Target: Monckton

This is a press release from CFACT sent to me. Post your Kicks or Kudos here, your choice, but play nice and be mindful of blog policy as moderators are standing by to snip your call.  – Anthony


Target: Monckton
Target: Monckton
Have you noticed the kicking around that CFACT Advisor Lord Christopher Monckton’s been getting lately?

Add to the title “Viscount of Brenchley,” “whipping boy du jour.”  Seldom a recent day goes by without some new name calling or conspiracy theory attacking Lord Monckton echoing through the left-wing blogosphere.

Why is Chris Monckton the victim of a global warming attack campaign?  Effectiveness.  Few have been so brilliantly effective at debunking the global warming scare as this compellingly articulate British Lord.

Lord Monckton does his homework.  He scours the scientific literature.  He devours every word and graph.  He is in constant contact with a vast network of leading scientists throughout the world.  He wades past the executive summaries and masters the details.  He checks the math, checks the logic, and checks the consistency of what is claimed about our climate.  He synthesizes global warming science and policy raising vital questions that provoke thought in the mind of any expert or layman with an open mind.

Despite the nearly unimaginable sums available to the global warming folks – despite their command of the media, the politicians in their thrall and the carbon profiteers lining up at the taxpayer’s trough, Lord Monckton and his allies are winning.  Like the child who revealed that the Emperor had no clothes, Lord Monckton wakes the good sense of those who hear him.  The public has caught on.

The warming propaganda machine has lost its momentum and is desperate to get it back.  They want to silence Lord Monckton and remove him from the field.  To that end they’ll say anything.  They attack his title hoping we won’t notice that every British Viscount has a right and by long tradition is called “Lord.”   They attack his graphs and charts, hoping we won’t bother to learn that most of his data comes straight from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the sources it cites.  Lord Monckton had hoped that by using the IPCC’s data warming advocates would be forced to debate the merits.  Sadly, they continue to alternate between mocking the data and restating their conclusions as received wisdom.  Yet when granted a fair forum for debate, it is Monckton who triumphs.  Just weeks ago his team of experts were voted the winners in a warming debate at the Oxford Union – a treasured haven of free thought.

Last year Lord Monckton gave a presentation on global warming in St. Paul Minnesota that became a sensation on YouTube.  This inspired Prof. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas to attack his presentation in a lengthy video.  Lord Monckton has refuted Prof. Abraham using his own medium.  The first of a series of videos setting the record straight are being released today and we invite you to view them.

As CFACT has said before, the chain of logic behind global warming claims does not hold up.  Lord Christopher Monckton will neither be silenced, nor ignored.  As Mahatma Gandhi told us, “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

Advertisements

292 thoughts on “Target: Monckton

  1. He’s intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, and tenacious. Ergo he’s a great to the Orthodoxy and must be attacked. All we’re seeing is the current rendition of the Two Minute Hate, with Monckton standing in for Goldstein.

  2. Er, he’s a threat…maybe I meant great threat (and I need a new keyboard obviously as well as a better proofreader).

  3. “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    I like that quote! I think I am going to have to use it.

  4. Trump “The Donald”, says bad publicity is better than no publicity.

    Too bad the arguments are emotional and he refutes them with facts.

    Is the break up ice Denyberg floating south?

  5. His name is turning into a useful shortcut – I can decide quite quickly who’s worth paying attention to and who’s worth ignoring completely just based on their reaction to him.

    Those who chose not to engage his ideas seriously deserve the favor returned.

  6. Well said, Anthony. Monckton is articulate, accurate and tireless. Long may he be a thorn in the side of the green propaganda machine. Victory cannot come too soon.

  7. As a Brit, I’m proud of our tradition of free speech. Whatever your views of Monckton, at least he is open to debate; he will respond to emails, he will even stop in the street to talk to people throwing insults at him. I don’t know if he is right or wrong, but he deserves room to talk and I’m pleased we have people such as him standing up to be counted.

    It will only ever be to the detriment of AGW-ers that they attack him personally.

  8. Try sending emails to Lord Monckton and the Goreacle. See which sends you back a personal response. Lord Monckton makes my “Good Guy” list.

  9. Well, I for one would love to see a properly moderated debate on national TV between Chris Monckton and anyone the AGW camp would care to put up… Gavin S maybe?
    Would he/they dare?
    I somehow doubt it.
    BTW – has a transcript been made of the recent Grauniad sponsored debate which Steve McIntyre attended? I have not been able to download the audio file when it was up so still don’t know the details.

  10. Long may he continue. He is haunting the AGW movement with common sense and logical reasoning. The shriller, nastier and more ad-hominem his attackers become, the more apparent it is that they are trying to drown out what must be most obvious in their own minds – that they have bought into a cult of belief far removed from science and reality, so full of confirmation bias and contradiction that the only way to maintain its momentum is to constantly stoke it with fear and hyperbole. They might not even be entirely wrong, but by now they are too far lost in hubris to find out either way..

    – a ‘climate cynic’.

  11. So often I am ashamed of being British, our politicians, media and “scientists” are so often second rate. It is good to have someone to be proud of.

    I like your Gandhi quote, exactly right

  12. Monckton’s refutation of Abraham was epic and spot on. From Abraham’s mischaracterizations to his strawman attacks, he(Abraham) was exposed as intellectually fraudulent at almost every thought he attempted to express. Monckton’s refutation is a thing of beauty. I wish him well in his future endeavors and look forward to hearing more from him in the near future.

  13. Love the quote “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    Let’s hope it holds true.

  14. Lord Monckton is an inspiration and an excellent example to us all. He takes the brickbats and insults thrown at him with good grace and fine manners. Assuredly, we non-believers in AGW will see the overthrow of pseudo-science, until the next Soros onslaught. However, CCX is in dire straits and should Soros try to bolster its chances, do not remind him that bad money drives out good*. With any luck, he’ll bankrupt himself

    *Sir Thomas Gresham

  15. Cometh the hour cometh the man!

    We are blessed that people of good faith are stepping up to the plate and taking the battle to the enemies of logic and freedom and common sense, the vested interests and the big money gang.
    Men like Inhoffe and monckton are rare beasts indeed, they stand up when many others shrink away in fear, you cannot blame those who stay silent for fear of the revenge of the AGW mob because only a few have the courage to stand up and fight.
    We will win in the end, in fact the end comes closer with every month that passes, they know it and we know it. All the money in the world and all the power is meaningless in the face of truth.

  16. Dr. Abraham should know that you catch more flies with honey. Lord Monkton will dissect his claims and arguments with such a calm demeanor and a gentle smile that it will undoubtedly have him wondering why there is nary a husk from his strawmen left behind. Sadly, for the warmists, it is a case of two steps back once again.

  17. Leftists are very vicious in their personal attacks and even more scandalous is the way they rewrite history and science to fit their worldview and then coordinate themselves to spread their ideas to young, gullible people or other envious power hungry people as themselves. I know this because I was one of them and knew every trick in the book, I just didn’t see it as a bad thing at the time. It’s basically a cult and you have to feel sickened by its frequent failures, selfishness and ignorance to free yourself from it.

  18. If historians finally record an unbiased record of the struggle between the hoardes of politically-correct acolytes of CAGW and ruthlessly objective science, surely Lord Monckton’s name will stand high on the list of heros.
    IMO one sentence from thread start best summarizes his contribution:
    ”Like the child who revealed that the Emperor had no clothes, Lord Monckton wakes the good sense of those who hear him.”
    Exactly.
    Pretty much everything Lord Monckton writes is worth a ”SAVE-local”. . . .

  19. A well known phrase from the English TV comedy series “Dad’s Army” – “They don’t like it up them!!” (For those not familiar, this is referring to a fixed bayonet…)

  20. I think James Delingpole (a skeptical blogger on the UK Daily Telegraph) is on BBC Radio’s “Any Questions” on Friday. If that’s the case he’ll follow Dominic Lawson who is Lord Monckton’s son in law (I think) and son of Lord Lawson a well known skeptic and ex-chancellor of the Exchequer (Finance Minister).

    Perhaps the BBC is relaxing a bit, maybe Lord Monckton himself is due an appearance on “Question Time” or “Any Questions” ? We can but hope

  21. I am confident he is honored by the attacks. The more the better. It’s the ultimate proof of is success and free publicity for our case just like the negative press of “Our Climate” creates a sales boost.

