NOTE: Many new updates below.
A few people complained that Christopher Monckton’s rebuttal to Professor Abraham was a bit long, and a perhaps a bit hard to read due to it being jam packed with essential points.
I’m advised that a new version exists. Here then below, is a condensed and more tightly formatted version, for easier reading.
Click image below for the PDF file:
John Abraham’s presentation is here:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
(NOTE: He uses Adobe presenter – may not work on all browsers)
====================================
UPDATES:
Jo Nova has a good discussion on the entire issue:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/
=========================
From comments at ClimateProgress, this email address works for pro and con:
I sent an email in support of John Abraham to St. Thomas University and he responded with a request that indications of support for his efforts to debunk Monckton be sent to Dr Susan Alexander (slalexander@stthomas.edu), who is managing the University’s response to Monckton.
=========================
Whether you are pro or con, there is a signature gathering campaign over at Hot Topic in New Zealand, home of the new ETS tax. It reads like a who’s who of AGW activists.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/support-john-abraham/
Reports are that they won’t take opposing comments. Easy to test.
Condensed Cream of Monckton Soup.
Funny.
The label should be Cream of Abraham, because that’s what would happen if they met one on one.
The last time Gore saw Monckton the blood drained from his face in sheer terror.
Monckton of Benchley knows his stuff.
He’s a British Lord, you know.
Thanks!
The original rebuttal was indeed quite lenghty and not easy to read.
The truth must come out.
His Lordship makes many good points, as a commoner, I feel priveleged to read the musings of one with such a fine grasp of Science.
I am glad Lord Monckton has engaged in this question, and that he is on our side. Thank you Lord Monckton!
Normally I am not much for lordships, princes, kings and all that, but in this case I can make an exception. hehe.
You impress me. It is nice to see someone with such a memory, and such a clear mind.
I completely understand, why Christopher Monckton felt a need to make an example of a typical reprehensible representative of modern Academia. People like Christopher Monckton make me hope again that not everything is lost yet under the Moon.
And yet… I spent first half of my life battling liars and cockroaches in the former USSR. I would win against any individual liar or cockroach, no sweat. But year after year after year, I was getting more and more convinced that I didn’t want to die in this battle, overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of my enemies.
So. I live in a quiet valley now, in Colorado Rockies. Grass is green, air is fresh, sky is huge. But what is this constant swish and rustle coming from the East Coast and from the Left Coast? I know this sound well! There is no escape from the battle: cockroaches are coming.
The last time Gore saw Monckton the blood drained from his face in sheer terror.
Is that the only thing that drained?
I posted this story in the previous thread on Monckton. I want to post it here because it fits so well with what you said. This is a true story:
The Ambassador to Brittan was sent by George Washington to England. The Brits put a picture of George Washington in the outhouse specifically for his visit. They were all anxious, watching him, waiting for him to retire to the outhouse. He finally did. On returning they said to him, “Did you see George Washington in the outhouse? Isn’t that the right place for him?” He replied, “Why yes, I did see it. And yes it’s the perfect place for it,” an answer which took them aback. He continued, “It’s the right place because there’s nothing like a picture of George Washington for scaring the shit out of a Brit.”
So constipated global warmers—put a picture of Monckton in your bathroom! 😉
rbateman says:
July 14, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Monckton of Benchley knows his stuff.
He’s a British Lord, you know.
Yes, I did know. 🙂
As the man above stated, it’s Abraham who has been creamed.
It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.
REPLY: Might want to read it first. Obviously you haven’t -A
Ease up with the Lord worship guys. We have plenty of them over here and they come in good, bad and indifferent flavours, just like anybody else.
There are many reasons to admire Monckton. I like his passion and grasp of the subject and he has all the good qualities of a sceptical Rottweiler. But humility is not one of his string suits. And being a Lord may go down well in the Colonies and abroad, but not something that we regard particularly highly here in Blighty.
Christopher Monckton has far and away dominated debate related to his views about global warming. Maybe his thorough refutation of false allegations and indeed libel are warranted but maybe not. We are dealing with a movement which has lost initiative with no hope lying on the horizon. Nothing, nada, zip. Maybe they are simply pretending they still have the initiative and are hoping we take a defensive stance. We are no longer the underdogs people. We are right to the extent that the global warming promoters were wrong. That position is one that we must own and it is time that we acknowledge that we have sacked the castle and imprisoned the king of this global warming scam. Hell, the Wizards don’t have the luxury of the curtain anymore and are instead heading up investigations of their henchmen. Some may see this as power but it should be made into a parody and ridiculed much like my personal favorite ‘Hide the Decline’ featuring Michael Mann. Love it! I’d love to see a similar parody about the investigations into climategate – bring it.
We need to focus on the GWers losing initiative long ago and dying a slow death ever since. They need proof, and more lies from them to polarize their base should be outed and dealt with in a manner fitting of a petty thief, not a scholar, politician or scientist. We have the ball, it’s time to run with it. I’m not saying that Lord Monckton’s work was anything but fitting but I do believe that timing is a factor here and now we should simply take a higher ground. We have proven them wrong and media connections cannot ‘whitewash’ that fact. We have many credible resources which refute the science and many more which validate suspicions about a political initiative which is promoting a fraud for benefit. This is not some conspiracy, this shit is out in the open and most people know about it. We have a strong wind at out backs… act like it.
Off-topic news snipet:-
UEA jobs losses announced:
Staff at the University of East Anglia fear scores of jobs could be lost as part of a management plan to integrate support services across campus.
Highly-paid managers earning between £50,000 and £70,000 and support staff earning about £40,000 are among those facing the axe, it is understood.
Many more lower-grade staff are also understood to be at risk of redundancy as part of the campus-wide review.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED14%20Jul%202010%2019%3A53%3A52%3A640
Now lets get specific Bob….. well done Lord.
Phil Jones just got a new job…..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/15/uea-hacked-emails-climate-change
Jones, the former head of CRU and scientist at the centre of many of the emails, was appointed last week to the newly-created post of director of research at CRU.
It could go through the editor one more time to weed out extraneous material.
The scope should be harshly narrowed to the salient points, otherwise the argument is begging for dilution. Anything mentioned may be pursued. Keep the focus tightly on your winning points. Hammer them. Permit no distraction from your winning argument.
Meanwhile, I hope the suit is being filed because what’s the point of making much of a tool that is perfect for a particular use if it will never be used?
Steve Milesworthy says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.
REPLY: Might want to read it first. Obviously your haven’t -A
I knew I should have put an irony tag around my message [rolleyes]
REPLY: and he still hasn’t read it…
Don’t worry Steve Milesworthy, I got the joke.
The new version is attributed to Christopher Monckton, but who, in fact, produced it? I find it hard to believe Monckton would refer to himself in the third person as “His Lordship” and “Lord Monckton.”
If someone else produced it, the title usage is nauseating. Who in America gushes over “Lords” and “Ladies?” Not independent thinkers, and certainly not our Founding Fathers. Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy before the Queen of England, though many social climbers curtsied, bowed, and groveled before her and her hideous daughter when they visited the U.S. on different occasions. Here in Tampa, where both visited, the pseudo socialites couldn’t kiss ass enough, and made absolute fools of themselves.
Celebrity “news” programs routinely refer to “Sir Paul McCartney” and “Sir Elton John,” but does anybody who isn’t trying to ingratiate himself or herself with these characters do so?
The man’s name is Christopher Monckton, not Lord Monckton, not Viscount Monckton. Titles are not names, and should not be treated as such. Inherited titles in particular are meaningless. They tell us nothing about the holders other than that they inherited titles.
Mr. Monckton has been heavily criticized, deservedly or otherwise, for his egotistical use of titles. However, for others to use them to this obsequious level is really off-putting.
I wish Mr. Monckton all the best, and I believe, if he sues, he will easily win. But, can everyone else stop with the “Lord” stuff, please? It isn’t becoming, especially of U.S. citizens, who supposedly rejected such servile behavior more than two hundred years ago.
I think that the point is that the Brits believe that breeding is important.
I believe that Lord Monckton numbers Henry VII amongst his ancestors. Henry VII was the last British monarch to win his crown on the field of battle – killing Richard III at Bosworth Field in 1485. It would be nice to see a re-run of history….
My impression is that Professor Abraham, perhaps taking his cue from the blogosphere, thought that Lord Monckton was an easy target — a bit of a joke.
I think that was a mistake.
Grr! Condensed! and after I had just spent a considerable part of the day reading the full version!
When is C.M. expecting an answer?
What’s new in this PDF are a 2-page Table of Contents and a 11-page Foreword. The Foreword, written by the Science and Public Policy Institute, summarizes the 84 pages that follow, which is identical to Monckton’s original paper. I hope the material in Anthony’s lead-in can be revised to incorporate this fact.
“Steve Milesworthy says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.”
Is the weather nice on your planet? The good Viscount has “PWND” John Abraham and yet has hardly even got started yet.
How can you possibly still believe in Abraham when it has been very clearly demonstrated how and where Abraham had made hundreds of blatant errors in his rebuttal of Monckton?
You clearly have never seen the original full Monckton video presentation complete with slides, neither have you read the exhaustive list of inaccuracies, errors, falsehoods and lies which have been exposed in Abraham’s rebuttal.
The Good viscount’s original presentation stands as correct. Abraham stands without honour or truth or credibility.
” Steve Milesworthy says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:45 am
Steve Milesworthy says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.
REPLY: Might want to read it first. Obviously your haven’t -A
I knew I should have put an irony tag around my message [rolleyes]”
————————————————-
My deepest apologies for missing your irony!
Holy Spit
Weapons Grade Rhetoric!
Do you need a licence to publish that much sense over international borders?
One can only hope Lord Monckton gets the apology he richly deserves before he has to escalate to even higher levels
The Moonbat has a mad swipe at Chris Monckton in today’s UK Guardian and sees Abrahams as a shining light of truth and objective reason.
Thanks, Mike Haseler, for the link to the Norfolk News story on the UEA’s coming job losses. The following paragraph from that story is very sad and, at the same time, very, very funny.
“The director of marketing and communications will retain responsibility for … catering and conferences and, working closely with the Vice Chancellor and the executive team, will assume an enhanced and strongly focussed responsibility for reputation management.”
Enough said!
“The Moonbat has a mad swipe at Chris Monckton in today’s UK Guardian”
This is not a surprise as the Moonbat revels in wearing his ignorance and bias as a grand badge of honour. I would not expect that the Moonbat would change his tune even when all the details are thrashed out in court and the incompetent and discredited John Abraham is shown very publicly to be completely and wholly wrong.
He would probably claim that the judge was in the pay of “big oil.”
Re; Anton 12:48 am,
I see no harm in Christopher Monckton, in formal correspondence, wishing to be referred to as “Lord Monckton” and “His Lordship”.
I’m sure during personal contact, there is no need to tug the forelock and that he is happy to be addressed as “Christopher”.
It seems a bit odd to an Australian that in the US, former presidents are addressed as “Mr. President”.
From page 7 of the condensed report :
“Abraham criticized Lord Monckton for misstating the growth in CO2 concentration since 1750 as a percentage of the atmosphere as 0.01%, when it is in fact 0.01%.”
Not an encouraging paragraph……
I’m just impressed that Monckton can produce enough “cream” to fill a can.
Jo Nova has an article about the correspondence between the University’s lawyers and Viscount Monckton. See the link below
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/#more-9427
—
I agree that there is much in Mr. Monckton’s 12 July SPPI publication that stinks of the lamp. It would have done better with some line editing at the very least, but I understand his desire to strike while Dr. Abraham’s neck was on the block, the better to document the man’s deviations from standards of professional conduct and to recognize what are unarguably actions taken by Dr. Abraham to render himself a tortfeasor of malicious intent and therefore liable for both material and punitive damages.
Dr. Abraham has not yet been “creamed.” But he will be. If Mr. Monckton secures competent legal representation in Minnesota, Mr. Monckton might well wind up not only bankrupting Professor Abraham but also the University of St. Thomas.
I confess to taking some comfort from the fact that the institution employing (and cement-headedly supporting) Prof. Abraham is not a member of the Association of Jesuit Colleges & Universities.
I took my undergraduate degree at a Jesuit college, and I’d hate to think that the Society of Jesus had degenerated over the past thirty-odd years to the point at which they could be this friggin’ stupid.
—
Anton says : Who in America gushes over “Lords” and “Ladies?”
