia Today, the RIANOVOSTI are quoting American government scientists.
Last winter, Monckton even said on Russia Today that “Russia is twenty times more democratic than Britain.” Russia is ruled by the former Chairman of the Board of the monopoly Gazprom. Putin is head of the ruling Yedinstvo party. Gazprom owns much of the media.
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2010/07/lord-christipher-monckton-issues.html
When the party line changes, the Russians throw their stooges under the bus.
Izvestiya (3-19-92) famously reported:
[KGB chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ ‘crafty’ plots were fabricated in KGB offices.
During the 1980s, the Soviet state security, the KGB, orchestrated the infamous “AIDS made in America” campaign of defamation against American scientists via their media stooges. In 1987, the famous Soviet physicist Roald Sagdeev, who recently criticized Attorney General Cuccinelli’s persecution of climate scientist Michael Mann, publically denounced the pseudoscientific AIDS conspiracy theory, with a little urging from a President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz.
Unlike Virginia’s Attorney General Cuccinelli, America’s Secretary of State Shultz, a Republican, defended America’s scientists from those who would defame them and smear them in front of the whole world. Mr. Schultz appreciated how important American science is for the progress of the entire world.
Cuccinelli calls himself a “conservative,” but there is nothing conservative about destroying American scientists and discrediting their research research with fabricated “fraud” charges. There is nothing conservative about risking the future of our nation and the whole world.
As the New York Times (11-5-87) reported:
Soviet scientists have disavowed charges in the Soviet-sponsored press that the AIDS virus was artificially cultivated at a secret American military base.
The scientists, Roald Sagdeyev and Vitali Goldansky, publicly distanced the Soviet Academy of Sciences from the accusations about American responsibility for acquired immune deficiency syndrome. They said they had protested the appearance of Soviet articles that repeated those contentions.
The disavowal was contained in Izvestia, the Soviet government newspaper, on Friday. The timing of the article by the scientists suggested that it had been written in response to complaints raised by Secretary of State George P. Shultz in an Oct. 23 meeting with Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, about Soviet discussion of the AIDS issue. Mr. Shultz told Mr. Gorbachev that Moscow had been peddling ”bum dope” on the subject.
Charles Redman, a spokesman for the State Department, said the United States welcomed ”this authoritative Soviet disavowal of the false charges that the U.S. is responsible for the creation of the AIDS virus.”
”We note in particular that this disavowal appeared in the official Soviet press.”
A few years later, Izvestiya (3-19-92) famously reported:
[KGB chief Yevgeni Primakov] mentioned the well known articles printed a few years ago in our central newspapers about AIDS supposedly originating from secret Pentagon laboratories. According to Yevgeni Primakov, the articles exposing US scientists’ ‘crafty’ plots were fabricated in KGB offices.
Monckton doesn’t give one specific example of a libel that was removed or remains in John Abraham’s presentation.
Monckton has revised his presentation two or three times. Maybe he is the one removing libels. You can’t sue in America if you are a public figure who appears on Russian TV and claims Russia is 20 times more democratic than Britain.
Monckton comes across to me a a pompous buffoon. Dr. Abraham comes across as a scholar. I have listened to both of his informative presentations many times. Monckton misrepresents his own sources, according to Abraham.
The Russian media has published an article about the problem of pseudoscientists and charlatans who are pretending to be scientists. After all, these are the folks whose ideology was called “scientific” Marxism-Leninism.” The Russians aren’t putting Monckton on the Kremlin channel Russia Today any more like they did before the Copenhagen global warming conference.
The Russians are writing about global warming. They are citing U.S. government sources, and Eduard Kruglyakov, the head of the Pseudoscience Commission at the Russian Academy of Sciences is complaining about pseudoscientific nonsense:
“Rasputin-style infiltration into the upper echelons of power remains a problem even in post-Soviet Russia. ‘In the Kremlin there were whole groups of—I’m scared of calling them charlatans—but mystics, astrologists. These were prominent people—generals. The 1990s were an analogue of Rasputin’s time,’ said [Eduard Kruglyakov, the head of the Pseudoscience Commission at the Russian Academy of Sciences]. Several appointments made by Boris Yeltsin suggested that he sought advice from odd sources. For instance, Yeltsin made General Georgi Rogozin, an ex-KGB officer and star-gazer, the deputy head of his Presidential Security Service. Rogozin led a team of 12 astrologers who would draw on their expertise to counsel the president.”—RIA Novosti (7-8-10)
The famous plasma physicist Roald Sagdeev–who denounced the KGB for the AIDS lie on behalf of the Soviet Academy of Sciences—has signed the petition to support Dr. Michael Mann.