  22. Lovely quote; “But why should you want to watch one person throwing dead cats at another..” @3:56

    Indeed; and the weather was once thought such a safe (but dull) topic of conversation.

  23. It may be true that Lord Monckton is being targeted but he didn’t do himself any favors over at real climate by being shown to be incorrect. And then being shown incorrect by tamino at

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/

    which monckton not so surprisingly did not respond to.

    I would love to see monckton enter a pre-prepared with someone like john cook. Boohooing at real climate is one thing but going up against the plethora of scientific evidence shown at skeptical science is another thing.

  24. “Lord Monckton does his homework. He scours the scientific literature. He devours every word and graph. He is in constant contact with a vast network of leading scientists throughout the world. He wades past the executive summaries and masters the details. He checks the math, checks the logic, and checks the consistency of what is claimed about our climate. He synthesizes global warming science and policy raising vital questions that provoke thought in the mind of any expert or layman with an open mind.”

    Sounds like a good charter for the IPCC!

  25. Well having had a couple of enjoyable e-mail exchanges with The Viscount, relating to some of these Climate issues, I can’t think of anyone less deserving of the vitriol that gets levelled at him.
    After all, he doesn’t have any need to bother with any of this stuff; other than he feels he can, and has made a difference to the dialog.
    But then we all know that the ad hominem attack is the fastest way to lose debating points; and Lord Monckton is not one to try such juvenile tactics on.

    George

  26. “he looks like an overcooked prawn”

    Monckton must care a great deal about the finer points on academic debate.

  27. Lord Monckton makes for an easy punching bag because he’s out there speaking up. Just like how we use Al Gore as our punching bag.

    No wait…
    it’s not the same…

    Lord Monckton actually has some knowledge behind him and can hold his own on the subject.

    Sorry, my bad.

  28. Re: “Lord”.

    Let us, for the purpose of argument, assume that Christopher Monckton is in fact a pretender, with no right to use the titles “Viscount” or “Lord”.

    If Chris Monckton, common bloke, reading the scientific literature, finds fault with the methodologies of researchers, and has laid out his objections in excruciating detail, could we give those objections a look, and ascertain whether his arguments have any merit, without resort to ad hominem diversions about his alleged delusions of grandeur?

    Frankly, if Monckton wants to style himself “Grand and Exalted Poobah”, it says not a damned thing about the validity of his arguments about the science.

  29. Having read the John Cook/Joe Romm juvenile “one liner” catchecisms to annhilate skeptical arguments against CO2-caused CAGW:

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/09/rebutting-climate-science-disinformer-talking-points-in-a-single-line/

    Link from WUWT recent post on the Climate App.

    I can see why Monckton would be a target – he is formidable!

    “Henry chance says:
    August 12, 2010 at 9:19 am
    Is the break up ice Denyberg floating south?”

    No, Henry, it is becoming part of the multi-year ice in the Arctic ocean (mult-multi at thousands of years and hundreds of metres thick.

  30. They attack his graphs and charts, hoping we won’t bother to learn that most of his data comes straight from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the sources it cites.

    No, his graphs are attacked because he claims that they are based on data from the IPCC when in fact they are not.

  31. Anthony

    I have always found Lord Monkton on this subject to be quite sensible and a good presenter.
    I hope that you will carry a liknk to the remainder of the rebuttal once publishes/available.
    Likewise I think that it would be useful to have a link to what Prof. John Abraham broadcast/said. It appears from the intro by Lord Monkton that he plans summarising it, but for the sake of completness/fairness I consider that it would be useful to see the entire broadcast.
    I am pleased to note that Lord Monkton suggests that his rebuttal will remain impartial. Personally, I consider it best for the facts to do the talking rather than resorting to over inflated/emotional outbursts.

  32. I thoroughly enjoy the eloquence and humor Monckton employs when delivering his presentations. While not a climate scientist, Monckton admits so. But what is the skill level regarding data and methodology of each?

    For some reason climate scientists feel that if a thermometer is in or next to a source of artificial heat in order to derive an accurate (“properly adjusted”) reading one must add to, increase, the indicated measurement. As a layman; Monckton sees folly in such process.

    It is a sad day for science when after 400 years of temperature measurements educated scientists (some) still do not know how to proficiently utilize a thermometer.
    Then there are those (GISS) who seem to claim that global temperatures can be accurately measured with just a few devices thousands of miles apart. Mann is even better. He only needs dendro data from ONE tree to determine 1,500 years of global temperature history.

    Whilst mock Monckton they may, ultimately the Lord will prevail as a shining beacon of truth.

  33. I think we should all thank Lord Monckton for adding a bit of sanity to all the hype. Here is mine:
    Thank you sincerely Lord Moncton for your considerable and welcome contributions on this subject. Don’t let them “grind you down.”

  34. When you are in the right, you can afford to keep your temper and when you are in the wrong, you can’t afford to lose your temper.
    Lord christopher Monckton seems to be keeping his.
    His opponents on the other hand…………………….
    He stands for open debate and for that, i salute him.

  35. Global Warming is the opening of the rabbit hole….. Lord Monckton ….Alex Jones….Max Keizer… Agenda 21….Trilateral Commission……Al Gore….Maurice Strong ….George Soros….Ben Santa….IPCC….WHO…Codex Alimintarus …..Barry Soetoro… Is it all a BAD dream?..zzzz

  36. When our AGW friends in the mainstream media and the blogosphere dwell on character assassinations, it indicates they’ve lost the ball in their defense of the underlying science of AGW. Monckton presents staggering amounts of scientific evidence, and critics say “Don’t listen to him, he’s not a real Lord”. The average uninformed citizen is slowly waking up to the problem of “wait a minute, ya didn’t prove how the guy is wrong about what he says….”

    Particularly egregious is the MSM’s journalistic malfeasance when they regurgitate such accusations rather than investigate the voracity of them – a point I make in my 7/6 American Thinker article “Smearing Global Warming Skeptics” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/smearing_global_warming_skepti.html

  37. The trouble with Lord Monckton is that he uses too many facts and not enough circumstancial evidence :-)

  38. Another sub-context in this discussion is that liberals hate titles of nobility. I’ve had many discussions with left leaning people on this subject.
    So, Lord Monckton has several strikes against him vis-a-vis who will listen to him.
    1.He’s logical. His opponents cannot make the same claim, as much of what they say about global warming is contradictory (it causes both flooding and deserts).
    2.He’s right.
    3.He’s Noble (in every sense of the word.)
    4.His research is impeccable, and at least he actually does research. I believe him, and if you disagree with him, he remains noble (as in polite and nice) which, again, my own experience with AGW people has usually ended with them screaming…….

  39. “Lord Monckton makes for an easy punching bag because he’s out there speaking up. Just like how we use Al Gore as our punching bag.”

    Al Gore? You mean the “Poodle” Al Gore? We don’t even have to hit Poodle Al ourselves, since he sits in a corner hitting himself in the face.

    Lord Monckton and Poodle Al are in such different leagues, that if Poodle Al’s league would explode, it would take three days before Lord Monckton would hear the explosion.

  40. Lord Monckton comes from fighting stock – his father was a career army man as was his grandfather… The present Lord Monckton is the second Viscount, his father was the first and his father had a reputation as a General of being a man who could marshall his facts and figures and present a devastating assessment of any proposed operation or campaign. The present Lord Monckton has the same ability. Not a man to tangle with, I suspect that the glee with which his detractors found a flaw in his data may yet come back to bite them rather badly.

  41. >> Robert says:
    August 12, 2010 at 9:58 am

    I would love to see monckton enter a pre-prepared with someone like john cook. <<

    I'd love to see it too. Are there any Warmist priests who aren't afraid to debate him?

  42. Personally I view Mr. Monckton as a crackpot. However, I question the wisdom of overlaying rifle scope cross hairs on his image. If a green group did that it would be taken as a not so veiled threat. I know you don’t mean it that way, but still it is best to avoid inflammatory symbolism.

    For a fun look at mathematical crackpots see “Mathematical Cranks ” by
    Underwood Dudley.
    http://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Cranks-Spectrum-Underwood-Dudley/dp/0883855070/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281635669&sr=8-1

  43. These videos look like they’re going to be a more informal, audience friendly version of Lord Monckton’s super dense, point by point/word by word refutation of Abraham we saw here a couple of months ago.