My response — I think Americans probably overestimate how many people in the UK gush over the “nobility”.
Dodgy Geezer says: “I think that the point is that the Brits believe that breeding is important. ”
My response — Not as many as you might think, and the rest of us think that those who do are terrible snobs.
Those with a title are actually more likely to over-use it when they want to impress non-Britons. Monckton’s way over the top use of his title and all the portcullis logo nonsense damages his image in the UK more than enhances it. I think that most Britons think that if someone has a title that person ought to be rather more reticent about using it. (c.f. the number of people who think that Ben Kingsley is a tosser for insisting that people call him “Sir Ben” – and that’s even when the title was actually bestowed on him, not some distant ancestor.)
I am sure that Monckton’s banging on about his title has immeasurably raised his profile and helped get the message across in the US but it makes him look foolish to many/most people in the UK and it’s one reason why the likes of Monbiot can easily smear Monckton with the image of a clown.
And i only just finished reading the first draft, if i knew there where going to be match of the day highlights i would of waited.
Although the 500 points are well worth a read for chuckles on how to completely destroy your opponent.
John Abraham’s commentary on Chris Monckton was measured and careful.
In my opinion, Monckton is a snake-oil salesman, and a bully.
His crass attempt to silence those who disagree with him is beneath contempt.
Mind you, I do agree with those of you who are glad he is on your side, because I’m bloody grateful that he’s not on mine!
And being a Lord may go down well in the Colonies and abroad, but not something that we regard particularly highly here in Blighty.
Not this “Colonist” buster. And while we are about it, we find reference to us as “Colonies” to be less than endearing too.
I too found the use of Mr Monckton’s title to be more than a little wearying.
John Brookes,
You think ad homs and condemning people for what they did not say is measured?
that is a fascinating insight.
mysearchfortruth July 15, 2010 at 12:06 am
Once the trust in the ‘scientists’ was undermined and it has been, the ‘science’ became toast. This is now the political phase of the battle, whether in the court of public opinion or the law courts. A year ago they would have let this case get to a court because of their arrogance. They’ve been burned since and will never let it get that far. Too good a forum for Monckton.
Pointman
….. and wrong with hundreds of glaring and proven inaccuracies, misrepresentations, lies and libels.
John, do you really consider provably libelous lies to be “measured and careful?”
Not to mention the masses of examples of where Abraham clearly has not understood the slide or the context of the slide or the source of the slide, even when the source is written on the slide?
Or the examples where Abraham makes basic schoolboy level mistakes in very basic (grade school level) simple arithmetic? You STILL stand by the guy?
That is loyalty beyond the bounds of logic.
This Abraham guy claims to be a Professor? How can someone who is a Professor get away with such shoddy and error filled drivel? It casts serious doubt on the standard of Academe in the United States.
As for your not wanting Viscount Monckton on your side? Well good. I would rather have Monckton’s reliance on facts and truth guide my side, whilst your side has to rely on lies, libel, misrepresentation, ignorance, false statistics, scare stories, alarmism without a hint of the genuine “scientific method” upon which the rest of the scientific community must rely.
Given that my side relies on fact and truth and the scientific method, regardless of where that leads, and your side relies on a faith in a “false hypothesis” that requires lies, libel,misrepresentation, ignorance, false statistics, scare stories, alarmism without a hint of the genuine “scientific method” I am well placed to witness your side collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.
Good Day.
A bit obsessive of both Monckton and Abraham, frankly.
Funny how the [snip] who keep calling for debate try to crush anyone who speaks out on the other side. I fully support Dr. Abraham, free speech, and his clever and well-honed expose of Monckton’s pseudoscience.
Furthermore, it’s clear that Monckton must read this blog. So for at least the fourth time, Brenchley, I challenge you to just the kind of stage debate you want. I’m a pauper, but I have no doubt at all the contributors to Watt’s Up With That would forward me all the expenses I’d need to fly to England and stay there long enough to win a debate with you (one day would be more than enough, surely).
P.S. You can’t ask my university to fire me because I don’t work at one. You can’t ask a government agency to fire me because I don’t work at one of those, either.
REPLY: You know, you might want to ask first before assuming I’d ask readers to back you. Your ego precedes you. And judging by your choice of words:
My Climatology Pages: I explain some climate science, and bitch-slap the Global Warming deniers
…you don’t have the integrity or decorum to be a debater.
Besides, you aren’t the one Monckton is taking issue with. I suggest you go sell some trashy novels to finance your own trip. – A
“His crass attempt to silence those who disagree with him is beneath contempt.”
And yet, John, I take it you still support the bullies in the IPCC who have tried to destroy the careers of many scientists and editors and publications, who have the gall to let the evidence speak for itself and who do not support the alarmist hypothesis?
Oh, and Viscount Monckton is NOT trying to silence those who disagree with him.
He is defending himself from a series of personally bullying and cowardly Libels. There is a world of difference between the two positions.
John Abraham CHOSE to attack Monckton. Monckton is merely defending himself from an unreasoned, wrong-headed and error filled, maliscious attack.
Now you are getting upset when your latest hero is shown to be naked of fact and reason. Your new Emperor has no clothes!
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
What a fascinating insight into the mind of a devout follower. How the eye can see one thing and the brain? another. Even for someone whose english is his tenth language this reads nothing like what your brain saw. Sad soooo sad.
“hunter says:
John Brookes,
You think ad homs and condemning people for what they did not say is measured?
that is a fascinating insight.”
It is “measured”. In exactly the same way that temperatures are “measured” in places like, say, Darwin.
Perhaps this link has been posted before.
Abraham replied to Monckton via a warmista site on 6 June 2010.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=77&&n=218
The response was quite short in length and shallow in substance, but never-the-less, it was a public response.
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
John Abraham’s commentary on Chris Monckton was measured and careful.
The problem is, to an irrational person, irrationality is the norm. Warmists live in an upside-down Alice-in-Wonderland world, where truth is fiction, and vice-versa.
In my opinion, Monckton is a snake-oil salesman, and a bully.
Yes, of course you think that, living in your upside-down world as you do. Monckton is simply defending himself, and the Truth against a vicious, underhanded, and completely false attack. Yeah, he’s the “bully”.
Dear, Dear, Anton, some people get their knickers in a twist about titles, don’t they?
You in particular, don’t seem to appreciate that Mr, Ms, Miss, and Dr, are all “titles” which you would probably not deliberately use incorrectly; for instance, would you knowlingly address a letter intended to a “Dr Smith” as to “Mr Smith”? Would it not be discourteous? Of course, you may have a “thing” about doctorates, I don’t know.
It is incorrect and discourteous to refer to Lord Monckton as “Mr” Monckton simply because the USA does not have titles.
Do you think any of your presidents (there must be one in the past that you think highly of) would be so rude as to misuse the title of someone who comes from a country where such titles are their legal forms of address? Do you think that president would call our queen “Mrs Windsor”?
Oh, and Anton, until Anthony Watts precludes anyone but USA citizens from reading and contributing to this blog, please don’t be arrogant enough to assume that only USA citizens are the sole intended readership…
Pip! Pip!
Anton: July 15, 2010 at 12:48 am
I wish Mr. Monckton all the best, and I believe, if he sues, he will easily win. But, can everyone else stop with the “Lord” stuff, please? It isn’t becoming, especially of U.S. citizens, who supposedly rejected such servile behavior more than two hundred years ago.
Sir, yes, sir!
No fears, Anton — the commenters here are using it as a measure of earned respect, not obsequiousness.
Lord Monckton was fighting this corner while the believers had an iron grip on public discourse, presumably with his own funds. With the opposing forces stacked as they were a few years ago I am grateful he was prepared to put his reputation on the line to stand up for democracy and scientific honesty in public discourse.
There is also the wider question of whether the right people in society are given power. Hereditary peers are being removed from the house of lords and replaced with political appointees. When global warming is eventually acknowledged to be the wealth distribution scheme it appears to be his contribution will be visible for all to see. When the elected politicians have caved in almost in their entirety, an unelected lord has stood and fought for what he believes – withstanding the pressure that was applied to the rest of society. It is hard to find many public figures so outspoken and willing to defend what they believe to be the public interest.
I for one would be much happier with a few of Lord Monckton’s ilk in the house of lords than the current whim for political appointees. Even if you disagree with him somebody prepared to ask the awkward questions and persist until they are answered is required for a healthy democracy. Global warming is not the only issue here, the bigger question is how do you stop the ruling class silencing the opposition. He has earned the right to say “I am a lord, and this is what I stand for”.
Venter says:
July 15, 2010 at 2:25 am
Jo Nova has an article about the correspondence between the University’s lawyers and Viscount Monckton. See the link below
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/#more-9427
==========
Thanks Venter,
The article is excellent — a must read.
Steve Milesworthy said:
July 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
“It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.”
Though I have no doubt about the intention, having failed to do justice to Monckton’s energy by reading all of the original, it still did strike as rather amusing, when issuing a shorter version was taken , inferrentially, as indicating a climbdown by the other party…
Barton Paul Levenson is exactly the reason I was so happy to see Dr. Meier’s essay. Despite the fact that Monckton (be he Lord, Lady, or music hall singer) has answered Abraham’s vicious attack on him in detail, Levenson would rather resort to the name calling and ad hominem arguments that seem to be the stock in trade on his side of the aisle.
Levenson even has his own black list, in this case a list of “evil biologists,” a list which includes Richard Dawkins and Konrad Lorenz. Interestingly enough, the infamous Lysenko also makes the list: “In order to push his pseudoscientific theories about agriculture, Lysenko, who had the support of Stalin, was responsible for the arrest, torture and execution of many biologists on ideological grounds (they were Darwinists, which was felt to be un-Marxist).”
Sound familiar?
Once again, Dr. Meier, thank you for showing us that there are at least a few on the AGW side with the ability to make a cogent argument.
[snip – major Godwin’s Law violation. ~dbs, mod.]
Perhaps Viscount Monckton could have a word with Prince Charles ? Yes, I know that would likely be a waste of time.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-sceptics-of-peddling-pseudo-science.html
Talk about cognitive dissonance. If the skeptics are peddling pseudo science what the heck are the alarmists peddling ? Whatever it is it’s not science.
Anton,
Don’t we owe him one?
Seriously, the title tells us something about him. It’s also a sign of respect to call someone by their title if they prefer it. I would show the man every bit of respect I can muster and there’s nothing wrong with imparting information about some one in a title.
OTOH, if he doesn’t like the title, then it is distasteful fawning to use it all the time.
Pete Hayes says:
July 15, 2010 at 1:22 am
“Grr! Condensed! and after I had just spent a considerable part of the day reading the full version!”
That gave me a good laugh, Pete!
Who in America gushes over “Lords” and “Ladies?”
The drones in America gush over presidents and celebrities. Not much different.
Struth Gorblimey, it’s 99 pages long! We need a Readers Digest effort, methinks.
Other than that, well done Sir!
Joe Spencer: July 15, 2010 at 5:34 am
Steve Milesworthy says:
July 15, 2010 at 12:01 am
“It’s good to see that Monckton has climbed down.”
Though I have no doubt about the intention, having failed to do justice to Monckton’s energy by reading all of the original, it still did strike as rather amusing, when issuing a shorter version was taken , inferrentially, as indicating a climbdown by the other party…
Steve just forgot to use snarkastic font, that’s all…
I never though of Lord Monckton as being “creamy”. I will now see Cambells soups in a different light…
MJK,
Monckton is playing a very dangerous game indeed. Pushing “His Lordship’s” unbearable arrogance aside for a minute–Monckton is effectively trying to silence those that disagree with him. So much for free speech and open debate on this issue. He has accused John Abraham of damaging his reputation for stating, amongst other things, “Monckton had misrepresented scientists’ results” (setting the scene for a defamation action) yet in his next breath throws the same claim back it him saying “Abraham frequently misrepresented scientists’ results himself”. Oh the irony, you defamed me but it is perfectly Okay if I then defame you. In any event, these so called defamatory remarks are hardly damaging and are just part of the robust debate we are now having on AGW. If Monckton were to pursue a defamation action in the courts against Abraham then he would be setting a danagerous precendent that would qualify half the posts on WUWT as defamatory, putting Anthony in harms way for republishing defamatory material. Be careful what you wish for folks!
MJK.
I always enjoy sailing out of Redhook on the island of St Thomas. Not familiar with the school there. I envied my college roomate studying medicine there. After looking further, this is a different school? a diploma mill in Minnesoota??