barry,
Thanx for doing your part in getting this thread over 300 comments. We’re almost there.☺
I remind you that I wanted to verify: “…if there were leading questions asked by Abraham, let’s see all the relevant communications between him and the others. Until then, you’re just throwing out gossip based on hearsay, and it doesn’t pass the smell test.” So far, all you’ve got is Abraham’s gossip.
Snapple, thanx to you, too. Anyway, you say that Ken Cuccinelli is…
You’ve been in KGB land way too long.
The Attorney General has simply filed a brief for discovery. There are no fraud charges filed. Sorry about the death of your strawman. It took you three consecutive posts to set him up — and two short sentences to finish him off.
For goodness sakes. Universities provide assets to study and debate science.
I agree with most of the points Monckton makes. I am definitely a skeptic. And maybe Monckton was wronged.
But in general, give your head a shake. PLEASE. This is what universities do. We should have more debate, not less. If this was libel, then Monckton can proceed with the courts if he can’t encourage Abraham to take it down.
I don’t want universities intimidated into removing their (associate) professors’ public statements.
Were the Russians involved when:
Willie Soon (Harvard) displayed graphs from the Arctic and Japan clearly correlating temperature to solar activity;
Richard Lindzen (MIT) calculated significantly lower CO2 sensitivity- and Arrhenius lowered his own before he died;
CERN decided to fund the CLOUD experiment based on Svensmark’s testing and cloud/temperature correlation data;
The British Court determined “An Inconvenient Truth” had nearly 30 mistakes;
The American public placed Global Warming last on a survey of problems;
Abraham made dozens of demonstrably false statements (for example, Monckton being in disagreement with “ALL” scientific organizations- which he has now modified).
Let’s see how the Aerosols Conference goes, and then talk about CO2 then.
One can only home the buffoon Monckton pushes forward with his threat. The idea of this worm twisting in the bright light of the truth is just too much to relish.
He (Monckton) would be well advised to be careful for what he wishes for.
Abraham displays portions of the emails, including his own questions to the authors, and references the studies he cites. He goes to great lengths to dig up recent papers on the topics Monckton covers to compare with.
Even better, he encourages anyone to email him with questions about his sources. Anyone curious about the to and fro can actually do something about it. You could email Abraham yourself, Smokey, assuming you actually want answers to the doubts you’re projecting.
Your characterization of Abraham’s vid is quite remote from what I saw. I’m not throwing out hearsay. I’m posting info directly from the presentation, and linking to it so anyone can check on it.
Once again, did you even view Abraham’s video? Fess up, now.
I’ve been reading Monckton’s condensed rebuttal. I picked a rebuttal at random and checked on it – the one on Beaufort sea ice.
So I checked the video presentation and dug up the paper for myself. I discovered that the paper concludes with the seasonal observation in the context of long-term change.
In the video, Abraham says that, as the paper seems to be at odds with what Monckton is saying, Abraham may have misinterpreted the paper. So he contacts the author, who says, quite explicitly, that Monckton is wrong [about increasing Beaufort sea ice], and refers Abraham back to the paper.
Abraham’s question to the author is included in the screen shot of the email exchange. In this case, all the information is there. Monckton is wrong.
Check out all the information and see if there’s a case for ‘libel’.
references;
Monckton’s condensed rebuttal, page 7 [PDF].
Abraham’s presentation, slides 15, 16 and 17.
The scientific paper mentioned by both of them – Barber et al (2009) [PDF].
I’m conscious that I might be interfering with a petition for censorship by discussing facts. If there is a thread where the substance is being discussed, a link would be gratefully appreciated.
I also look forward to Monckton suing.
It’s something voyeuristic in me I guess.
I’ve never witnessed a case of self immolation before.
Yo,
I thought I’d jump back in this fray in hopes of being the 300th comment.
Straight from NOAA. June 2010 was the 8th hottest since 1934 if you want to use this web site. Shouldn’t it be number one if it were getting hotter???
Since 2002, there is a downward “hockey stick” trend and matches my work on sunspot minimum.