    Which could be a lot of fun, actually ;)

  44. “Monckton keeps his temper. . .”

    Well, apart from mocking people’s appearance (“overcooked prawn” and “big-bellied thugs”), alleged politics (“Nazis”), institutional affiliation (“Minnesota Bible College”), and intelligence (“zombie”).

    And unless someone insults or disagrees with him, of course.

  45. As a a person hopelessly contaminated by AGW theory, I am very happy
    that Monckton is your front man.

    Did you note that the House of Lords wants your Vicount to stop saying he
    is a member of the upper house and that Queen’s Chancellor wants him to stop
    plagiating the Parliament portcullis emblem? If he wasn’t so great in climate
    science one might suspect that he is a pompous clown.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton

  46. Lord Monckton is well known and thus attractive target.
    But why someone would, a minnow like myself, consider to be a danger to science.
    Recently I put on line this:
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-B.htm
    A well known scientist responded with this eloquent rebuttal:
    Rarely have I seen such a blatant display of scientific dishonesty (perhaps hoping that nobody would notice), but I guess that the end justifies the means in your case.
    I can only say “ ?!

  47. andrew adams says: August 12, 2010 at 10:20 am

    No, his graphs are attacked because he claims that they are based on data from the IPCC when in fact they are not.

    I’m new to this attack on him. From what I’ve seen of his presentations, he does indeed pull graphics directly from IPCC reports. Do you have an examples of where this is not so, or where he is incorrectly claiming to use IPCC data?

  48. We have many fine spokesmen on the side of realism; Anthony Watts, Christopher Horner, Patrick Michaels, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, etc. Lord Monckton is unique. He is an eloquent, gifted orator. He can very effectively communicate complex issues to the masses. This is why he is perceived as a threat by those who wish to perpetuate the fraud that is AGW. Monckton is our most effective spokesman when it comes to exposing the absurdity and fraud of AGW.

  49. They are truly afraid of Lord Monckton. He has an ability to lead and carries himself with nobility.
    Absolutely terrifying to those who practice the art of half-truths and word twisting.
    If the UK doesn’t want him, please send him over here.
    The US could really use a natural-born leader with his wits about him.

  50. I am certainly no Lord Monckton, but I do what I can.

    On Thursday August 5, 2010, I was an invited presenter in San Diego, California, where another speaker took the pro-AB 32 position and I took the opposite. AB 32 is California’s version of Cap-and-Trade and GHG reduction by government decree. The meeting was at the North County Economic Development Council, Public Policy Steering Committee. (North County refers to a portion of San Diego County)

    I was able to speak second at that forum, and I’m happy to report that the final vote of the Committee was 5-1 against AB 32. The pro-AB 32 speaker gave the familiar litany of issues, highly distorted some facts, and with blatant falsehoods thrown in.

    I stuck to the facts, many of which are here at WUWT, and some from my own blog.

    It was actually a lot of fun.

    I have another such speech with a different pro-AB 32 speaker, then I will take the anti-AB 32 position, scheduled in September in Anaheim, California.

  51. “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    How true. Well, they have definitely *moved on* to the fight segment.
    Thank godness they no longer sound nor act like scientists.

  52. Every court has its jester and the only problem I would have with Lord Monckton is taking him seriously.

  53. Robert says:

    I would love to see monckton enter a pre-prepared with someone like john cook. Boohooing at real climate is one thing but going up against the plethora of scientific evidence shown at skeptical science is another thing.

    I totally agree. Let’s have a real debate between John Cook and Lord Monckton in a neutral venue with a mutually agreeable debate Moderator. If Cook accepts, I promise not to hold his high school diploma against him. ☺

  54. andrew adams says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:20 am
    They attack his graphs and charts, hoping we won’t bother to learn that most of his data comes straight from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the sources it cites.

    No, his graphs are attacked because he claims that they are based on data from the IPCC when in fact they are not.
    ———-Reply:
    So Andrew, are you having a bad day or do you actually have a specific example? Please, share with all. (Of course, if the IPCC’s data is spurious or false, citing or using such isn’t the right think to do.)

  55. andrew adams …
    Can you point us ito the charts and graphs which Monckton claims are from IPCC data which in fact are not?
    It’s always good to learn and if Monckton is trying to pull the wool over my eyes I sure would like to see the proof.
    And I do mean “proof”, andrew. OK?

  56. His title may come from ancient traditions of the kind any nation could cherish, as surely as we on our side of the pond should cherish the rights and Constitutions that bind us. Takes reminding ourselves that this man may carry a title, but people made of what Christopher Monckton is will stand head and shoulders above the horde. Makes one grateful Messers. McIntyre, McKitrick, Watts, Eschenbach, Montford Plimer and Dr. (What a Lady she is) Curry (as well as a great many others who help us to shaping our understanding) with such integrity, bravery and endurance.

    Thanks WUWT and all of the above for the wonderful alternatives to the the media-embargoed truth that the hateful and hostile robber barons of the climat-modelling world are selling.

  57. Monckton ain’t exactly a poster boy for tolerance and civility, either.

    He calls himself a Tory, yet dashes off to the UKIP whenever convenient.
    He fabricates a position for himself in the House of Lords which he never held.
    He proposed placing people with HIV in detention camps.

    And I am rather aghast that Americans who call themselves conservatives flock to the banner of someone who flouts his title of nobility.

    There are far better skeptics out there.

  58. The reason Monckton is so hated by the far left is that he is a former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher (British prime minister from 1979 to 1990, ally and buddy of Ronald Reagan, hammer of the Soviets). In this respect Monckton is the exact mirror of his chief foes (who are the policy advisers, not the scientists or politicians that we see – these are just front men). Monckton understands far too much about the political aspects of the CAGW movement for the comfort of its leaders. The rest is just standard leftist hate tactics.

    For the benefit of North American readers, Margaret Thatcher is as hated by the far left in Britain as George W Bush in the USA. Perhaps more so.

  59. Long live Lord Monckton! The more the warmists resort to shrill ad hominem, the more people realize that they don’t have a leg to stand on. Monckton is thorough, prepared, logical, analytical, and methodically tears down each and every argument rationally. He’ll shred anyone they throw at him and they know it.

  60. There were no comments when I started my first one but having read them after submitting my comment. I must add that Monckton also seems to increase the readers’ penchant to think and articulate with extreme precision and a great deal of linguistic beauty here.

    Two first digits of the hand, composed of two phalanges and attached to such a mobile metacarpus, up!

  61. andrew adams says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:20 am
    They attack his graphs and charts, hoping we won’t bother to learn that most of his data comes straight from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the sources it cites.

    No, his graphs are attacked because he claims that they are based on data from the IPCC when in fact they are not.

    you have the platform, Prove IT ! OR shut up!!!

  62. “And I am rather aghast that Americans who call themselves conservatives flock to the banner of someone who flouts his title of nobility.”
    The word is “flaunt”, John. Get it right.
    And I don’t remember him saying he has a right to a seat in the House of Lords.
    The question really is “is he right?” and the ad homs he attracts suggest he probably is.

  63. Monckton is a “target” because he has been caught making numerous false claims regarding Climate Science. He is to AGW skepticism what Al Gore is to AGW alarmism.

  64. Assassination of character is a far too common way of winning arguments now. If the opposing side can succeed in making people think a person or group is evil, it doesn’t matter what he or she or that group says. Why do you think there are so many attack ads during campaign time? Don’t vote for that guy, he is evil! Assassination of character is effective, which is why it is used so often.

  65. Philip says:
    August 12, 2010 at 9:23 am
    “Well said, Anthony. ”

    As I mentioned on the “Our Climate” thread yesterday, one has to pay attention to who wrote and who posted what. On this one I believe Anthony only wrote the 3 lines at the very top.

  66. Ah, wait until Lord Monckton reminds us all that the point of the whole debate is the well-being of Life on Earth, particularly people. We’ll really have fun then, for that science is even more overwhelmingly on our side!

  67. John Egan says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
    Monckton ain’t exactly a poster boy for tolerance and civility, either.

    I can’t hesitate to answer that statement. There is a time in the process of a spreading epidemic where containment is possible. We routinely do so with Ebola outbreaks, funded by developed nations and their agencies. That at one point in the early brainstorming, also on the need for more information, is no shocker. We want the system to ask all relevant questions and see the substantive angles discussed. The question of containment is always discussed in dealing with a new disease. I can’t help but feel that your criticism was an empty and wikifluff attempt to attack somebody’s character.