Larry says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:27 am
Larry – agree entirely with what you say.
Tony Blair (and his party) had an unreasoned hatred for the House of Lords and used their strong majority to destroy it. Not for any particularly good reason.
The structure of the representational democracy in the UK that allied with the Monarchy had been stable for 1,000 years and seen England rise from being a tiny country of bickering feudal lords regularly overrun by invading hoards from Scandinavia and the continent of Europe to being a stable country with a representative democracy system which worked in balance with the monarchy and was able, at the peak of its power to rule over 1/3 of the world’s surface.
The Lords, generally being wealthy and independent typically took a somewhat detached view of legislation that they were asked to pass, and took seriously their role in safeguarding the (unwritten) constitution of the UK. They infuriated governments on the right and the left by bouncing back legislation that the considered as going to far or being ill-considered.
This didn’t sit well with King Tony (as he saw himself), he much preferred the idea of what the US Senate had degenerated into, a bunch of fawning toadies who would lick his boots and rubber stamp whatever he told them to.
He had his way. In the same way that the US Senate was perverted from its original conception as an emulation of the House of Lords, but with appointed representatives from the states, who would, nominal at least be independent of the elected party writing the laws to an elected assembly that either rubber stamps everything or for party reasons trys to destroy every bill before it, the UK House of Lords is in effect no longer a “House of Lords” but an assembly of politically appointed toadies.
Tony Blair is responsible for doing more long lasting damage to the UK than ravaging hoards of Scandinavia or the might of Adolf Hitler were ever able to acomplish.
I think Lord Monckton likes to remind people exactly why the original Lords were such a good idea, with the power and the means to face up to the elected government and tell them that they were wrong, especially when they clearly were.
People in the UK have been conditioned by years of propaganda to regard Lords as figures of fun. People in the US have similarly been exposed to 200 years of propaganda about how evil the British system is (forgetting that they emulate a large part of it, and forgetting that most of the freedoms they enjoy they do so because the US decided to incorporate British law as the baseline for their own).
If I had inherited (say) a Bently, I would probably enjoy showing it off occasionally. I don’t object to Mr. Monckton making use (some might argue effective use) of his inherited title as he sees fit.
Methinks the Lord doth protest too much. Academic discourse does not involve belittlement, superciliousness, and threats of libel. The fact that these are Monckton’s main weapons in his rebuttal would support Abraham’s demonstration that there is little substance to his position.
Aargh! Blinded by a poorly-drawn soup can…
…or more accurately by a botched add-on to a well-drawn soup can. Is that Warhol and AutoTrace? No offense to the dabbler who tried to add that “Cream of Monckton” text, but I used to do this kind of thing for a living, and that result looks terrible. It should curve to conform to the cylindrical form of the container, and be roughly parallel to the text below, and to the white/red dividing line above.
No art at all is better by far than bad art. Just sayin’
My response to WUWT readers (note I’m not associated with this website or Lord Monckton in any way):
Please do not complain about the length and/or detail of any response at this point. This is the scientific process at its most combative stage, and you will not suffer for slogging through such a lengthy rebuttal. When communication breaks down between educated people, this is what humanity *MUST* resort to, lengthy requests for clarification on each and every single point. This appears to be a horrendously lengthy verbal war between people who hate each other, but in reality the conversation is being elevated from logical fallacy and flag-waving to blow-by-blow forced acknowledgment of each side’s facts and viable interpretations of those facts.
It is actually a good thing that Lord Monckton has rebutted him in the insanely detailed way he has, a very good thing.
Artwest, your comment that Monbiot can ‘easily spear Monckton with image of a clown’ suffers so severely from mixed metaphors that your meaning for the phrase is totally obscured. Are you attempting to say that Monbiot could ‘run Chris Monckton through’ with the picture of a clown employed as a spear? This may be possible on Planet Green where Monbiot dwells, but not in the actual physical world that most of us are aware of inhabiting.
I’m sorry, I don’t get it. Monckton’s response was pompous and poisonous. Defending himself? Well I suppose attack is the best form of defence, but why am I reminded of a line out of Chicago, “He fell on my knife, 5 times”.
Anyway, go for it guys. If you want to believe that Monckton is some sort of brilliant scientist who has to put up with attacks from second rate academics, then feel free to keep living in cloud cuckoo land. I actually think Monckton is a very smart cookie, at least smart enough to not believe a lot of the stuff which comes out of his own mouth.
Fascinating to see how this thread (and any others about Monckton) has pulled in so many of the warmist trolls who otherwise like to pretend that this blog doesn’t exist. I guess even they realize that talking only to each other at Romm’s House of Cards just doesn’t have any impact anymore.
So, by their presence, their outrage and their compulsion to post even if it IS giving support and traffic to what they see as Satan’s Spawn, they are admitting that this blog is the #1 site on the web for serious discussion of the global warming debate!
Congratulations, Anthony – even your enemies are paying tribute to your creation!!!!
Schools campaign for grants on one hand and funding on the other.
http://www.stthomas.edu/administration/board/default.html
This is the list of Trustees. I don’t suggest you call them but look at who they are. They are influential names and targets of fundraising. If I donated a fine lump, I could expect to be invited to the board. As a school dips its toes into politics and controversy the discomfort level escalates.
A bad coach, militant prof with an agenda and it comes up in fund raising phonecalls.
They would cut this teacher more slack if he had a big name.
Gentlemen will most often see a prof using a schools website to smear an individual as very distasteful.
A Hearstfamily member that is not in the family publishing made a phone call that got Helen Thomas fired.
Helen was a reporter that has the privilege of offending or sharing stuff that is off the mark.
Schools walk on eggshells. If some future donor is offended, they are cut out for a big building named after them.
I suggest that in recognition of Christopher Monckton’s effort in all this that the comment headers be changed from:
Joe Denier says:
to:
but Joe Denier said…
😛
I know this is off topic but on the subject of nailing people who make unwarranted attacks on climate skeptics, someone should take on the Prince of Wales.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-sceptics-of-peddling-pseudo-science.html.
Normally someone with his views would get short shrift but Charles Windsor gets heavy press coverage simply because his mother is the British Queen.
Re: Alleagra’s comment on poor old Chuck, the PoW;
everyone who was raised decently has always been taught that it’s uncouth, uncivilised, and just plan bad manners to pick on the weak and the mentally challenged. That’s why none of us has the heart to say much about Chuckles the Clown Prince. He’s too pathetic to take seriously on anything.
The soup label should be:
Chicken of Debating Monckton Soup
PJP,
You and I live in republics – the original republicans where anti-aristocratic. Aristocracy is connected with unjust taxation, privilege, elitism, militarism and tyranny. Now you want Monckton to get a pass, because he is a Lord.
Let Monckton try his elitist and snobbish manner in an ordinary Scottish or Liverpudlian pub, and he would be run out of the place. I had though the same would be true in the USA.
Re: comments above concerning my complaints about the use of titles.
No, I do not address physicians or anyone else by the title “Doctor” unless I’m sitting in a physician’s office or hospital, or in a university setting. I agree with the Quakers: The flaunting of titles by their holders is an attempt by the holders to make themselves appear superior. I knew a woman who got a doctorate in education (possibly the easiest doctorate one can get) here in the United States and insisted that EVERYONE call her Doctor, and even threw a fit when magazines arrived at her home addressed to her by her given name with no title. Bill Cosby got a doctorate in education, and was forever after listed on his television show credits as “Dr. Bill Cosby.”
Here in Tampa, there are women who actually introduce themselves as “Mrs. Dr. So & So.” For anyone who has not been to Tampa, it is one of the ugliest, yet most pretentious, cities in the Western Hemisphere, suffering from mega delusions of grandeur, and our local social climbers may be among the most preposterous in the world. About twenty years ago, one hundred of them declared themselves the “Tampa 100,” supposedly the 100 most influential and important people in the city, and this organization is routinely described by the local press as “Tampa’s 100 most important people.” But, the citizens did not vote them in; they voted themselves in. This is the local norm.
I had a neighbor who bought a title from some impoverished European royal, and not only used it constantly, but walked around with gongs and ribbons pinned to his clothes. The local Press treated him as royalty.
And no, I would not address a former president of the United States as “Mister President,” or a former speaker of the House as “Mr. Speaker.” It’s ridiculous. “Mister” is sufficient for any male over the age of twenty-one.
Yes, Americans do grovel for people with titles, earned or otherwise, and do fawn over celebrities. So do people all over the world. I think it’s ludicrous. Why should fame, fortune, or ancestry make any difference in how one is treated? Prince Charles is an obnoxious buffoon, and yet people grovel over him because he’s the Prince of Wales, and he gets away with outrageous behavior others would be excoriated for. Does anyone here actually think he’s a superior being, or even particularly well-bred? Would anybody on this blog want to have him as a house guest? I certainly would not. And I would address him as “Charles” or “Mr. Windsor.” “Windsor” is not really his family’s last name; they took it from a housing development/suburb, and the world has never recovered from their weirdness, but if that’s what they want to be called, who am I to interfere?
John Brookes follows the example of John Abrahams and the whole of the AGW bunch. ‘Don’t look at any reasoned argument that might offer an opposing viewpoint to their own flawed science, just make personal attacks on those who make them .’ Thank god we have Christopher Monkton as an informed and outspoken advocate of the opposing viewpoint. With people like John Brookes as an AGW advocate, it won’t be long before the complete global warming scam will be exposed for what it is – the greatest scientific fraud ever to be perpetrated on mankind in the history of science. Let us hope that Christopher Monkton takes his threats all the way to the courts. The damage that this will do to the AGW cause will be irreparable and hasten the total demise of the whole shoddy AGW business.
Anton July 15, 2010 at 9:55 am
Seconded.
Pointman
The folks who have nothing to contribute except ad hominem attacks have conceded the argument, whether they know it or not.
By making an issue of their personal feelings instead of the question of the science involved, the haters are asking everyone else to buy into their hatred. ☹
The third-personage, and the use of a formal title, is, I suspect, the format that would be used in a legal complaint. That’s quite possibly where it came from — such a document is being prepared.
It certainly is weird to read “His Lordship”; it’s like being back in an 18th century novel, or reading a transcript of a speech in the House of Lords.
Monckton admitted on the Glenn Beck show that his Lordship is purely hereditary and that he has shamelessly used it for his own self-promotion. It’s his shtick and not unlike Rush Limbaugh’s over-the-top ego shtick. It’s probably funnier in the UK than in the USA. No one really cares about the title of a British Lord in the USA. What we care about is Monckton. The man is a brilliant thinker, writer and speaker. Monckton is a hero in the battle for truth on this issue.
In this particular case I believe it is entirely appropriate to refer to him as Lord Monckton as this impudent little lightweight undergraduate engineering Associate Professor refers to him in the entirely inappropriate familiar term as “Chris Monckton”, not even “Mr. Monckton”.
Personally, I hope Monckton lawyers up and sues UST. They can enlist the finest minds from their 11 year old law school for defense. I would LOVE to hear Assc. Prof. Abraham debate other “non-credentialed” climate experts like Warren Meyer or (even better) Willis Eschenbach. Self-taught, recovering cowboy Willis would utterly destroy this idiot in a debate. Abraham was WAY out of his league when he went after Monckton.
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:03 am
I’m sorry, I don’t get it
Don’t feel too bad. Most Warmist trolls who wander in here are pretty much clueless. But, stick around, and you might actually learn something.
I actually think Monckton is a very smart cookie…
Correct, one could , even say that he’s brilliant. He’s also passionate about his subject matter, which he knows backwards and forwards, and inside and out. He knows he’s right, and can back it up, unlike his would-be detractors, who can only hurl ad hominems, blow smoke, and use any number of other logical fallacies they are so fond of.
@george: While I agree with your sentiments, I don’t share your optimism. Despite its disastrous effects, including wide-spread starvation, the state-backed theory of Lysenkoism managed to last for many decades. AGW could well do the same. When dealing with a public willing to listen to Pamela Anderson and Bono over bona fide scientists, reason and logic doesn’t go far.
Oh, and as a polite person, I have no problem with using someone’s title. Yes, some people can go overboard with it, but like “Mister” or “Miss,” I figure it’s up to the person with the title to decide when it’s all right to refer to them more informally.