Direct from the NOAA web site.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary June 2010
The average temperature in June 2010 was 71.4 F. This was 2.2 F warmer than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 8th warmest June in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. 3.33 inches of precipitation fell in June. This was 0.44 inches more than the 1901-2000 average, the 17th wettest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.02 inches per decade.
Note: NASA and NOAA didn’t mention one thing about Sunspots or man-made global warming.
So, it is time for collective breathing and cow discharge to regenerate the heat we need to get this “hockey stick” pointing back up.
There ain’t no sunspots to speak of. Thus, this winter will be “Oh, so cold!”
Put another log on the fire!
Most Sincerely.
Paul
I am a retired scientist (chemist) and now I have the time, have just started getting interested in the AGW debate. I looked at Lord Monckton’s presentation, Abraham’s reply and I read ALL of Monckton’s reply to Abraham. I cannot understand why Abraham has suffered any criticism about the way he makes his points. He seems to make valid points about what he sees are the many inaccuracies in Monckton’s original presentation. At this point I was not sure who was correct so I read all of Monckton’s reply. There was very little scientific discussion in his reply, so I’m still not sure.
I have just read all the posts on this forum and I’m very interested in the post from Quentin Wallace dated 15 June where he points out what he thinks are errors in Monckton’s reply.
It is now 15th July and for a month nobody has questioned Quentin Wallace’s accuracy. I’m starting to think maybe Abraham is right after all? I would like to see some informed debate on the point Quentin Wallace makes in his post because I’m starting to believe Monckton is very wrong.
So, Barry, I went ahead and reviewed Abraham’s presentation and Monckton’s response.
In his presentation, Monckton showed a graph of 1991 to 2004 with an increasing trend line for sea ice thickness in the Beaufort sea. (The date is germane because Al Gore claimed in An Inconvenient Truth, shot in 2005, that 4 bears drowned in the Beaufort Sea by having to swim up to 60 miles due to melting sea ice.)
Abraham then says Monckton says Beaufort sea ice is growing and adds “I’m not making this up” (obviously since the data is in Monckton’s presentation) and then says he doesn’t know where the data comes from (although the source is on the previous slide, and he never asks Monckton about it). So he then cherry picks a paper from Barber et. al. about sea ice in the SUMMER of 2009- with no trend graph included to compare to Monckton’s- and goes on to ask Barber about Monckton’s presentation without giving Barber any of Monckton’s data or sources.
Meanwhile, the reality is that ice is GROWING in the Antarctic. The Polar Bear population has INCREASED from approximately 5000 in the 1950s to 2o-25000 today (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/). NONE of the models today accurately predict temperature. And Abraham, instead of taking an opportunity to close the gaps of understanding with Monckton on data, has obfuscated it further- with you happy to spread the confusion.
But I strongly suspect that, within a couple years, there will be models that incorporate clouds and their formation, and much of the uncertainty will be resolved. So whatever actions are taken- or not- between now and then can be revisited. And from all the data I have seen that hasn’t already been debunked, nothing drastic will occur in those couple years.
Hi Dirk,
let’s review your points.
Monckton’s slide is labeled “Sea ice extent in the Beaufort Sea is growing”. That refers to coverage, not thickness. However, the graph refers to ‘sea ice draft’, which is the thickness of the ice under the water. Abraham has gone along with the sea ice thickness posit (rather than surface coverage as suggested by the title of Monckton’s graph), and provides an actual reference for his data.
The previous slide contains a reference to Monnett and Gleason (2006), which focuses on polar bears in the Beaufort Sea area. They provide no data for for sea ice thickness or extent, and have no graph like Monckton’s, or any graph of sea ice thickness in their paper. They do say:
http://www.alaskaconservationsolutions.com/acs/images/stories/docs/Polar%20Bears-ExtendedOpenWaterSwimmingMortality.pdf
The sea ice graph in Monkton’s slide, and the data for it, is unreferenced. You can click the above link to see if you can find it in the paper you believe provides that information.
There are no Polar Bears in Antarctica.
I should add that Monnett & Gleason’s paper analyses September sea ice conditions for polar bears, and focuses on pack ice edge distance to land, not the total draft for the Beaufort Sea area. Monckton’s graph, of monthly sea ice draft for the Beaufort Sea, is inappropriate to that discussion (and unreferenced), but it may explain why he is mixing up sea ice extent with thickness in the slide.