    As to his title. Same again. I suppose you would scrap the USS Constitution for being ‘archaic’? Would you assume that one of her retired crew, who perhaps advised a President, was a buffoon? I don’t get you.

    Our three nations share proud traditions, have and do shed blood together in common cause, even today. Some traditions only exist as symbols. That Chris Monckton is also tied to history in a symbolic way is no reason to chide readers on hearing what he has to say. Compared to the Peerage system, Lord Monckton has actually done something. Unlike you in your nasty attempt to ‘discredit’ him.

  68. John Egan says:

    “He proposed placing people with HIV in detention camps.”

    Well, John, people in America propose putting those who made personal choices into HIV detention camps, too. The purpose is to keep others from unknowingly contracting the fatal disease.

    And besides, John, what does that have to do with carbon dioxide?

    sandy jardine says:

    “Monckton is a charlatan and a fraud. Watts Up has thrown its credibility to the wind defending this bum. You dont have to be a raving warmist to see he fabricates evidence.”

    Sandy baby, I read your link, and it is nothing like you portray it. Lucia’s conclusion:

    I think the more appropriate value to use when comparing an observed trend based on 2001-2008 data for GMST is the trend rate provided in the summary for policy makers… Oddly, I agree the IPCC model’s projections look high!

    That is not “fabricating evidence.” That is just another scientist looking at a chart, and trying to determine how it was constructed. Apparently Lucia never contacted Lord Monckton, but was instead speculating on various implications as a response to a question by another commentator. Where do you get “fabricated?” Where I come from, that is bearing false witness. Prove a “fabrication” with chapter and verse. If you can.

    The ad hominem attacks we see here are a diversion from Monckton’s science, and follow the Alinsky script: always personalize the attacks against the individual, and don’t ever respond to what he is saying. No one is right 100.0% of the time, but Monckton is open about his work and corrects it when [rarely] necessary.

    Contrast that openness with someone like Michael Mann — who hides out from any questions that are not pre-vetted through a trusted propaganda outlet. To this day, over twelve years after MBH98, Mann still refuses to disclose his Hokey Stick methodology, even after Steve McIntyre proved that he had used the Tijlander data upside down, and many other equally egregious blunders.

    If it were not for psychological projection, Monckton’s attackers would have nothing. Lord Monckton is not afraid to stand up toe to toe and slug it out — while his opponents like Mann and Abraham stay cloistered in their Ivory Towers, knees shaking, afraid to come out and fight it out in a real debate with someone who isn’t afraid. The fear is so thick on the part of people like Mann and Abraham you can smell it.

    Like most of us here, I am glad not to be on the side of bed-wetting cowards who hide out and take pot shots as they drive by — and then run back to the safety of their institutions, tails between their legs and yelping about the onslaught of scientific skeptics armed with real facts.

  69. OT but not irrelevant.

    Official: Satellite Failure Means Decade of Global Warming Data Doubtful

    “US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.

    The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).

    Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.”

    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

    Well, at least the global warming alarmists will have a non-human scapegoat to blame for their misunderstanding of climate science that led to their environmental psychosis.

  70. ” John Egan says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
    He fabricates a position for himself in the House of Lords which he never held.”

    Nonsense. In his own words: “… a member of the Upper House but without the right to sit or vote…” (That right now belongs to Tony Blair’s cronies).

    Why should Americans have a hangup about Lords? They have more, a president who is “sort of a God” (Evan Thomas from Newsweek). Yeah, yeah (Chris Matthews from MSNBC).

  71. Robert says:
    August 12, 2010 at 9:58 am

    “It may be true that Lord Monckton is being targeted but he didn’t do himself any favors over at real climate by being shown to be incorrect. And then being shown incorrect by tamino at

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/
    which monckton not so surprisingly did not respond to. ….”

    Robert, did you bother to read the post you referenced? First, they were arguing one point out of the plethora of points Monckton has made. If that’s the best they can do, they need to quit now. Further, the argument is side-splittingly laughable.

    From the second sentence in the link you provide—–“It included this passage about Monckton’s claim that CO2 concentration isn’t rising exponentially, but only linearly:”

    Now, I’m a bit rusty with graphs and graphing data using formulas, but to my recollection, a person can have a line(linear) on a graph that is both exponential and linear. I wouldn’t have responded either. But, I’ll slow it down for some.

    2+2=4, 2*2 =4 and most amazingly 2^2 = 4 <—-(example of exponent!!!)

    I'm not saying they didn't have a point, but again, if that's the best they can do against Monckton, they need to cut their losses and throw in the towel.

  72. [SNIP]

    Every single claim that Monckton has made about Climate change has been proved false. Every attribution he has made to respectable scientists has been show to be a fabrication. Those scientists have said so – now publicly.

    [SNIP. Not amused by the ad hominem insults to both Monckton and this site. ~dbs, mod.]

  73. John Egan: August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
    Monckton ain’t exactly a poster boy for tolerance and civility, either.

    Have you ever lost your temper when someone insulted you, or something you cared greatly about?

    He fabricates a position for himself in the House of Lords which he never held.

    Oddly enough, there was a post at WUWT that put that pretty much to rest. Read down a few paragraphs, and then the comments.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/

    He proposed placing people with HIV in detention camps.

    Detention camps or isolation wards? I’m not up on that one, but contrast that with the UN’s Year of the Woman speaker who advocated unprotected sex for teenage girls *and* claimed that being tested for HIV violated “human rights.”

    And I am rather aghast that Americans who call themselves conservatives flock to the banner of someone who flouts his title of nobility.

    See the comments in the link above.

    There are far better skeptics out there.

    If I may indulge in a military simile, “A good plan ready now is better than a perfect plan that won’t be ready for another week.”

  74. I had the extraordinary opportunity of meeting and talking with Lord Monckton at the 2nd ICCC.

    I was humbled by his willingness to take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to talk one-on-one with someone he never even met before.

    That is the difference between the Al Gore and Lord Monckton. The former is a noisy empty barrel who refuses to discuss issues with anyone. The latter, even with a Title, is not so big that he cannot take the time to discuss issues with an unknown engineer.

  75. John Egan says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am

    “Monckton ain’t exactly a poster boy for tolerance and civility, either.

    He calls himself a Tory, yet dashes off to the UKIP whenever convenient.
    He fabricates a position for himself in the House of Lords which he never held.
    He proposed placing people with HIV in detention camps.

    And I am rather aghast that Americans who call themselves conservatives flock to the banner of someone who flouts his title of nobility.

    There are far better skeptics out there.”

    Here’s the thing you guys don’t get. I don’t hold Monckton as some sort of godlike role model. I simply see his arguments as logical in regards to the CAGW debate. He continually brings up points that should be regarded and answered. In regards to the CAGW debate I really don’t see how a 25 year old position on treatment of HIV infected individuals is pertinent, but just for the record, using the precautionary principle, I, too, was in favor of the quarantine method. Oddly, the HIV/AIDS issue turned out to be yet another over-hyped potential end-of-world scenario that didn’t happen. Don’t get me wrong, it is still a devastating disease, it just hasn’t killed everybody like was soo feared for a few years. I wonder if there wasn’t a teachable moment in all that which may apply to today?

  76. Marge says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:44 am

    “Monckton is a “target” because he has been caught making numerous false claims regarding Climate Science. He is to AGW skepticism what Al Gore is to AGW alarmism.”

    Once again, a baseless ad-hom attacking the person rather than discussing the science.

    I am calling your bluff, Marge. Give us a specific, verifiable. itemized list of each of those “numerous false claims.” Be specific, and have citations we can verify. Then we can discuss whether your claims are valid or not.

    I’ll wait, while you run along to RealClimate for help and encouragement…

  77. The RealClimate and Tamino posts more-or-less confirmed Monckton’s numbers but the “followers” of those websites are not able to see that since they only respond to the emotive tone of the posts.

    There is one problem, though, in that Monckton uses linear charts (maybe just to simplify them for the audience) when the IPCC A2 scenarios are slightly exponential which makes a small difference for the current period.