Symbols are symbols. Nothing more. I’ve always been a bit fascinated by some people’s obsession with symbols over reality. They’ll have a cat fit over someone desecrating the flag that represents freedom, but happily support laws cutting back on civil rights.
It’s just a bloody title.
toby says:
July 15, 2010 at 9:50 am
Toby — how do you know where I live? 🙂
This is a little off-topic now, but since you raised the question:
I was born and lived the first twenty something years in a Monarchy (England).
I then spent 10 years in a republic (France).
Finally ending up in yet another republic (USA).
I hold both EU and US passports and have an interest in, and a love for all three countries. Each has its strengths, and each its weaknesses. The people of each hold all foreigners in some level of disdain, when each is in reality very similar. The governments of each, at various times play off those prejudices for their own benefit. Personally, I expect more from the leaders of any country.
In reality there is little truth in the sterotypes:
* The English are a bunch of serfs and lords with bad teeth.
* The French are a bunch of surrender-monkeys.
* The Americans are loud and ignorant.
Of course, all stereotypes have a kernel of truth, but often a VERY small kernel.
Monckton plays a role. Its his differentiator, his identity, his trademark.
It gets attention. That is what he wants.
Don’t confuse the messenger with the message.
His style is not mine. However, due to an accident of history he has inherited a title and a family coat of arms, and if he wants to use them he is perfectly entitled to do so. Probably with more historical justification than, for example someone like Barbra “Address me as Senator” Boxer.
Climate Progress says the Monkton is a “shameless purveyor of hate speech”
I didn’t see any hate.
Ususally they toss in flat earther
anti science and
racist.
I have seen the CAGW world become very intolerant.
REPLY: Joe Romm has a bad case of adjectivitus. It’s terminal. He must have had one of his “good” days today. -A
What, now the university feels the need to asign a person to prepare a response to Monckton? I wonder if they will need an entire team. Really, if Abraham had the time to make not one, but 2 full length videos as well as written smack downs of Monckton why is he hiding behind some one else to issue his reply now? Guess he got more than he bargained for.
Alexander K says:
July 15, 2010 at 7:58 am
Artwest, your comment that Monbiot can ‘easily spear Monckton with image of a clown’
——————————————————
I didn’t say “sPear” I said “sMear”. Full quote in context below* I thought my use of the word “smear” made it pretty clear that I thought that the accusation wasn’t true.
I generally agree with Monckton’s points and entirely disagree with the egregious Monbiot. My point was that Monkton’s over-flaunting of his title makes it too easy for his opponents to make jokes at his expense and deflect from the force of his arguments. If he was more reticent about his title, at least in the UK, Monckton would be far more effective.
*”I am sure that Monckton’s banging on about his title has immeasurably raised his profile and helped get the message across in the US but it makes him look foolish to many/most people in the UK and it’s one reason why the likes of Monbiot can easily smear Monckton with the image of a clown.”
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 8:03 am
If you want to believe that Monckton is some sort of brilliant scientist
I believe Michael Mann is a brilliant scientist.
Guess what gang. Condensed crap is still crap.
St. T doesn’t seem to have any intention of according the delusional duke even the minutist face saving device. Good for them. It makes the thread at Hot Topic unnecesary but it is nice to see how much more support the truth has.
REPLY: The only difference is that what they have done is visible, you have no idea how many people have sent letters to St. T and neither do I. Petitions are cheap, anyone can join. Writing a letter takes more effort. -A
jose: July 15, 2010 at 7:08 am
Methinks the Lord doth protest too much. Academic discourse does not involve belittlement, superciliousness, and threats of libel.
Absolutely correct, academic discourse does not. Now that that’s settled, do you have a theory as to why Associate Professor Abraham chose to begin his “presentation” with belittlement, superciliousness, and *actual* libel?
The fact that these are Monckton’s main weapons in his rebuttal would support Abraham’s demonstration that there is little substance to his position.
Flunked Logic 101 as well as English Comprehension, huh? My sympathies.
John McManus: July 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Guess what gang. Condensed crap is still crap.
Gee, those were my exact thoughts when I saw Associate Professor Abraham had cut ten minutes from his Real Scientist’s Presentation…
A- Hot Topic specifically urged people not to flood St.T U’s inbox but to contribute to a single file. Quite conciderate. No disruption.
John McManus
M. Simon says:
“I believe Michael Mann is a brilliant scientist.”
Belief systems are hard to overcome with facts and logic. Michael Mann is incapable of creating a model that explains the climate [in other words, a model that reliably and accurately predicts future climate]. Not much brilliance there.
But for those who want to decide for themselves if Michael Mann is either a ‘brilliant scientist,’ or is simply engaging in scientific misconduct, I recommend The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford [also known as Bishop Hill]. You will never look at Mann the same way again.
M. Simon, if the scientific method and professional integrity mean anything at all to you, then please explain, if you can, why twelve years after he created his infamous and thoroughly debunked Hockey Stick, Michael Mann still refuses to disclose his taxpayer-funded methodology and data?
Take your time.
Bill Tuttle;
Did you notice that abraham expanded his presentation with more slides? He tightened up in places, especially the last few minutes, but it would take someone with an immense nose to claim he condensed.
John McManus
Smokey says:
“But for those who want to decide for themselves if Michael Mann is either a ‘brilliant scientist,’ or is simply engaging in scientific misconduct, I recommend The Hockey Stick Illusion by A.W. Montford [also known as Bishop Hill]. You will never look at Mann the same way again.”
Absolutely. I thought I understood most of the history in the hockeystick until I read this book. Buy a copy. You will not regret it.
John Brookes says:
July 15, 2010 at 3:28 am
John Abraham’s commentary on Chris Monckton was measured and careful.
In my opinion, Monckton is a snake-oil salesman, and a bully.
His crass attempt to silence those who disagree with him is beneath contempt.
Mind you, I do agree with those of you who are glad he is on your side, because I’m bloody grateful that he’s not on mine!
__________________________________________________
What a true representative of the “New Science”
I sure hope John is not a civil engineer responsible for building bridges or Skyscraper or the like….
Vigilantfish says:
“Re the Monckton-Abraham online confrontation, I just saw the following posted over at Climate Progress (apologies if this info has been given before):
Andy Gunther says:
July 15, 2010 at 10:28 am
Joe (and all):
I sent an email in support of John Abraham to St. Thomas University and he responded with a request that indications of support for his efforts to debunk Monckton be sent to Dr Susan Alexander (slalexander@stthomas.edu), who is managing the University’s response to Monckton. You should follow up on what is happening with Abraham, and I encourage all CP readers to send in a message of support for him to his institution.”
Frank Lee MeiDere says:
July 15, 2010 at 5:43 am
Barton Paul Levenson is exactly the reason I was so happy to see Dr. Meier’s essay. Despite the fact that Monckton (be he Lord, Lady, or music hall singer) has answered Abraham’s vicious attack on him in detail, Levenson would rather resort to the name calling and ad hominem arguments that seem to be the stock in trade on his side of the aisle.
Levenson even has his own black list….
Sound familiar?
____________________________________________
It sounds sad. Levenson has a degree in physics and is a writer of science fiction. If he is stooping to “name calling and ad hominem” instead of using his knowledge of science and language, perhaps that says something about the lack of scientific fact on his side (CAGW) and more about his politics – “liberal Democrat. ”
http://www.lyricalpress.com/store/index.php?main_page=authors&authors_id=43
John McManus: July 15, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Bill Tuttle;
Did you notice that abraham expanded his presentation with more slides? He tightened up in places, especially the last few minutes, but it would take someone with an immense nose to claim he condensed.
John McManus
Did you notice he cut ten minutes from his spiel? That, by any definition, is condensing. You say he tightened it up? That’s also called condensing.
Yeah, my nose is big, but it’s hardly immense. BTW, how’s the the fishing from your hootch under the bridge?
wws
everyone who was raised decently has always been taught that it’s uncouth, uncivilised, and just plan bad manners to pick on the weak and the mentally challenged.
I suppose you jest but in case you mean what you say I suggest that the word ‘weak’ is not appropriate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/25/chelsea-barracks-trial-prince-charles
He has a powerful voice in public matters and is an influential polemicist for his pet ideas. By virtue of his status, he’s managed to sway opinion on many issues particularly those involving architecture and country life. You and I may think he’s not exactly brimming with intellect but millions do not see it that way I suspect. His more nutty views should be countered.
“So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.”
– Lord Monckton
GeoFlynx – I’m afraid your soup may contain some “prawn” and be spiced with hypocrisy. I suggest a recall!
Before I had finished reading the full rebuttal I wrote:
Andres Valencia says:
July 14, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Thanks!
The original rebuttal was indeed quite lenghty and not easy to read.
The truth must come out.
Now I think that it is a most brilliant article, and I fell honored to have individual links to it at “Climate Change (“Global Warming”)? – The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate “, http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm (an other 3 pages in Observatorio ARVAL)
GeoFlynx says:
July 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm
You point out yet another example where His Arrogant Lordship has defamed Abraham. Monckton’s legal case (if he dares bring it) will no doubt result in a very strong counterclaim for dishing it up just as strongly on Abraham.
MJK
mjk: July 15, 2010 at 2:45 pm
GeoFlynx says:
July 15, 2010 at 2:11 pm
You point out yet another example where His Arrogant Lordship has defamed Abraham. Monckton’s legal case (if he dares bring it) will no doubt result in a very strong counterclaim for dishing it up just as strongly on Abraham.
MJK
Sorry, but saying someone looks like an overcooked prawn isn’t defamation, as much as you obviously wish it were, and it doesn’t hold a candle to libel — which is what Associate Professor Abraham has to answer for.
Abraham starts out well enough with a very balanced introduction. But he slips up quickly (But Chris Monckton Says…) missing many of Monckton’s points entirely, such as Gore’s scare-mongering of sea-level rise over the next century. Abraham turns that into an explanation of IPCC sea-level predictions. How about addressing Gore’s comments instead Dr. Abraham?
His presentation slowly turns into (what seems obvious to me as ) a personal attack on Monckton and he gets further off course with every slide.
By the time he drags in Willie Soon as an oil mule (the passive aggressive approach is perfect – he should be a mid-west organic farmer getting subsidies for his solar panel electricity contributions to help save the planet) I’m wondering how a person such as Abraham can even consider himself a scientist. Why even discuss Soon? And they have a “Support John Abraham” program? The man is clearly an associate moron.
But the last two slides (there were 126 in the one I struggled through – fell asleep twice – reminded me of university) are just priceless. Who are you going to believe? A pompous a$$ from jolly old England who is a paid hack for the oil industry, or a legitimate scientist from a religious university in Minnesota? You can tell from his voice that he eats granola and wears a back-pack to class.
Anyway, I’m backing the hack. I just wish someone would super condense Monckton and get rid of the worn out Latin and silly comments reminding us where the North and South Poles are. His long-winded reply could be easily squeezed into 4-5 pages and make Abraham look even more like the fool he is. Especially the stuff on Polar Bears. Hunting affects the Polar Bear population? Who thought that one up?
When the trolls appear en masse, you know the alarmists are worried. Why else would the legions of dolts appear?
Monckton has got Abraham and that little sleepy educational backwater exactly where he wanted them to be – between a rock and a hard place and every supportive troll post backs them further into the corner. Bring it on trolls. You’re doing a great job. Make it a cause celebre so they simply can’t back down . Ensure Chris gets the platform he deserves to crucify AGW. While you keep debating about his exact title (or Abraham’s), he’ll be gutting Abraham and AGW. Happy displacement activity!
BTW. The document, supposedly addressed to Abraham, is of course addressed to a court of law and it’s damning. Oh and Mr. Abraham, fiddling with the offending piece is just a surprisingly generous cherry on top. Damn decent of you and all that but you should really have talked to your employer’s legal eagles before you did it …
Pointman
If I were a teen, I would say that Lord Monckton is the coolest. But I suppose teens of today use other expressions of glorification. So I will say that Lord Moncton is a poet and a scholar. (And he is the coolest!)
Why waste time putting together a condensed version when what we really need is the sourced version? I trust we’ll see that updated document soon so that the accuracy of Monckton’s rebuttal can finally be verified.
You will never see Monckton going to court as he has then no control of what will come out of it. And he could loose easily.
Further, lord Monckton attacking a poor minor professor, very bad publicity for someone selling PR business.