@Paul Pierett
You are making the error of confusing short-term and even single data points (weather) for long-term trends (climate).
To put your sunspot count in a climatic context, here is GISS temp data compared with sun spot activity compared since 1970.
Graph
As you can see, there are many points where the data are anti-correlated, and that the long term trends are opposite. So, not only is correlation broken (interannual variation), the Earth has been getting warmer while the sun has been getting cooler over the long (climatic) term.
Yesterday was warmer in Sydney than the day before, but I didn’t make the mistake of thinking that summer was arriving any time soon. You need more data to say much about changes in climate. 30 years is the classic period (though some here will argue you need longer than that), but for statistical purposes, 17 years is probably an absolute minimum regarding global temperatures. Possibly longer for regional (ie, the US temps your link is concerned with).
As I trace the steps from Monckton’s slide show to the studies it is based on myself, I am struck by the complete misrepresentation on some issues not covered by Abraham.
Monckton pushes the straw man that the MWP was a ‘real’ phenomenon. In fact, no paleoclimatologist dismisses the MWP phenomenon – even the ‘hockey stick’ authors discuss the magnitude, spatial coherence and duration of the MWP. So to begin with Monckton is making up an argument.
But does he provide references to papers on the global extent of the MWP? No, he cites a handful of papers that look at very localised temperature profiles. This is the stuff that underpins the questions on spatiality. Incredibly, he presents a graph from the paper Gupta et al (2005), which displays monsoon activity, not temperature. He has included it because the scientists mark ‘MWP’ on the time series – to prove that the MWP is ‘real’, as a way of rebutting his own straw man.
Here’s the paper [PDF].
As Abraham says, it would take a major thesis to prise fact from distortion in Monckton’s piece. I don’t agree with everything Abraham says, and find much of it under-explained. But having seen how raddled Monckton’s piece is with misinformation, I am starting to see why Abraham kept it simple. Unlacing Monckton’s contorted contrivances would make a painful experience for an audience. Going to the sources to get straightforward answers was the best way to keep an audience attentive, and the most effective way of cutting through the rhetorical knots.
Barry,
My greatest aggravation in this debate is each side picking its own data and then talking past each other.
Most “skeptics” will admit there has been some warming the past 100 years, but only in the past year are there “warmers” who now admit clouds have not been understood in the model and that the science is not settled as regards CO2 forcing.
Discussing and resolving the differences, instead of attacking the other side, should be the order of the day.
Hey Berry,
Info in nature.
My work is posted at nationalforestlawblog.com
October newsletter, under my name.
If one tracks one month through history or one day, it will match my charts.
Global warming alarmists and global warming deniers are in the same boat. Starting on page 27 of “Low Sunspot Activity Cools Global Warming” the charts sample the last century of climate change due to sunspot activity.
The last chart attempts to incorporate the fundamentals of global warming and global cooling.
Berry, like it is getting colder. Now, our winters have dropped an average of one half degree a year for the last ten years. Our over all temps, clearly 2 degrees. If the world temps are notching down.
Since 1999, using the web site shown, all temperatures are in a downward trend.
In 1911, Niagara Falls froze over due to a milder minimum that lasted four cycles and a sever drop in sunspot activity at the end of the cycle. Three years later there was one tropical storm for the whole season of 1914.
You can go to National Park web site and look at Glacier Bay and watch the recession of glaciers matching sunspot activity. It actually began at the end of the mini-ice age or the restart of sunspot activity. As noted, in.2002, glacier growth began. The person of the web site Ice Age Now has a whole list of growing glaciers.
The sample I used of June answered the typical global warming alarmists and news media, “It’s The Hottest June on Record.”. No, it is not.
If global warming was in place, if man made global warming was in place, the temperature trend since 1999 should still be rising.
The reason it is we are getting about 1 sunspot a week. We need 100s to maintain global warming. We need more than a 600 total sunspot mean for the rest of the cycle to stay where we are.
At that web site you will get an education not found elsewhere and has converted numerous scientists away from man made global warming and has some totally, royally angry at the Four Horsemen of the Global Warming Apocalypse.
Those four have fouled the water of climate science.
Sincerely,
Paul Pierett
Something to keep in mind,
What are the green house gases?
Water vapor
Ozone
Carbon dioxide
Methane.