    The IPCC A2 scenario increases by +3.4C in the 100 years up to year 2100. the more realistic A1B scenario increases by +2.8C over the same period. RealClimate likes to say there is a range of projections which even includes some model runs which hardly increase at all in the current period. Therefore, the current period with no warming is perfectly consistent with the models.

    Well, the IPCC doesn’t exactly say that the projections include no warming at all do they. If that was true, then there is no problem. A2 increases by 0.34C per decade on average and A1B increases by 0.28C per decade on average for the next 90 years. Tamino and RealClimate can pretend no warming is consistent with that if they want to.

  78. Marge says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:44 am

    “Monckton is a “target” because he has been caught making numerous false claims regarding Climate Science. He is to AGW skepticism what Al Gore is to AGW alarmism.”

    Marge, if you’d be kind enough to supply us with the errant information, in other words, proof of the false claims, we could all acknowledge and move on. But you or a Prof. Abraham saying “is not!”, doesn’t suffice as proof of false claims. While there isn’t a person involved in the debate which can remain uncontroversially error free, equating anyone with a person who financially benefits from selling fear of sea-level rise and then buys a house on ocean-front property is a bit of a stretch.

    About the only person I can see in the entire debate that we can make a direct comparison with algore to, is our smut-writing, climate scare profiting friend at the IPCC, Pachy.

  79. From my point of view the skeptics could not have
    a better frontman.

    Have you noticed that the House of Lords wants your Viscount to
    stop saying he is a member of the upper house? and that the Queens
    Chancellor wants him to stop plagiarizing the portcullis emblem?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton

    Maybe petty of them, but what kind of clown goes appropriating
    fancy titles and emblems not belonging to him?
    ‘Ad hominem’ you will say – but, if you are honest, does he have
    good common sense in his head?

  80. Smokey, do try to keep up. Google Prof John Abraham. Read, or in this case watch, the very evidence you asked for.

    Oh, and please learn the meaning of the Latin abbreviations you keep throwing around.

  81. Lord Monckton is, by trade, a reporter educated in the classics.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley

    At a time when the National Academy of Science is berating scientists for not utilising the services of deeply involved statisticians to crunch some of the most challenging data ever produced by human science. Not because they got it wrong, but because they can be queried for the statistical methods…….

    This non scientist comes out with article after article claiming that the scientists have got it wrong.

    The articles are scientifically debunked. If you don’t know what that means, it means that the scientists who review and comment on Moncktons articles have to have them peer reviewed and approved before they can publish.

    Yet the press keep on referring to articles which are scientifically proven to be wrong.

    Then answer to that conundrum is in the first sentence…..

    I’m sure he’s a nice fellow and all that. But when there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of lives at stake on this issue, I’d prefer a bit more evidence than an amateur who gets his figures wrong!

    And before everyone drops on me like a howling banshee, please consider that the NAS has completely exhonerated Michael Mann over the whole hockey stick issue. In fact, the only way to read the data and NOT get a hockey stick is to deliberately pick the only sequences which do not show one.

    Worth considering before raging off on one.

  82. re: Robert says: August 12, 2010 at 9:58 am

    …. being shown incorrect by tamino at

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/

    which monckton not so surprisingly did not respond to.

    Oh, gee he failed to respond to something posted all off two days ago. That’s real significant (NOT). Did Tamino even bother to notify Monckton of the post? And if he DID notify Monckton, just how long ago, an hour? And, even if notified (bet he wasn’t tho) you think it might be reasonable and warranted to give someone a reasonable time period to prepare a reply? What a joke, using a supposed “lack of reply” as if it had any meaning and somehow proves inability to successfully reply when its to a blog post the person may not even have a clue exists yet. Its pretty childish and disingenuous at best. As others have noted also, even if this single issue turns out to be wrong, so what? That is no reflection on the bulk of Monckton’s points. For you to dismiss the science points on this basis is just silly.

  83. I agree and very well written Anthony.

    Its odd that they are attacking him, he’s about to become a hero when they realize they could lose their jobs from all the companies that have yet to report their carbon emissions and are about get fined only to discover their power bill etc. going through the roof as the companies hand the tax and fines on to the consumer.

  84. The Gandhi quote is disputed by wikiquotes, which credits Nicholas Klein with a similar one:

    “First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.”

    Gandhi gets hero-worshipped enough as it is without misattributing clever quotes to him.

  85. Why aren’t crosshairs over someone viewed as particularly offensive? It does imply physical violence in a way I know is not intended, but why imply it at all.

  86. Lord Monckton is one of my heroes of the anti-AGW scene. He may be somewhat over the top sometimes, but in a very funny way. He hits the nail on it’s head with what he says. People like Al Gore don’t dare to debate him, because he lights the fireplace with their arguments. If their was a Nobel price for debating, he surely would win it!

    Go get them, Lord Monckton!!!

  87. “”” John Egan says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
    Monckton ain’t exactly a poster boy for tolerance and civility, either.

    He calls himself a Tory, yet dashes off to the UKIP whenever convenient.
    He fabricates a position for himself in the House of Lords which he never held. “””

    Well John; there’s a scientific term for your assertion; “Sheer Balderdash.” You haven’t a clue what you’re even talking about.

    Lord Monckton; never was and never has claimed to be a member of the Britich House of lords. He has I believe run for elective office to the House of Commons; and did not succeed.

    He IS a Viscount; the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to be precise; which title he inherited from his father who was the Second Viscount Monckton of Brenchley; who inturn Inherited the title from his Father; the First Viscount Monckton of Brenchley; and the History books record what that man did to earn the Hereditary Title.
    True the Title was not given till years after the 1936 era events which earned it.

    Ahead of Viscounts in the British system of Titled Nobility would be Barons and Marquis; the latter being the senior.

    The official mode of address for Marquis, Baron, or Viscount is in fact “LORD”. To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing as a “Lord” as far as a rank of Nobility is concerned; so there are precisely NO LORDS in the British House of Lords. The word is simply the accepted mode of address; just as Queen Elizabeth II is properly addressed as “Your Majesty”. There aren’t any Majesties either in the British Hierarchy.

    A Knight on the other hand such as Edmund Hillary became (twice) is simply addressed as “Sir”.

    The US Constitution specifically prohibits Titles of Nobility; which did not prevent Mrs. Barbara Boxer from demanding that she be addressed as “Senator”, when Military Protocol specifically calls for Military personell to address someone such as Mrs. Barbara Boxer as “Ma’am”; which the General on the hot seat did in that instance.

    So stop prattling idiotic nonsense that you know nothing about. The correct mode of address for Viscount Christopher Monckton, IS “Lord Monckton.” So get over it. And no I suspect he doesn’t expect Americans to use the term; he doesn’t even mind being referred to as Christopher.

    Although I am now an American; my heritage is British; and all that that stands for; and common courtesy for me, commands that I refer to him as Lord Monckton; but he has not complained when I have slipped up.

    Maybe in another thousand years or so; Americans will come to understand what THEIR heritage means, and come to cherish that. Well assuming that the current clown bunch in Washington haven’t totally destroyed what the Founding Fathers set out to achieve here in America.
    You know what they say; People who won’t stand up for anything; will fall for anything.

  88. Beacause being generous he is a typical slightly eccentric English Lord with a bee in his bonnet or being less generous he’s a very eccentric Enlish Lord with an entire beehive between his ears.

    Andy

  89. “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    They began ignoring after it was stated that the science was in and that a ‘consensus’ was arrived at.

    Immediately after that they began ridiculing sceptics as crazed voodoo scientists or such like.

    After Climategate they moved onto ‘negotiation’ which failed and we are now in the fighting stage which still includes ridicule. The Chicago Climate Exchange is in trouble, public opinion is turning, some green groups are moving away from cap n trade etc. Be under no illusion we are in for a fight and they fight to defend their lucrative ‘research’ funding and interests in carbon credits etc.

    All we need to win now is the weather to turn in the opposite direction to what the alarmists predict and stay there for a couple of decades.

  90. Friends:

    AGW supporters attack Monckton because they know he is right.

    If they could show his statements were wrong they would. And they would proclaim his errors whenever he was mentioned.

    But they cannot fault his statements in any significant manner, so they attack him with the intent that by discrediting him they will induce people to ignore what he says.
    This tactic is known as Playing The Man Instead Of The Ball.

    So, the attacks on Monckton prove he is acurately addressing the AGW scare.
    As WW2 bomber pilots said;
    “You always know when you are over the target because that is when you get the most flack”.