And quite frankly , insisting to be named ”His Lordship” or whatever title he wants.. Let’s face it when we go to the restroom we all put our pants down and we all do the same thing the same way – be it a president , a king, a lord, or a janitor. I have three children and they call me ”dad” – in my eyes, it is a lot more valuable than being called ”Lord”. For what it worth.
Gail Combs July 15, 2010 at 1:52 pm And
Frank Lee MeiDere July 15, 2010 at 5:43 am
Re: Barton Paul Levenson.
If you enjoy Science Fiction, then he provides such entertainment over at RealClimate, (on some threads), although on some few occasions when I’ve tried to respond to his comments, mine have disappeared. He is fond of modestly referring some common commenters to his own website, which he advertises at RC.
Monkton seems to be good at sinking his own boat, he slanders St Thomas in a ‘Prison Planet’ interview, from the Alex Jones show, 24 June 2010 part 5/6 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnQdKDeDjqI)
“…that, on its own, would be an offense for which he would be dismissed from a real university, but then he only belongs this half-assed Catholic Bible college” (1:10)
“…but apparently in this Bible college, lying is part of what they regard as their Christian mission…” (2:45)
“…I want you to email this creep of a President, Father Dennis J. Dease…”(08:30)
here’s a blog with the university’s response to Monckton and further down, Abraham’s response to him. I’m not sure of the chronology of the responses here.
Essentially, they seem to be trying to brush him aside. I wonder what he’ll do next.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/07/gold-amongst-dross.html
Pointman writes,
“BTW. The document, supposedly addressed to Abraham, is of course addressed to a court of law and it’s damning.”
Nope, it’s not addressed to scientists, academics or lawyers, much less a court of law. It would be laughed out if it were. Monckton’s letter is theatre, playing to un-skeptical believers like those on this site.
“Oh and Mr. Abraham, fiddling with the offending piece is just a surprisingly generous cherry on top. Damn decent of you and all that but you should really have talked to your employer’s legal eagles before you did it”
I guess if you read only this site and ones like it, you’re not aware of what has actually happened.
In case anyone didn’t notice, (mostly from the correspondence that [snip] Monckton gave to Jo Anne Nova)
1. Abraham’s original written reply to Monckton was on his behalf and on the behalf of Father Dease. The school is not going to fold
2. The University of St. Thomas’ lawyers pretty much told Monckton that unless he stopped telling nasties about the school and Prof. Abraham they would see him in court. As Eli pointed out the school is not going to fold
3. Monckton tried to bluff his way through by demanding that someone tell him where he demeaned Fr. Dease and the University of St. Thomas. Unfortunately for [snip] Monckton, the net is full of his demeaning Fr. Dease and the University of St. Thomas.
The strange thing is that Chris would let that correspondence get out. It shows him at his pompous worst, and the replies, in their brevity and matter of fact manner emphasize it.
Bob_FJ says:
July 15, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Gail Combs July 15, 2010 at 1:52 pm And
Frank Lee MeiDere July 15, 2010 at 5:43 am
Re: Barton Paul Levenson.
If you enjoy Science Fiction, then he provides such entertainment over at RealClimate, (on some threads), although on some few occasions when I’ve tried to respond to his comments, mine have disappeared. He is fond of modestly referring some common commenters to his own website, which he advertises at RC.
_____________________________________________________________
Science Fiction is just not the same since John W. Campbell jr. died, not to mention Heinlein and Asimov.
Bob_FJ says:
July 15, 2010 at 6:55 pm
“Science Fiction is just not the same since John W. Campbell jr. died, not to mention Heinlein and Asimov.“
Boy, you’ve got that right. All we have left now are Jones, Gore and Mann. Just not the same.
Although I thought Chris’ use of “his Lordship” was excessive, and his style unusual, this is a great fight and a great piece. And, it is the beginning, not the end. There are so many points that more evidence can settle, and so much territory for new scientists to work with, I am delighted to see the passion of each side trying their hardest to prove the other wrong. One can only hope that several trials can come of this, with televised expert testimony.
If deniers do nothing, the mainstream science, so corrupted by liberalism, environmentalism and orthodoxy will have their way, and cap n trade will be passed. If we can keep the science debate going, and I think Chris does as good a job as anyone at keeping the flame alive, then maybe we can at least get some good science before any legislation passes.
I see Chris’ job as spokesperson, color commentator, and superhero, complete with cape and superpowers. I see our job as scientists to continue to establish the truth of the question,”Should citizens of the world do anything about CO2 emissions?”
Thank you, Chris good job. And everyone remember, when we caught all the climategate crimes, their response was a whitewash, deceitful hearings producing lies.
To those of you who have been characterizing Lord Monckton as egotistical or pompous, its too bad you haven’t viewed a video of one of his presentations. He is cheeky, self-deprecating and witty. His embracing of the title is probably half defiance of the parliament and half pride in his heritage. Part of the reason he is embraced here, besides his humor, speaking talent and intellect, is not his title, but because he has embraced the United States and what it stands for, and hopes that it can stand as a bulwark against the takeover of the worlds economies masquerading as cap and trade.
The House of Lords loss is our gain.
[REPLY – He said he justly earned his right to the peerage through an extremely talented selection of parents. ~ Evan]
Wow, I thought this kind of blood sport was illegal in England. This is my favourite part so far (83 on p27):
“On what scientific basis do you and your friend David Barber regard a single, anecdotal observation made by him as being superior to the record almost a quarter of a century in length that was displayed in my slide?”
It’s gobsmacking that such an obvious rebuttal ever had to be made.
Sadly science (or rather, pseudo-science) has become merely the continuation of politics by other means. In Abraham’s case it’s pseudo-science-as-politics at a kos kiddie level.
Concerning the “comment” above by his eminence, Barton Paul Levenson, (BPL):
Gail Combs Reur July 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Well yes, but I would add Carl Sagan to your short-list. And yes, BPL takes it to quite a different level…. Rather more head shaking as distinct from any sense of excitement.
Frank Lee MeiDere Reur July 15, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Well yes, except that it was Gail Combs that said that, and what I wrote, (not wishing to be picky), was, :
If you enjoy Science Fiction, then he [BPL] provides such entertainment over at RealClimate, (on some threads), although on some few occasions when I’ve tried to respond to his comments, mine have disappeared. He is fond of modestly referring some common commenters to his own website, which he advertises at RC.
I would also add at least Tamino, (Grant Foster), to your short-list of modern-day science fiction writers
Gail Combs: July 15, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Science Fiction is just not the same since John W. Campbell jr. died, not to mention Heinlein and Asimov.
Amen to that, Gail.
*flicking away errant tear*
I think he also does it (highlighting his title, throwing in Latin tags, and venturing into sesquipedalianism) just to be outrageously incorrect and get a rise out of people. It’s akin to Tom Wolfe’s white suits — a way of telling the modern world to go sit on a pickle.
Oh dear. I seem to have upset some people but then again, why am I surprised? One should expect reverse psychology to work on backward people …
Pointman
Smokey says:
“Belief systems are hard to overcome with facts and logic”
Smokey, I agree, and understanding this is key to understanding the dynamics of the current political and climate change debates. Here’s an very interesting read on this topic:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?camp=misc:on:share:article
Dave
regarding the current “sci-fi writers” mentioned – sorry, but their plots stink and the characters are pathetic.
And are they ever BORING!!!!
The ‘Climategate’ travesty
“Even in these intellectually debauched times, is hard to credit the cynical and brazenly corrupt farce of the ‘investigations’ into the ‘Climategate’ email scandal centred around East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6147814/the-climategate-travesty.thtml
Yikes, is this Gal angry. I think I’ve found another Journalist worth reading. I’ll be running out of fingers soon.
Pointman
Comment transferred from “Comment of the Week” thread.
@David UK,
I cannot believe that a half-decent legal advisor would have allowed Lord Monckton to go on a taped TV programme and call the University of St. Thomas a “half-a*sed Catholic Bible College”. That type of Anglo snobbery may play well in English upper-class and elitist circles, but this is in America. If he was hoping for a sympathetic response from the College Board, or the funders, or even the student body, I would say that chance has now gone. He compounded his mistake with several other own goals, such as snide references to Fr. Dease and even the local Catholic Bishop.
Monckton seemed to be full of sound and fury, and Jones led him on, possibly thinking he was doing him a favour (but it made for good TV!). All he has done is expose himself to a damaging countersuit, should he go to law, as the University lawyers have now reminded him (in a roundabout way). He should have remembered that “revenge is a dish best eaten cold”, and I think the job of a good legal adviser would have been to remind him of that.
To me, Monckton comes across as a windy blusterer. Whatever, he now has no real recourse now except to continue an unproductive campaign on the Internet, which will probably end in failure.
On ebay, when you want to misrepresent an object you use a false question eg: Leonardo? painting to advertise a cheap print.
The good lord makes no rebuttal in his screed. A series of questions means nothing if substance has been ignored as by Moncton ( if he bought a fish shop would he be a chipmonck is an example ).
Go see if utube has the Penn and Teller piece that explains classic misdirection.
The best 🙂 was Christopher lecturing everyone that there is not such thing as an archdiocese. Of course, this, in spite of the fact that there is an Archdiocese of Moncton in Canada.
John McManus: July 16, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Go see if utube has the Penn and Teller piece that explains classic misdirection.
They don’t have to. Your comments have been perfect illustrations of it.
RunngMoose,
Your “interesting read” calling for regulation of speech due to the information glut is reminiscent of Wilson’s Committee on Public Information. Yes, perhaps humans are vulnerable to fanatical beliefs and demagogues, but it should have noted that free speech is one of the first things demagogues want to get rid of. This usage of Jefferson’s quote should be put in context:
“It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. ”
In the context of the constitution, it is obvious that Jefferson did not just “trust” the people, but thought that division of powers with checks, balances, super majority protections, juries and standards of proof were necessary. In addition to these internal checks, there were the external checks of a free press and an armed citizenry.
Just because “belief systems are hard to overcome with facts and logic”, doesn’t mean they can’t be overcome. Lack of openness and transparency by East Anglia and the “team” destroyed their credibility. Just because humans are social animals vulnerable to collective identities and fear contagions, doesn’t mean that they don’t have rationality and ability to detect dissembling and spin.
RunngMoose,
Interesting article, thanks. Skeptics are much less prone to dig in their heels and take a closed-minded position on questions like AGW, and whether co2 controls the climate because skeptics are just asking questions, not proposing a new hypothesis.
Skeptics only ask the believers in the catastrophic AGW hypothesis to back their argument up with falsifiable facts and data. Not with computer models. Models amount to the opinion of their programmers. They are not evidence.
Since the AGW’ers don’t have verifiable proof of their hypothesis, they tend to throw tantrums when skeptics ask for real evidence. The current tantrum involves throwing as much mud at Mr. Monckton as they can, rather than discussing his points one by one.
All skeptics are asking is for some testable evidence that co2 or a slightly warmer, more pleasant climate are problems. Asking questions is not taking a position. Sceptics are saying: show us convincingly, using real, uncorrupted data, that co2 is the bad boy they claim it is. At that point the warmists usually refer to their computer models.
I find it interesting that the trolls appear expert on how to misrepresent things they’re selling. AGW springs to mind …
Pointman
It’s always worth ploughing through his long submissions, for little gems like this one , in his recent reply to QUESTIONS FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE CONCERNING MY RECENT TESTIMONY:-
“,,,If the members of that faction would care to step outside their air-conditioned offices and go out on to the National Mall, they would be able to conduct a remarkably simple experiment. If the Sun shines directly upon their balding pates, they will notice that it is warmer than when the clouds are in the way. If that phenomenon takes place globally, natural “global brightening” and hence “global warming” occurs.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/questions_from_select_committee.pdf
Joe Spencer:
I followed, read and guess what ? A blacklist.
Eli Rabbett: “Of course, this, in spite of the fact that there is an Archdiocese of Moncton in Canada.”
That’s good, Eli. If Monckton’s airy dismissal of the reality of an archdiocese is indicative of his scientific pronouncements, I doubt that Abraham has much to worry about on that score.
The way I see it, Monckton has adopted a high-risk strategy and may well have made a grievous miscalculation.
If he had really been intent on suing for libel, he would have done so without the “public option”. Clearly, in going public he was hoping that, having privately failed to bully the university into submission, he could drum up support from influential people to do the deed for him.
But I think people would be wary about being associated with an attempt to suppress free speech and scientific enquiry, especially for someone whose scientific reputation is unproven and whose pronouncements tend towards the “colourful”.