Water reacts to temperatures more quickly than the others. If the air is cold enough, like Chicago in winter, you can throw boiling water into the air and it will form Ice before it hits the ground.
What happens to your body in the same circumstances if you have no clothes on. Small time delay, but in two hours, same result. So this water vapor is causing global warming.
Ozone. Most manufacturers in the US have Ozone EPA inspected meters on their roofs to measure Ozone emissions. The easiest source for ozone is Mother Earth during the summer months at 80 degrees. North Carolina’s critical Ozone measurements have dropped to none over the last 3 years. The Earth is cooling.
CO2. Unlike H2O which freezes at around 32 degrees F or 0 degrees C, CO2 requires PSI to convert to liquid under 70 degrees F. Above 70 degrees, very difficult to convert it to liquid; nearly always a gas. I don’t have my book, but around 22 degrees F at 300 PSI it converts to liquid and it needs, if I remember, a -69 degrees F to make the move to solid or Dry Ice.
Methane, another nice carbon combo.
How do these items warm the earth?
They don’t. They have to respond like we do to temperature and pressure.
How much heat and cold can you withstand naked?
How much pressure can you withstand diving into a pool of water until you must rush to the surface to relieve yourself of pressure?
The green house gases retain solar heat along with the Earth as a whole. If sunspot activity drops off, there is less solar heat to retain.
Then water vapor drops off which it is doing, causing world drought:
Ozone production is dropping off to safe levels, probably causing a hole in the ozone layer in the near future.
Due to the lack of water, precipitation, the CO2 in the soil pulled down by gravity, being heavier than Nitrogen, Oxygen and Hydrogen, will sit in the soil as plants die off.
If they fall into the ocean, some worry that they will cause the water to form acid.
How much does it take to make acid? With a good amount of pollution, we get acid rain and that kills our forest. Which combo of the four green house gases cause acid rain?
So why should we believe a scientists who theorizes that CO2 causes acid in sea water? Doesn’t sea plants need CO2?
We really have put too much into green house gases. We will discover soon, what scientists are starting to realize, they are overrated.
As a whole, the Earth and all its parts, take a while to cool down much as a human with no clothes on in the dead of winter. Equally, it takes a long time for the Earth and all its parts to warm up much a human suffering exposure to severe cold. .
Next round!
Paul
“JohnR says:
July 18, 2010 at 8:44 pm
….. I’m starting to believe Monckton is very wrong.”
This has to be one of the most cogent statments in this blog.
I agree that Abraham’s presentation is a joke, with its “appeals to authority” and “argumentum ad ignorantum” statements standing in for real logic – but I think that the Viscount’s threat of libel is misplaced.
US law very much disfavors libel as a cause of action for parties who have voluntarily stepped into the public pulpit and engaged in political (or politically-tinged scientific) debate.
After all, we have a First Amendment — unlike the UK. Here you silence your critics by out-arguing them, not by threatening them.
The legal discovery process can also be very hard on the plaintiff.
Plaintiffs in a libel suit (like this one would be if filed) almost always end up disappointed, and every judge will search for a way to deny legal damages or legal relief. It’s one of the the ways that our system is (very) different then the English system.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that Monckton cannot, in a million years, debunk the analytical points made by Quentin Wallace, and no one else can either.
Nor have they bothered to try.
Reiterate once again that, yes, I’m a skeptic. One could easily prove this by perusing my comments over the months and years especially during climate-gate and the Tony Abbott ascendancy, when I was in Australia and reading and commenting here frequently (under my first name).
However, in the interests of fairness and science, are we here too vested in a point of view or lacking in the mental faculties to decipher both strengths and weaknesses in our own arguments and representation of data?
I am not seeing a good faith effort from anyone here who is talking about how great Monckton and his rebuttal are to address Wallace’s fair criticisms. As far as I can see, on those points, Wallace is right.
Certainly no one has bothered to tell him how he is wrong despite him asking you repeatedly to do so — for over a month now.
Speaking of accuracy, I have made an error. It was obviously not a month since Quentin Wallace made his first comment on this thread. I took retired chemist JohnR’s timeframe without verifying it.
He made a reading error. It was July 15th, not June 15th, and that’s a big, important difference.
Nonetheless, our logic stands. Someone — like Christopher Monckton, the guest author of this blog post — should face up to the alleged Monckton errors Wallace uncovered, that no one here has undermined, and explain or retract them.