    Richard

  91. I was wondering how the Lord Monckton Vs Prof Abrahams thing was going…I avidly read his pdf refutations and was hoping he was successful in getting his apology and charitable donation.

  92. Whither Al Gore (WAG) ? (Formerly AGW Report)

    ICE melts.
    …-

    “ICE cuts staff at Chicago Climate Exchange-sources”

    ” * ICE to cut around half of 50-person CCX workforce

    * 1st round of layoffs began July 23, more to come in autumn

    * Sources cite U.S. climate inaction as main reason for cuts

    * ICE collecting feedback on what to do with climate bourse”

    “ICE just came in one day and started hacking away … We were told the company was restructuring,” said one source, who declined to be named.”

    “… prices for the carbon credits traded on the bourse since its 2003 launch, which were based on voluntary but legally binding emissions reduction commitments by its members, have crashed to around 10 cents a tonne from all-time highs of over $7 in 2008, and trading volumes have largely dried up.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6791WI20100811

  93. See here

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/

    for a detailed description of how the “IPCC data” Monckton uses in his graphs does not actually match that publiched by the IPCC.

    Now RockyRoad says

    (Of course, if the IPCC’s data is spurious or false, citing or using such isn’t the right think to do.)

    Which in fact Monckton’s argument – if you read his response to John Abraham, specifically regarding the graph comparing global temperatures in the last decade against IPCC projections, he admits that the “IPCC” trend shown in his graph is greater than that for the IPCC’s A2 scenario which it apparently represents, but explains that away by saying that essentially the IPCC got its sums wrong.

    But even if I was to accept for arguments sake that this is true, it is besides the point. The IPCC’s projections are what they are, whether they arrived at them by fair means or foul. If you are going to compare them to actual temperature changed then you have to do it on the basis of what the IPCC actually predicted, not what you might thing it should have predicted.

  94. The left enjoys slanderng those who disagree with them. It’s their favorite hobby. Regan, Bush, Bush, Palin, Rush, Thatcher, etc. But I’ve notices that there’s an increase in the hysterical AGW antics. When is that UN meeting at Cancun?

  95. Monckton is a good man. I like him. Of course the AGW crowd attacks him.
    It is because they know he makes a difference. With his facts.

  96. Lord Monckton is intelligent, educated, articulate and devastatingly accurate in his presentations. I echo sentiments expressed above that, as a Brit, I can still find someone British in whom I can feel a great deal of pride. I cannot extend that sentiment to any of our present politicians, all of whom worship at the altar of Climate Change.
    I would dearly like to watch a debate between Monckton and ANY representative that the pro-AGW group might care to put forward.
    Many of the questions asked above would be answered, unequivocally.
    BTW, I, as an Englishman, use the honorific ‘Lord’ as a matter of courtesy, not as subservience.

  97. Thank you Lord Monckton.

    It is a pleasure to hear what you consider important to the scientific discussion of climate. Wish all the energy to persist.

    Thank you WUWT for bringing focus and a venue.

    John

  98. Monckton is feared and attacked by the Alarmists because he has always has been better at their own game than they are. He recognized early on that the climate debate is really a propaganda battle and has approached it on that basis. When he first appeared in his fight I assumed he was regurgitating talking points assembled by others, but over time and especially with his refutation of Abraham’s nonsense it became clear his intelligence is exceptional and his knowledge encyclopedic. I can’t say I think he has been entirely correct in every statement he’s made on the topic, but he shares that distinction with every other person on the planet, including myself, and his batting average is well ahead of anyone else with a similar number of plate appearances.
    What makes him dangerous to the alarmists is his ability to garner publicity for the skeptical argument even in the face of the world wide media blackout. The success he has achieved in this almost single handed fight against the massive CAGW propaganda machine is a tribute to his skill and intelligence, aided of course by the truth he has behind his arguments. Given enough time and money anyone can sell soap, but it’s a lot easier if the soap you’re selling will actually clean anything.

  99. Lord Monckton may have an instinctive view of climate change which is well observed and worthy of support. But don’t kid yourselves regarding his other attributes. He is a senior member of one of the most right wing parties in Europe ( UKIP) and is not, I repeat , is not, a member of the house of Lars. His letterheads are slightly different and the House of Lords has formally asked him to cease the pretence that he belongs to that August body. He is a hereditary peer, the sort of guy Americans fought to be free from in the war of independence. He has hit the jackpot with his understanding of climate change, but don’t decieve yourselves, Lord Monkton has the sort of politics most people would want not want to be linked to.

  100. And I am rather aghast that Americans who call themselves conservatives flock to the banner of someone who flouts his title of nobility.

    Obviously, you are as daft about Americans as you are climatology. Conservative Americans, first and foremost, are pragmatic to a fault. If it gets the job done, use it. If it pisses the neighbors off, use it on their property. GET ER DONE LORD MONCKTON

  101. The Warmers are flummoxed by Monckton because they don’t realize the Brits have not only managed to master the English language (gasp!), they even know how to use that talent to verbally skewer their opponents (horrors!). Go watch the awesome give-and-take in the House of Commons, or Galloway’s verbal clubbing of the Congressional committee that tried to nail him down on his whacko ideas. Add facts to that talent, and the Warmers are understandably apoplectic because they can’t lay a glove on him. And if they ever do, he’ll easily win on points.

  102. I watched the first 7 parts and, though the message is very clear and to the point, the sound and video quality are distracting.

  103. John Egan says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am

    “He proposed placing people with HIV in detention camps.”

    When new and deadly infectious diseases arise, isolation of the infected population has always been the most effective prescription for preventing epidemics from developing. That political correctness prevented the strategy from being implemented in the case of HIV/AIDS has resulted in tens of millions of dead and dying around the world. Monckton’s suggested policy proposal may have seemed draconian, but given the end result it is hard to argue that he was wrong in suggesting it.

  104. John Egan says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:27 am
    Monckton ain’t exactly a poster boy for tolerance and civility, either.

    He calls himself a Tory, yet dashes off to the UKIP whenever convenient.

    That’s a whole different story. The UKIP are the Eurosceptic party in the UK. The “Conservative’ party is anything but.

    The financial links between the EU and the IPCC are well documented.

    AGW scepticism and Euro-scepticism are not unrelated.

  105. “first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    Calljng someone an ‘overcooked shrimp’, is that ridiculing?

    Threatening someone with a lawsuit, is that fighting?

  106. I am glad to be in the world sharing air with Lord Monckton. May he live long and prosper.
    To those who would attack or question his words, ideas, and person: why not e-mail him directly to get his response? Maybe you can persuade him directly and convince him of his “errors”, or more likely become a slight amount more civil yourselves.

  107. I just want to say Thank You to all the kind readers of Anthony Watts’ magnificent blog who have so kindly indicated their support for what we are all trying to do: to seek and speak the truth. I am very touched by what so many of you have been kind enough to say.

    I do hope that many of you will have the chance to look through some of the 24 10-minute video clips that constitute my oral response to Professor Abraham. Working with CFACT, I thought it right to answer his points in some detail, so that anyone who is interested will have a fair chance to decide for himself who is closest to the objective truth.

    Some commenters have suggested that I have misused IPCC or other data in my graphs. You will find the graphs I have used in my presentation inserted at the right points in the narrative. If any of you have any doubts about where the graphs came from, or how the data were compiled, please feel free to ask. I try to answer all such queries, because the scientific method requires that anyone who asserts a result must be willing to explain how he got there, so that others can replicate his work by following his route and identifying any errors. If there are genuine errors, I shall do my best to correct them. It is very easy for a layman like me to make mistakes: but there were really not that many in my Minnesota presentation – and certainly nothing like as many as Professor Abraham suggested.

    Thank you all again.

  108. Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says: August 12, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Leftists are very vicious in their personal attacks and even more scandalous is the way they rewrite history and science to fit their worldview and then coordinate themselves to spread their ideas to young, gullible people or other envious power hungry people as themselves. I know this because I was one of them and knew every trick in the book, I just didn’t see it as a bad thing at the time. It’s basically a cult and you have to feel sickened by its frequent failures, selfishness and ignorance to free yourself from it.

    AGHH I’m quite touched by your confession. It gives me hope too, for others.