Whichever way the issue goes, I make two predictions:
1. Monckton’s reputation will suffer from his efforts to suppress speech that is critical of him
2. Win, lose or draw, Monckton will claim victory.
I think his best response would have been to put together a YouTube video consisting of a series of snippets, each snippet from three sources: Monckton’s original speech, Abraham’s critical speech, and then Monckton’s rebuttal. Ideally, the latter would be done in a light-hearted, unoffended, conversational tone whose cumulative impact would induce viewers to be light-heartedly dismissive of Abraham.
This is psychologically nearly impossible, of course, for a battler. But it is what would still be his best course of action, even if it would take months, and technical assistance, to put together. Because Monckton’s original YouTube talk got 1.5 million hits, a sequel would likely do well also, and maybe even solidify the damage he has inflicted on the warmist case.
I’d also recommend that Monckton concede any stretchers or loose-jointed logic Abraham has caught. (“Playing for a draw” and avoiding overstatement is the way to win in the long run.) But this is really asking the impossible of an instinctive battler.
John McManus: July 16, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Joe Spencer:
I followed, read [the link] and guess what ? A blacklist.
Thus confirming you have a problem with reading comprehension.
Brendan H: July 16, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Eli Rabbett: “Of course, this, in spite of the fact that there is an Archdiocese of Moncton in Canada.”
That’s good, Eli. If Monckton’s airy dismissal of the reality of an archdiocese is indicative of his scientific pronouncements, I doubt that Abraham has much to worry about on that score.
A knowledge of Canon Law terminology and usage is relevant to the discussion of defamation in a purportedly-scientific presentation on climate change is relevant — exactly how?
toby: July 16, 2010 at 12:43 pm
He should have remembered that “revenge is a dish best eaten cold”, and I think the job of a good legal adviser would have been to remind him of that.
Statutes of limitations being what they are, a *better* legal adviser would say “Strike while the iron is hot.”
Alleagra said:
July 15, 2010 at 8:52 am
“Normally someone with his views would get short shrift but Charles Windsor gets heavy press coverage simply because his mother is the British Queen.”
It wouldn’t have anything to do with the coterie of advisers and personal staff recruited from Greenpeace then… ?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6689978.ece
One hopes Mr. Watt will forward this sad effusion to the present Science master of Harrow, in hope that he will cane some sense into its wayward author before the old boy disgraces himself further.
Bill Tuttle: “A knowledge of Canon Law terminology and usage is relevant to the discussion of defamation in a purportedly-scientific presentation on climate change is relevant — exactly how?”
What would be relevant is Monckton’s demonstrated relationship to facts and knowledge in a defamation case where the plaintiff’s reputation is the issue. In that case, any public statements could be subject to scrutiny.
Further, if Monckton’s throw-away line is indicative of his general approach to knowledge, it shows both a somewhat cavalier attitude to the facts and a conviction of his own superiority in areas outside of his expertise. It’s likely that he has brought the same attitudes to his study of climate science.
If a court case could be narrowed down to just his presentation and Abraham’s rebuttal, Monckton’s many public statements might be inadmissable, but there’s no guarantee of that.
I sincerely apologize if I was offensive. It’s hard to remain calm over issues like this, but of course that’s no excuse for bad conduct.
Several posters take me to task for ignoring the science. If anyone would like to specify what science I got wrong, I will try to respond directly to the issue(s) involved, and without reference to personalities.
Barton Paul Levinson,
“If anyone would like to specify what science I got wrong, I will try to respond directly to the issue(s) involved, and without reference to personalities.”
You appear to be overly impressed with the correlation of over a century of warming with over a century of rising CO2. Correlation is not causation. You leap from that correlation to alarmism over the possible effects. In the mean time you are not concentrating on the key issue: Are the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing negative, positive or alarmingly positive.
“The Sun hasn’t gotten noticeably brighter in 50 years. We’ve been measuring it from satellites like Nimbus-6 and -7 and the Solar Maximum Mission. If solar output has been flat for the past 50 years, it’s hard to see how it could have caused the sharp upturn in warming of the last 30 years. ”
Obviously solar couldn’t have caused the sharp upturn in warming of the last 30 years just as CO2 increases couldn’t have caused the mid-century cooling. The answer possibly lies in the acknowledged large uncertainty in aerosols, or in internal climate variation due to the multi-decadal climate oscillations being in the negative phases during the mid-century cooling and positive phases during the recent warming. Large variations in aerosols have been found to explain how models with more than a factor of two variation in climate sensitivity are able to “match” the same 20th century climate.
However, while solar variation can’t explain the slope of the temperature trend in the 80s and 90s, the fact that it was in a grand maximum for over half a century might well explain the warmth, and may not be a coincidence. The IPCC acknowledges a factor of two uncertainty in solar variation. I’m unaware of any published model runs that gave the solar forcing hypothesis the benefit of this doubt. One would think that a competing hypothesis for some or much of the attribution should be given its due before reaching a conclusion.
“But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they’re getting the overall picture wrong.”
The models do a remarkable job on the overall picture. However, the issues at hand are quantitative, not just qualitative. Are the models accurate to the perhaps 0.1 W/m^2 globally and annually averaged that we would like for purposes of attribution of a 0.8W/m^2 energy imbalance over the course of the 1990s? We know from Wentz that none reproduced more than half the increase in precipitation observed in the recent warming. That is significant negative water cycle feedback that they are missing. We know from Spencer and Lindzen that the models have significant problems in matching the observed radiative imbalances at the tropical lattitudes. We know from Roesch that the models average over 3W/m^2 in positive surface albedo bias globally and annually averaged. These are all correlated errors among the AR4 models, that can’t benefit from a linear hope that the errors will cancel when the models are combined into ensembles.
Your error is to get too caught up in a correlation over a mere 120 years and then jumping to alarmism. The direct effects of CO2 can explain perhaps 30% of the global warming. Anything more requires net positive feedbacks. The alarmism requires climate sensitivities that would have CO2 explaining probably 80% or more of the recent warming. A moderate level of net positive feedback isn’t enough.
Most model independent estimates of climate sensitivity are based upon aerosols or solar and in the case of solar don’t account for the amount of uncertainty in solar variation, or if based upon CO2 the estimates of questionable relevance since they cross the ice age/interglacial tipping points. In a non-linear system we aren’t entitled to assume that the sensitivities to CO2 forcing and the other forcings are similar. They are coupled to the climate differently. Some allegedly “model independent” estimates of climate sensitivity are actually model dependent. I recall one by Annan that used models.
Frankly, we don’t know whether CO2 explains 20%, 30%, 60% or more of the recent warming. So the alarmism is unjustified and costly measures premature. If the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing are neutral or negative, then the climate one hundred years from now will be warmer, but at 1 degree C or so, it will be a perturbation of natural variation, so the actual decades around the year 2100 may actually be cooler. That is hardly alarming.
Hopefully over the next decade or two there will be significant advances both in our understanding of solar variation, its coupling to the climate and the skill of the models.
regards
No takers? Oh, well.
[nobody likes to debate writers of trashy novels, waste of time ~mod]
Barton Paul Levenson
You had a taker, but I miss-spelled your name. Apologies, but I don’t see how you could have missed my post. It was right below yours and the last one until now.
Barton Paul Levenson, Reur July 25, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Well actually, I’ve contemplated having intercourse with you here because in the past, when I’ve tried to do that at RC, my comments have been deleted in moderation. Meanwhile, I was waiting with bated breath to see your response to Martin Lewitt whom took-up your invitation on the 24th. Didn’t notice him do that? Oh that’s right, he did a typo, with your name! Hard to work out eh? One of 17 letters was wrong. Tip: he meant you, and apologised later for his mistake.
Martin Lewitt,
Thank you for your response and the polite tone thereof. I’ll try to respond in kind.
ML: You appear to be overly impressed with the correlation of over a century of warming with over a century of rising CO2. Correlation is not causation. You leap from that correlation to alarmism over the possible effects.
BPL: No. The causation is established by solid radiation physics. The correlation is merely confirmation.
ML: However, while solar variation can’t explain the slope of the temperature trend in the 80s and 90s, the fact that it was in a grand maximum for over half a century might well explain the warmth
BPL: Nope. You can’t have a high, steady input that results in a low, steady output and then an increasing rise starting almost halfway through the period. Or rather, you could, but you’d need an incredibly elaborate equation to relate the two, and it would be fudging, not science.
ML: The IPCC acknowledges a factor of two uncertainty in solar variation.
BPL: Right, but that’s still not enough to make a difference. Let me explain.
The flux density absorbed by the climate system is
F = (S / 4) (1 – A)
where S is the solar constant and A the Earth’s bolometric Russell-Bond spherical albedo. By Lean’s (2000) figures, S averaged about 1,366.1 watts per square meter from 1951 to 2000. NASA gives A = 0.306, resulting in F = 237 W/m^2.
To find the Earth’s emission temperature (not the same as the surface temperature), we can invert the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
Te = (F / sigma)^0.25
where sigma is the S-B constant (5.6704 x 10^-8 W/m^2/K^4 in the SI). This gives Te = 254 K. Given the mean global annual surface temperature of 288 K, we can vastly oversimplify the climate system and say surface temperature will be 13% higher than Te if things don’t change too much.
Now, we’ve warmed 0.8 K since 1880. You can see that to get that much from solar variation, you’d need S = 1380.1 W/m^2, an increase of 13 W/m^2. That’s way more than we’ve ever seen. Annually averaged S has been between 1363 and 1367 for the past 400 years.
ML: That is significant negative water cycle feedback that they are missing. We know from Spencer and Lindzen that the models have significant problems in matching the observed radiative imbalances at the tropical lattitudes.
BPL: Lindzen’s many “iris effect” papers are consistently shot down by other researchers as soon as he publishes them. The 2009 paper with Choi was as well. I’m not at home, but when I get back on Saturday, or as soon as possible after that, I’ll shoot you the references.
ML: Your error is to get too caught up in a correlation over a mere 120 years and then jumping to alarmism.
BPL: No. The warming, and the consequent alarmism, is a matter of radiation physics established since the 19th century. The correlation is just one of the many, many pieces of evidence that have confirmed the theory over the past 60 years.
ML: The direct effects of CO2 can explain perhaps 30% of the global warming. Anything more requires net positive feedbacks. The alarmism requires climate sensitivities that would have CO2 explaining probably 80% or more of the recent warming. A moderate level of net positive feedback isn’t enough.
BPL: Right, but all the best guesses are that the feedbacks are quite high. Doubling CO2 by itself only gets you +1.2 K, but doubling it with water vapor feedback, ice-albedo feedback, etc. makes it more like 3 K.
ML: Most model independent estimates of climate sensitivity are based upon aerosols or solar and in the case of solar don’t account for the amount of uncertainty in solar variation, or if based upon CO2 the estimates of questionable relevance since they cross the ice age/interglacial tipping points. In a non-linear system we aren’t entitled to assume that the sensitivities to CO2 forcing and the other forcings are similar. They are coupled to the climate differently. Some allegedly “model independent” estimates of climate sensitivity are actually model dependent. I recall one by Annan that used models.
BPL: If you use a climate sensitivity below 2 K you can’t reproduce the ice ages accurately no matter how you tweak the other parameters. There’s virtually no chance of the figure being below 1.5 K or about 6 K, with 3 K the best estimate.
ML: Frankly, we don’t know whether CO2 explains 20%, 30%, 60% or more of the recent warming.
BPL: 76% 1880-2008 by my calculations.
ML: So the alarmism is unjustified
BPL: The fraction of Earth’s land surface in severe droughts is growing like crazy, as predicted by the GCMs. That will kill us a lot quicker than sea-level rise, which is a fairly long-term danger.
ML: and costly measures premature.
BPL: The measures will only be costly to the fossil fuel industry. To the economy as a whole it will help.
ML: If the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing are neutral or negative, then the climate one hundred years from now will be warmer, but at 1 degree C or so, it will be a perturbation of natural variation, so the actual decades around the year 2100 may actually be cooler. That is hardly alarming.
BPL: Right, but the chances of the summed net feedback being that low are close to nil.
Moderator/ Barton Paul Levenson/ Martin Lewitt
These issues are potentially likely to develop into a substantial thread that is OT to this Monckton-Abraham thread. May I suggest that it be made into a “New Topic” or, if that’s too hard, transfer it to the “Open Thread” , although that is getting a bit old now.