    Kevin McKinney says: August 12, 2010 at 11:05 am

    “Monckton keeps his temper. . .” Well, apart from mocking people’s appearance (“overcooked prawn” and “big-bellied thugs”), alleged politics (“Nazis”), institutional affiliation (“Minnesota Bible College”), and intelligence (“zombie”). And unless someone insults or disagrees with him, of course.

    I agree with Bill Tuttle who says

    Have you ever lost your temper when someone insulted you, or something you cared greatly about?

    and would add, Monckton has consistently reined in his temper, compared with which his opponents consistently play shamefully dirty.

    Now would you say I’m straying into ad hom in saying that, or am I merely being accurate and fair? Now I once believed the AGW thugs, and kept away from even looking at Monckton. When I started to doubt the thugs, one of the things I checked was the quantity of dirty innuendo, smears, ad hom, on both sides… and guess who won for civility, hands down. Monckton. That was one of the biggest reasons I started to take him seriously. And started to enjoy his peppery but now clearly well-deserved, accurately-aimed occasional rudeness. Occasional, that is, in comparison…

  109. Monckton speaks infinitely more sense than the warmers. A small IPCC example:

    “Scenarios are images of the future, or alternative futures. They are neither predictions nor forecasts. Rather, each scenario is one alternative image of how the future might unfold.”

    In order to be able to make scary predictions (sorry scenarios) – while not be held to their predictions (err sorry scenarios).

    Sadly for the warmers, the more they attack Lord Chris, the more people will be inspired to conduct their own fact checking exercises. Eventually, even the politicos will know what Unit Roots and PCA are – and real scientists will be regretting giving the climate phrenologists their science-less latitude for many years.

  110. Jeremy says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:11 am

    I’m new to this attack on him. From what I’ve seen of his presentations, he does indeed pull graphics directly from IPCC reports. Do you have an examples of where this is not so, or where he is incorrectly claiming to use IPCC data?

    In a nutshell, he replaced an exponential curve with a linear one and gets a CO2 prediction that is too high, and then plugs this inflated value into a climate sensitivity formula without accounting for the thermal inertia of the earth, inflating it even more.

    There’s a lengthy post about it at RealClimate.

  111. Stephan says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:19 am

    OT looking very very sad for AGW these days
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
    If NH ice continues like this, the AGW crowd will have to concede virtual complete defeat this year. They have been wrong wrong wrong all along LOL

    Looking here I see the current extent for the Arctic is the 2nd lowest of the satellite era. I’m not exactly sure what you are cheering about.

  112. James Sexton says:
    August 12, 2010 at 12:13 pm

    Robert, did you bother to read the post you referenced? First, they were arguing one point out of the plethora of points Monckton has made. If that’s the best they can do, they need to quit now. Further, the argument is side-splittingly laughable.

    Did you read the RealClimate post too? That highlights quite a lot more problems than just 1.

    I’m not saying they didn’t have a point, but again, if that’s the best they can do against Monckton, they need to cut their losses and throw in the towel.

    You might think it is only 1 point, but I think we can agree that global temperature predictions are the most important. So I wouldn’t dismiss it that easily. If he messes up that, what’s the value of his other arguments?

    Remembering all the hoopla over the errors in AR4 I do see a problem here with double standards.

  113. In the last video (part 6), he talks about the MWP and how they abolished it. Monkton says it’s because they removed proxy data from that period and used other data.

    I know that they hid the decline by removing the proxy that came after the 60’s and grafted instrumental data. But did they do something at another point to remove the MWP as well? Either way, the data was altered, but if it wasn’t the MWP data that was altered, perhaps someone should inform Monkton. At least, that section might deserve a second look if Monkton meant something else (like using proxy data that was known to be unreliable in order to remove the MWP, with hopefully information to back up that assertion).

  114. [SNIP. Since Lord Monckton had commented in this thread, there will be no name-calling, such as ‘liar, ‘buffoon,’ etc. ~dbs, mod.]

  115. The ad hominem attacks we see here are a diversion from Monckton’s science, and follow the Alinsky script: always personalize the attacks against the individual, and don’t ever respond to what he is saying. No one is right 100.0% of the time, but Monckton is open about his work and corrects it when [rarely] necessary.

    Contrast that openness with someone like Michael Mann — who hides out from any questions that are not pre-vetted through a trusted propaganda outlet. To this day, over twelve years after MBH98, Mann still refuses to disclose his Hokey Stick methodology, even after Steve McIntyre proved that he had used the Tijlander data upside down, and many other equally egregious blunders.

    Very well said.

  116. It’s funny seeing the criticisms of Monckton here, as they are all unsubstantiated or ad hominem or refer to blog posts that attack a very minor point in a much larger argument. It basically proves the article right!

    In my opinion, for what it may be worth, there are two main ‘debaters’ on the heretic’s side. These are Monckton and McIntyre (apologies to all the others who are battling away, but these two seem to get the most information ‘out there’). McIntyre is the cautious analytical polite guy (and not really an AGW heretic anyway) and Monckton is the flamboyant ruthless media guy, it seems to me. Both are influential in their own way. SM pretty much cannot be found wrong on any point but is not a polished public speaker IMO, and CM cannot be matched in the public forum, but even though he can cite huge amounts of real data and papers, may be guilty of being ‘economical with the truth’ (h/t Sir Humphrey, Yes Minister) at times. His opponents are often left flat-footed and hurling insults, which is just funny.

    They both get equal, and equally nasty, coverage from the hard-line AGW church, and that must make them both proud. I’d love to see what the current emails within the ‘Team’ say about Monckton, but then again, perhaps they’ve learnt their lesson on the emails thing…..

  117. @ John F. Hultquist (August 12, 2010 at 11:59 am) said: “[T]his [rifle sight is] an image from the original CFACT press release;…. WUWT only used the original but didn’t create it.”

    Thanks for pointing that out. I guess Monckton has a bit of a martyr complex.

  118. hmm ok, may I rephrase

    If Lord Monckton has any complaints about those who criticize him, why does he not sue them for Libel? I heard of one aborted attempt. Since those who criticize him have raised serious legal and ethical issues, why has he not responded in the legal area where *TRUTH* will pervail.

  119. It’s pretty amusing to see the same crowd that likes to imagine that belief in global warming revolves around Al Gore worshipping at the altar of his lordship – “gifted”, “devastatingly accurate”, “humbled”, “nobility”, and one enthusiastic fellow who’s delighted to share the same air as Monckton. You’ll excuse me while I have a little chuckle over that one.

  120. Anne van der Bom says at 3:26 pm [ … ]

    That nit has been picked. If you don’t believe so, write Lord Monckton and ask him for his input. It is simply due to different methodologies and makes no difference to the final analysis.

    And please stop quoting the troglodytes at the RealClimate echo chamber until they stop censoring scientific skeptics and start to allow different points of view.

  121. “”” harvey says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    hmm ok, may I rephrase

    If Lord Monckton has any complaints about those who criticize him, why does he not sue them for Libel? I heard of one aborted attempt. Since those who criticize him have raised serious legal and ethical issues, why has he not responded in the legal area where *TRUTH* will pervail. “””

    Why bother ? Let those who have raised “serious and legal issues” try suing him. Have you heard him uttering any complaints ?

    I presume that “pervail” means something similar to “prevail ” ?

  122. He is a gem, the trouble is the AGW crowd do not want facts they want us back in the dark ages, lord Monkton needs all the moral support we can muster, as do all the honest folk who support honesty and integrity.

  123. Richard S Courtney says:

    AGW supporters attack Monckton because they know he is right.

    If they could show his statements were wrong they would. And they would proclaim his errors whenever he was mentioned.

    Not only would they have…but they have:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/
    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    And, that’s just a small sampling. Even some “lukewarmers” like Lucia admit that Monckton misrepresents the IPCC projections:
    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/how-moncktonized-ipcc-trends-compare-to-other-versions/

    Of course, that won’t stop people like you who want to believe him from either ignoring these demonstrations of Monckton’s falsehoods or incorrect assertions or falsely claiming that they are wrong or have been rebutted by some diatribe that Monckton releases in response. In other words, your point of view is essentially tautology.

  124. And Lord Monckton, If I may:

    O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts,
    And men have lost their reason!