Martin Lewitt
I do not agree with some things that BPL has addressed to you. For instance like a sore thumb, his application of S-B etc to derive average temperature greenhouse effect of 34C on a rather more complex Earth. (according to BPL…. I thought the popular number was 33C)
Do you want to go first on that issue?
Moderator, I’d be surprised if this goes more than a couple of iterations, if it does then perhaps a new thread would be in order, but I think with good faith discussion, a couple iterations may be all that is needed to lay out areas of disagreement and uncertainty. Let us know if you decide to move us to a more another location.
Barton Paul Levenson,
BPL: “The causation is established by solid radiation physics. The correlation is merely confirmation”
The solid radiation physics only gets us to the 1.2 degrees C that I think we are agreed upon. Anything more requires net positive feedback, and the AR4 model sensitivities require quite a significant net positive feedback.
BPL: “You can’t have a high, steady input that results in a low, steady output and then an increasing rise starting almost halfway through the period. Or rather, you could, but you’d need an incredibly elaborate equation to relate the two, and it would be fudging, not science.”
Yes you can with the addition of aerosol and/or internal variability. The response to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration has the same problem. The models with different sensitivities are documented to match the climate with different aerosol scenarios. Models don’t do the multi-decadal climate oscillations that were in the negative phase for the middle part of the century and in the positive phase during the most rapid warming. Aerosol changes and mode changes in the oscillations can be rapid enough to explain the shape of the temperature curve. With oceans accounting for nearly all the heat capacity of the climate system, there is huge energy source and sink available for internal variation to impact global temperatures, which are a mere surface effect. Ocean heat content probably should be the true focus and measure of any climate trend.
“Now, we’ve warmed 0.8 K since 1880. You can see that to get that much from solar variation, you’d need S = 1380.1 W/m^2, an increase of 13 W/m^2. That’s way more than we’ve ever seen. Annually averaged S has been between 1363 and 1367 for the past 400 years.”
Let’s accept the 13W/m^2 of solar variation as a working figure. Given the 4W/m^2 of solar variation and the factor of two uncertainty in solar variation acknowledged by the IPCC we have 8W/m^2 and with the remainder of 5W/m^2 we are within shooting range of the portions that might be attributed to CO2 forcing and black carbon forcing. However, even in the modern record, we are seeing 5W/m^2 and with the SORCE satellite and an interesting solar cycle we might learn more. “There are two important findings from SORCE. First, the high accurate TIM (Total Irradiance Monitor) on SORCE reveals a much lower TSI of ~1361 W/m2 as compared to ~1366 W/m2 from earlier observations [Kopp et al., 2005]. ”
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/solar_radiation.php
We also know that solar variation in in the UV range is several percent, not a fraction of a percent, and that the coupling to the climate in the UV range is not strictly radiative, but also chemical, producing the greenhouse gas ozone and modulating the coupling of solar and earth originated infrared to the climate as well. With greenhouse gas forcing, at equilibrium, there is no change in Top of Atmosphere temperature or outbound radiation. The factor of two uncertainty acknowledged by the IPCC may well be real. Foukal reports that a model based upon sunspots and bright areas only explains 80% of the solar variation observed by the satellites. These observations are from just the recent solar grand maximum and the models may do even more poorly when the solar activity is in other modes like a dalton or maunder minimum. Going back 400 years, we only have the sunspot data and the nucleotide proxies, we don’t have bright area data, so the models would necessarily have less information to work with and would be in regimes for which they have not be validated. Solar variation has other nonlinearities and differences from CO2 in its coupling to the climate: the vertical and geographical distribution of its radiative forcing, including penetrating 10s of meters into the ocean, its coupling to biosphere via photosynthesis, its bleaching of materials, etc. There there are the hypothesized and poorly understood non-radiative coupling to the climate via the solar wind, magnetic field and cosmic rays. The argument that the solar grand maximum is not just a coincidence cannot be rejected.
BPL; “Lindzen’s many “iris effect” papers are consistently shot down by other researchers as soon as he publishes them. The 2009 paper with Choi was as well. I’m not at home, but when I get back on Saturday, or as soon as possible after that, I’ll shoot you the references.”
I will be curious to see if the papers dispute his data or just his arguments and conclusions. If his radiative imbalances from the observations are correct, then the models have another serious diagnostic issue that suggests their positive feedback is too high at tropical latitudes. You didn’t address the Wentz work that showed that the models reproduced less than half the increase in precipitation observed in the recent warming, some more negative feedback they are missing, or perhaps this is the feedback responsible for Lindzen’s data.
BPL: “If you use a climate sensitivity below 2 K you can’t reproduce the ice ages accurately no matter how you tweak the other parameters. There’s virtually no chance of the figure being below 1.5 K or about 6 K, with 3 K the best estimate.”
That would be a climate sensitivity to solar, in this case variation due to orbital parameters. The sensitivity to solar variation may well be that high when crossing the tipping point between an inter-glacial and an ice age. There is no reason to assume that sensitivities to CO2 forcing, coupled so differently to the climate, are that high in general, although perhaps they are when near a tipping point. The climate sensitivities of relevance to AGW alarmism are those in the warming direction for the climate we will have for the next century or two. Absent a tipping point in the warming direction and on that time horizon, the possibility of net negative feedback and a climate sensitivity under 1.0 K is open and the science is undecided. I look forward to more data and better models to help resolve the issue. A weak solar cycle in the modern instrument era would be particularly helpful to the progress of the science.
BPL: “The fraction of Earth’s land surface in severe droughts is growing like crazy, as predicted by the GCMs. That will kill us a lot quicker than sea-level rise, which is a fairly long-term danger.”
There are alternative hypotheses to explain desertification, and GCMs documented to produce less than half the observed increase in precipitation have no credibility when it comes to drought alarmism. Global warming may well be beneficial in a world thirsty for fresh water.
Barton Paul Levenson,
I don’t want us to lose focus by getting side tracked on the solar hypothesis which due to uncertainties, is not on any more solid quantitative ground than the AGW hypothesis. Its correlations over the paleo climate record should give one pause before dismissing the recent grand maximum that just happened to coincide with a period of seemingly unusual warming. The direct radiative effects of CO2 forcing only get you about 30% of the recent warming. A 30% CO2, 20% solar, 20% internal variation, and 20% aerosols variation attribution or any number of other combinations for attributing the 20th century warming can’t be rejected based upon the current science. The models certainly aren’t up to the task, with correlated errors larger than phenomenon of interest and with documented inability to model the amplitude of the climate response to solar variation, a key competing hypothesis for significant attribution, and an inability to model the multi-decadal internal climate oscillations or the magnitude of the increase in precipitation. Better understanding of net feedbacks, probably in the areas of the water cycle, cloud feedbacks and the nonlinear solar radiative and nonradiative coupling to the climate are needed.
Martin Lewitt, you wrote:
Well good luck in your endeavours, but here is an example of how difficult I‘ve found it to be with BPL over at RC:
I pointed out to him the fact that in the Earth’s Energy Budget diagram as used in the IPCC reports of 2001 and 2007, that the greatest proportion of HEAT loss from the surface was from evapo-transpiration. (78*) He counter asserted that no, the greatest HEAT loss was from radiation (390*). However, although the units (* = watts/m^2) were the same, the depiction was for EMR (electro-magnetic radiation), which is a different form of energy to HEAT, with quite different behaviour. In fact, without questioning the numbers, HEAT loss from the surface would be (390 – 324) = 66*.
Here is a quick visualization of the fundamental difference in energy types;
Consider an elemental parcel of air in a typical small regional layer of air. The most intensive radiation flux is laterally in an infinite number of directions, back and forth. (not straight up and down). However, the temperature does not change…. There is no heat transfer.
Here is just one diagram from an impeccable source, (NOAA), which typically shows the net HEAT losses rather differently to BPL’s assertions.
http://education.gsfc.nasa.gov/ess/Units/Unit2/u2L5aimage.jpg
However, when trying to communicate such explanations at RC, as the facts progressively became “more inconvenient“, my later comments were deleted in moderation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes: If you click BPL’s name it takes you to his website, where he illustrates his novels and claims to be a computer programmer. (elsewhere, he claims climate programmer).
I find it amazing/disturbing that he claims that upwelling EMR is HEAT loss, supported by Gavin et al at RC! (denying the standard literature on HEAT transfer)
Bob_FJ,
I too have found RC to censor when the truth gets too inconvenient. Those two charts are not in agreement, but I see your point, you want to net the radiative flux at the surface. However, I can see a reason to treat these vertical fluxes differently than those horizontally or actually in every direction within the atmosphere. The surface has an albedo, even within the infrared range. That albedo for snow for instance is lower in the infrared than in the visible part of the spectrum. I’ve wondered how accurately the models treat this, especially when analyzing the correlated surface albedo bias found in all the AR4 models by Andrea Roesch. Just dealing with the visible part of the spectrum the correlated error in the models was over 3W/m^2. It would be much larger if the downwelling infrared was included, bringing the total correlated error perhaps to 8 or 9W/m^2.
BobFJ: I find it amazing/disturbing that he claims that upwelling EMR is HEAT loss, supported by Gavin et al at RC! (denying the standard literature on HEAT transfer)
BPL: Adding energy adds heat, losing energy loses heat. You’re using the wrong definition of heat. You were corrected on that point by a number of scientists and continued to dispute it, which is why they finally started deleting your posts. There’s a difference between expressing a different opinion and stubbornly defending a mistake.
The Earth gains energy largely from the following sources:
333 W/m^2 back-radiation from the atmosphere.
161 W/m^2 sunlight
(Total: 494 W/m^2).
It loses energy largely from the following sources:
Thermal IR radiation: 390 W/m^2
Latent heat: 80 W/m^2
Sensible heat: 24 W/m^2
(Total: 494 W/m^2).
Because input equals output, the Earth’s surface temperature is stable over the long term (say, a year or more). Global warming is happening primarily because atmospheric back-radiation is increasing, which is in turn due to the increase in greenhouse gases. The Earth’s surface absorbs more IR, which heats it up. It must then radiate more, proportionate to the fourth power of the absolute temperature by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which will bring it back into balance if the increase in input stops.
ML,
When I regress temperature anomaly against both ln CO2 and solar intensity measures, the CO2 consistently accounts for three quarters of the variance at a very high level of confidence. Solar accounts for no more than 2.5%, and is never statistically significant. I’ve tried Lean’s TSI, Svalgaard’s TSI, Wolf sunspot number, years since solar minimum, and years since solar maximum. Nothing works. The recent global warming cannot be ascribed to the sun. Let me know if you want to see the time series data and run the analysis yourself.
Barton Paul Levenson says:
July 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm
The Earth gains energy largely from the following sources:
333 W/m^2 back-radiation from the atmosphere.
161 W/m^2 sunlight
(Total: 494 W/m^2).
_______________________________________________
Are you trying to tell me the earth GAINS twice the energy from “back radiation” as it does from the sun ???????
What is the atmosphere, radioactive or something?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Barton Paul Levenson,
“I’ve tried Lean’s TSI, Svalgaard’s TSI, Wolf sunspot number, years since solar minimum, and years since solar maximum. Nothing works.”
That is not quite an exhaustive search. You should try using twice the solar variation to account for some of the uncertainty, include aerosols, multi-decadal climate modes, the variation of the heat content of the oceans in response to the forcings, surface albedo feedback, precipitation, clouds, etc.
Just to make the sure the correlation isn’t just due to coincidence of a period of warming temperatures with a period of rising CO2, perhaps you should extend your analysis back to the Medieval warm period or alternatively include some other quantity that was rising over the period from 1880 to the present such as population or the ln of the population.
I’ve addressed the points you raised, are you stating that all you have left is your own regression analysis? The science has moved far beyond mere correlation.
The IPCC appealed to their own inability to reproduce recent warming with natural forcings alone as evidence that GHGs were responsible. But at least they used models. “Inability” is not a very strong argument, especially when the models have been shown to be lacking in many relevant abilities, such as the ability to reproduce the signature of the solar cycle seen in the observations or the increased precipitation or the surface albedo feedback, or the multi-decadal climate modes. The modelers also groups aerosols which are key to reproducing the recent climate with GHGs. Sorry, the the greenhouse gasses don’t get to own the uncertainty in anthropogenc aerosols which allow models with a wide range of sensitivities to “match” the climate. Some combination of solar and aerosols also might be able to “match” the climate, especially if the models are fixed to better represent observed solar influence on the climate. The shape of the recent temperature curve might well be anthropogenic but the warming might be solar, just as it has been a solar grand maximums of the past.
Frankly we need to understand the climate and the sun better, but we may not have good enough data to ever attribute the 20th century warming, we just didn’t collect good enough data to nail down aerosols, and the modelers have shown that by exploiting that uncertainty they can make just about any climate sensitivity work. None of the forcings need to work in isolation, probably all are contributing.
I hope you aren’t implying that your correlation analysis eliminates the need for better models and better understanding of solar variation and solar coupling to the climate.
Martin Lewitt Reur July 29, 2010 at 6:14 pm
There are a whole bunch of energy budget diagrams around that all broadly agree with the net numbers in the IPCC (Khiel and (Kevin) Trenberth) diagram once adjusted for different parameterizations/ percentages/ units/ definitions. Here are three more, that are conveniently compared at Wikipedia. I think that the most popular is the second one from NASA. Notice that K & T does not get a mention. Oh BTW, the one I posted earlier as from NOAA, I notice in the link for the first time that it is also used by GSFC.
I’ve not read Andrea Roesch, but agree with you that albedo is funny stuff, with many associated complications making accurate integrations a bit tricky. I think it might be more complicated with insolation at low Sun elevations including over water etc, but I’d better stop there to avoid broadening the topics here.
Martin Lewitt Reur July 29, 2010 at 6:14 pm
There are a whole bunch of energy budget diagrams around that all broadly agree with the net numbers in the IPCC (Khiel and (Kevin) Trenberth) diagram once adjusted for different parameterizations/ percentages/ units/ definitions. Here are three more, that are conveniently compared at Wikipedia. I think that the most popular is the second one from NASA. Notice that K & T does not get a mention. Oh BTW, the one I posted earlier as from NOAA, I notice in the link for the first time that it is also used by GSFC.
I’ve not read Andrea Roesch, but agree with you that albedo is funny stuff, with many associated complications making accurate integrations a bit tricky. I think it might be more complicated with insolation at low Sun elevations including over water etc, but I’d better stop there to avoid broadening the topics here.
Barton Paul Levenson Reur July 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm :
Two broad definitions of HEAT universal in science are:
1) At the quantum level in molecular excitation of vast complexity.
2) At the level in the observable world, which, encompassed simply = Specific heat of the matter x mass x temperature. (putting aside latent heat of phase change)
Note that in both cases, photons or EMR are external to those definitions. Also, the quantum theory literature defines EMR as a different form of energy to HEAT. (normally described at the quantum level as a duality of waves and photon streams)
The temperature of matter, (testable by experiment), can only change if there is a change in HEAT content in the matter, via the three basic transport mechanisms. It is the temperature of matter that is the criterion of ultimate concern in climate change. Whilst EMR is a consequence of the temperature of matter x its emissivity, it is clearly not HEAT, and, although it is one of the three transport mechanisms, does not result in any HEAT transfer, (loss or gain), unless there is a potential difference in emissive power to a sink where it may go. {e.g. abbreviating S-B: (constants1 x T1^4) – (constants2 x T2^4)}
As far as I can see, I’ve not expressed any opinions, but only facts. Perhaps you could indicate where you think I’ve made mistakes or gave opinions above.
I had three subject posts deleted in moderation without any recognition or explanation. Please explain how it is that you can assert that you know why they were deleted.
For example, below the line is a screen copy of the shortest of three posts that were deleted in moderation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BobFJ says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 13 August 2009 at 4:55 PM
Jeff et al:
Concerning K & T 1997, please note that the claimed upwelling of EMR, (Electro
Magnetic Radiation…. also known as Infrared Light, or long-wave radiation), of
396 w/m2 is opposed by 333 w/m2 back radiation, which slows down the rate of
escape of HEAT via that transport process of EMR. Furthermore, by definition,
EMR is not in itself HEAT.
Here is a simple analogy, comparing ELECTRICITY to EMR in two of its aspects:
1) Hold an electrical resistor in your hand, and pass a suitable current through it.
What you should feel is HEAT that has been converted from electricity via its
“absorption” of electrons in the resistor.
2) Now, expose some of your skin to adequate sunlight, and you should experience a similar sensation. The sunlight, (short-wave EMR) will be converted to HEAT by a somewhat similar process. In this case it is via dermal molecular absorption of photons of light.
3) In the analogy 1), if an appropriate voltage for the experiment is say 200 volts
across the resistor, then the identical result would be obtained, if there were two
opposing EMF’s of 400 volts and 600 volts across that same resistor. (BTW,
nothing would happen if the opposing voltages were equal, AOTBE).
See my 580/p12 for more information.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/summer-sea-ice-round-up/comment-page-12/#comment-133038
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And, in brief:
Hmm, free energy eh? Interesting, but see Gail Combs’ comment above.
Gail Combs,
“Are you trying to tell me the earth GAINS twice the energy from “back radiation” as it does from the sun ???????”
Hopefully BPL doesn’t mean that. A better way to think of it is that the surface and atmosphere “exchange” radiation at that rate. If you beamed a 1W laser off of two parallel mirrors and it bounced off of each 5 times before exiting the other side, each mirror would be experiencing a flux of 5W before just 1W leaves the system. Now if instead of mirrors the two surfaces were perfect white scatterers, the average number of bounces and flux at each surface might be less before the energy is bounced or scattered out. The total flux leaving the system would still be 1W. Now if instead the two parallel surfaces were black body radiators the 1W would come in and hit one surface and not reflect at all. That surface would warm until it started radiating a 1W. Some of that would be escape but some of that would hit and warm the other surface which would then start radiating, some of that would escape but some would hit the original surface, which now must warm a little more and radiate more than 1W because it must continue to radiate the original 1W plus the new incident energy. Still while the original surface is warmer than it would have been if the second plate wasn’t there, there is only 1W entering the system and 1W leaving the system.
O2 and N2 are poor absorbers and radiators of infrared radiation, so a warm surface radiating infrared would see most of that radiation escape to space. Add in greenhouse gases such as CO2 and H2O and some of that infrared is absorbed and re-radiated in all directions, that hiting the warm surface which is absorbed will slow the cooling of that surface. The surface will be warmer than it might have been otherwise. Most land surfaces are fair approximations to black bodies in the infrared. The greenhouse gasses will be radiating in the neighborhood of their characteristic infrared bands, the black body surface will absorb that radiation incident upon it. Even though the surface absorbs the greenhouse gas wavelengths it radiates as a black body, so some of the energy being exchanged is leaking out infrared windows in the greenhouse gas coverage of the spectrum. Of course, even radiation in the greenhouse gas parts of the spectrum is making its way eventually to the top of the atmosphere and being radiated into space. The warm surface is also losing heat in the usual ways conduction, convection, evapotranspiration, etc.
A surface such as snow which has a high albedo in the infrared part of the spectrum, will reflect or scatter much of that greenhouse gas radiation directly without increasing in temperature. Its albedo is not quite as high as in visible part of the spectrum, so a higher proportion is absorbed and keeps the temperature higher than without GHGs than would happen with visible light. So the snow will radiate a little more infrared than it would have without GHGs in the atmosphere.
Hopefully, you can see why the fluxes are greater and how no additional energy is really involved, but higher temperatures result. At equilibrium total radiation out is no greater than radiation in.
I’m not sure how the reported fluxes are arrived at or averaged over the whole surface of the earth in a meaningful way. It would seem difficult to calculate from first principles. Radiative transfer through the atmosphere would be well understood, but with the actually flux varying with surface temperature and other characteristics and the water vapor content so variable and with CO2 levels varying seasonally, how would a scalar average be arrived at and how useful would it be?
Martin Lewitt Reur July 30, 2010 at 10:16 pm to Gail Combs
I’m pretty sure BPL did actually mean that, but it is too late here, so I’ll provide some repetitive historic evidence tomorrow.
As indicated in my July 31, 2010 at 7:17 am, here are links to comments on an RC thread involving BPL’s various HEAT transfer arguments that conflict with the scientific literature. (e.g. ignoring that EMR has quite different behaviour to HEAT, even to the point that equally opposing EMR, which is a common situation in the atmosphere laterally, results in no HEAT loss or gain, and thus no change in temperature via EMR)
Perhaps gain access to the thread at the highlighted comment number 763, and then scroll up by comment number.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-132829
516
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-132873
536
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-132898
546
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-132948
554
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-133027
557 I’ve [BPL] been writing RCMs since about 1998.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-133038
580 No response to this comment
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-133482
737 You’re [Bob_FJ] seriously confused, dude.
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-133570
759
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=606#comment-133618
763 (typical comment number)
Gail Combs: Are you trying to tell me the earth GAINS twice the energy from “back radiation” as it does from the sun ???????
BPL: Yes. We’ve measured both for many decades now. They’re largely in different wavelength ranges; though, sunlight is UV+visible+near IR, atmospheric back-radiation is almost all thermal IR.
Martin Lewitt: You should try using twice the solar variation
BPL: Multiplying by a constant of any size (other than zero) would have no effect on the correlation.
ML: I hope you aren’t implying that your correlation analysis eliminates the need for better models and better understanding of solar variation and solar coupling to the climate.
BPL: Not at all. I write RCMs myself.
BPL: The Earth gains energy largely from the following sources:
333 W/m^2 back-radiation from the atmosphere…
Bob_FJ: Hmm, free energy eh? Interesting, but see Gail Combs’ comment above.
BPL: I don’t understand what you’re asking here. The radiation from the atmosphere comes about because the atmosphere is warmer than absolute zero and contains greenhouse gases.
Barton Paul Levenson Reur August 1, 2010 at 7:17 am
Well actually I was not asking anything, but making a slightly sarcastic throw-away comment, which perhaps I should have left for Gail, since she raised it.
Hint about my sarcasm:
In analogy, if we are cold at night, and we throw an extra blanket over the bed, does our body become heated by the blanket? Answer; no, the blanket does not provide a GAIN in energy, but slows down the rate of escape of HEAT, via its several transport processes. In other words, the potential difference between the energy in one’s body and the energy in the original sink above, is reduced by virtue of insulation. No free energy is added…. That’s why houses are insulated more nowadays, to reduce energy bills through reduced energy loss.
As I write this, you have not responded to the more substantive issues in my July 30, 2010 at 8:20 pm but I trust you will do so later.
Barton Paul Levenson,
“Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures (duh!).”
“Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures (duh again!).”
Neither of these is obviously true. At the earth’s surface temperature, water vapor pressure increases rapidly with temperature. Increased humidity results in higher lows and lower highs everything else being equal. Solar is more strongly coupled to the oceans, penetrating 10s of meters, while CO2 infrared radiation penetrates mere microns. Stronger coupling to the oceans could easily result in more warming in winters than in the summers. Are you sure you believe the models are necessary? I think they are needed to resolve issues like this, however I also believe they need to be much better to be of use for attribution of the recent warming and projection of the climate.
Barton Paul Levenson, you wrote in your July 24, 2010 at 3:22 am:
I notice that you were courteous and pledged to offer advice to us sceptics if we indicate where we think you might be in error. Upon re-reading my last post (August 1, 2010 at 4:03 pm ), I realize that I could have been more courteous, without sarcasm, and perhaps explained better, so I edit part of what I wrote to you; (added bits are in bold):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well actually I was not asking anything, but making a slightly sarcastic throw-away comment,which perhaps I should have left for Gail, since she raised it.Hint about my sarcasm:In analogy, if we are cold at night, and we throw an extra blanket over the bed, does our body become heated by the blanket? Answer; no, the blanket does not provide a GAIN in energy, but slows down the rate of escape of HEAT, via its several transport processes. In other words, the potential difference between the energy in one’s body and the energy in the original sink above, is reduced by virtue of insulation. No free energy is added.
Also, the blanket will contain more heat, originating from one‘s body, than it did beforehand, and, amongst other heat transport processes, will back-radiate EMR towards that heat source wherever there are air-gaps.
unnecessary:
That’s why houses are insulated more nowadays, to reduce energy bills through energy loss.As I write this, you have not responded to the more substantive issues in my July 30, 2010 at 8:20 pm but I
hope you will do so later.look forward to your advice. I apologise if you thought I was rude before.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, I accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and understand its nominal effect, but disagree that it is potentially catastrophic.