  125. Monckton is by far, one of the most influencial speakers on Climate, that I’ve ever seen. Beating Gore by a longshot. Gore looks like an idiot after this video:

  126. Bill Illis says:

    There is one problem, though, in that Monckton uses linear charts (maybe just to simplify them for the audience) when the IPCC A2 scenarios are slightly exponential which makes a small difference for the current period.

    Not that small…As you noted, with those charts, Monckton produces a slope with the A2 scenario that is 0.34 C per decade, which is clearly in contradiction with what the IPCC directly states as the model projections for the temperature trend over the next few decades:

    Model experiments show that even if all radiative forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend would occur in the next two
    decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected
    if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios. Best-estimate projections from models indicate that decadal average warming over each inhabited continent by 2030 is insensitive to the choice among SRES scenarios and is very likely to be at least twice as large as the corresponding model-estimated natural variability during the 20th century.

    That’s in the IPCC AR4 Working Group 1, Summary for Policymakers, so one doesn’t have to read very far to see what the IPCC actual projections are…that the projected trends are significantly lower than what Monckton claims and the fact that they are fairly scenario-independent over the next 20 years or so (which isn’t that surprising given that it takes a while for the emissions in the various scenarios to diverge significantly and that half of the rise is projected to be due not to ANY additional emissions but simply to the greenhouse gases already present in the atmosphere).

    RealClimate likes to say there is a range of projections which even includes some model runs which hardly increase at all in the current period. Therefore, the current period with no warming is perfectly consistent with the models.

    They like to say that because it is true. The pesky fact about climate is that you are dealing with a system in which you have both “signal” and “noise” and the trend over short periods of time is dominated by the noise component. It is exactly for the same reason that the temperature trend here in Rochester over a period of, say, a week or so can be negative in the spring even though there is no denying that the seasonal cycle is strong here and that the predicted temperature trend in the spring is positive.

    Of course, when you cherry-pick your starting periods (and sometimes ending periods by ignoring some recent data), there is even more chance that you can find a trend over short time periods that is very different than the trend of the underlying signal.

  127. George E. Smith says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    > I presuem that “pervail” means something similar to “prevail ” ?

    Most preceptive!

    Except that you can’t pre-sue-’em because it’s unlikely they’ve done anything yet except get a little red faced in the facade.

    ————–

    I have some mixed feelings about Lord Monckton. In some ways I seem him as the skeptics answer to Al Gore – a good communicator secure in his beliefs. (And understands more about the science than Gore ever will.) Like Gore, he knows he can control his audience, he certainly did at the ICCC. I think my biggest discomfort though is seeing people almost reverently casting their allegiance with him. Skeptics really ought to be, well, more skeptical.

    On the other hand, he’s so different than Gore – willing to engage pretty much all comers, understands what he’s talking about (though oftens somewhat one-sidedly), and is usually right.

    All in all, his dedication, the time spent, and all his travel have certainly helped get the skeptics’ view out and deserves a huge thank you for his efforts.

  128. Monckton as a target, why ?

    I often wonder why this type of info does not gain more visibility. It is stated from primary AGW folks. I know this site has referenced it, but look at the stats Jones presents in this, as an example. Trend for AGW, or really natural GW by virtue his words and stats ?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

    And some dancing from these guys ? ~~~ it speaks for itself .

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/13/jeff-masters-sets-the-record-straight-on-dana-milbanks-column/

  129. Americans do not like royal snobs, due to the concept that “All men are created equal.” However we have a certain ambiguity in our beliefs, for even though we dislike the idea of an “upper class,” we do like a person who is “classy,” or “a class act,” or a fellow who “displays class.” In other words, we do believe that some people can be excellent.

    What made the tiny island of England a huge empire was the fact they honored excellence, and their word (and reward) for excellence was to be deemed ” a lord.”

    What has made America a power is because we too honor, or once honored, excellence. But what is our word?

    I would like to suggest our word is “Doctor,” rather than “Lord.”

    I once worked a menial job where I had to dress up in a suit, and my good buddy liked to embarrass me, when we bopped into a shop for donuts and a coffee, by asking me, “What sort of donut would you like, Doctor Caleb?” My fellow Americans treated me with far more respect on those days I was “Doctor” than they did on other days when, (this was right after 9-11,) this same mischievous buddy would mispronounce my name as, “Kah-leeeb.”

    Unfortunately, just as some have made the title “Lord” a joke, others have made the title “Doctor” a joke. When truth is dirtied by fudging, fabricating and flaming fraud,
    the title “Doctor” is dirtied.

    Do you catch my drift, Doctor Hansen and Doctor Mann?

    This is not to say there are not true doctors left in America. Class acts. Classy lovers of Truth. However unless they stand up like Moncton, and display Moncton’s guts, (even though he must feel like the last true lord left in England,) they may find themselves standing as the last true doctor left in America, as America crashes and burns and goes the way of the British Empire.

    The word “Lord” was corrupted from its true meaning, into a sign of snobbiness, and a word used with contempt, as in, “He lords it over everyone else.”

    The word “Doctor” has also been corrupted from its true meaning, into a sign of corruption, and a word used with contempt, as in, “He doctored the data.”

    In my humble opinion, what gives the words “Lord” and “Doctor” true meaning is the attempt to stand by the Truth, at all odds, despite all adversity. If I may be so bold, I’ll say Moncton likely deserves not only the title “Lord,” but a seat in the House of Lords. Or he deserves it more than the mostly gutless nitwits inhabiting that institution. Furthermore, in America Moncton likely deserves to be called “Doctor Moncton,” for he seems to deserve that title more than the mostly gutless nitwits inhabiting our universities.

  130. Monckton is the master of the misleading presentation.
    When his slide says 6 cm for sea-level rise, he doesn’t mean it (you have carefully read the other words).
    When he says sea ice is increasing in the Beaufort Sea, you are not supposed to assume it is increasing in the Arctic.
    When he says global warming has stopped, he later clarifies that he didn’t mean forever.
    It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is. This is very much a lawyer using tricks of deceit for simple people to fall for. You have to give him credit for the artfulness of misleading without actually lying. Why didn’t he put up the IPCC’s actual sea-level rise, or the Arctic’s actual sea ice trend, or state that he didn’t think warming had stopped for good when he believes those things. It wasn’t an inadvertent withholding of information. It was quite deliberate. He agrees with a lot of what the IPCC says, but you are not going to see him give a clear statement of those things to a live audience.

  131. at: August 12, 2010 at 1:48 pm
    andrew adams says:

    The IPCC’s projections are what they are, whether they arrived at them by fair means or foul. If you are going to compare them to actual temperature changed then you have to do it on the basis of what the IPCC actually predicted, not what you might thing it should have predicted.

    Here andrew is displaying the intellectual bankruptcy of the entire AGW argument.

    Anyone can make a prediction. The more predictions I make, the more likely at least one will turn out correctly. This is not science. It is a fraud used by psychics and soothsayers.

    Science relies on testable hypothesis. If AGW is a testable hypothesis, it will make predictions that can be agreed and verified. The predictions are either true to the hypothesis, or they are not.

    No matter which way you spin it, the predictions have all failed. Making it up as you go does not help. You are just showing up how confused the AGW camp are because there is zero evidence to support their hypothesis, from the equatorial hot spot, to stratospheric water vapour, to ice caps that fail to melt, to ‘average global” temperatures that fail to rise.

  132. Good to see all the “Real Climate” readers posting here. Once upon a time I used to look at the site once a week or so. But I never go there since they posted an “offer” to skeptical types to “bet” them on projected temperature rise for the next 10 years. I rose to the bait and made a significant “offer” which was promptly “deleted” but they accidentally left a “clarification” posted.

    Interesting that they weren’t prepared to put actual money behind their claims. I stopped reading their blog shortly thereafter as it became clear that Real Climate is not a site that believes in open discussion.

    Now I consider any use of “Real Climate” as a reference to be useless.

  133. Compellingly articulate British Lord?

    [SNIP – Fat Chance. You think you can put one over on a WWII scholar? ~ Evan]

  134. About his eyes, Graves disease, hyperthyroidism, there are some alternative things that could be given a trial run. I wish I could sit and talk to him about it. But then some people don’t like alternative things. Just wishing.

  135. Really? My comment did not make it through moderation? Laughable. Seems like just over a year ago folks cried on here about Realclimate moderating posts.

    All I said was Monckton reminds me of Duane Gish, what a horrible and terrible thing!

  136. If I weren’t concerned it would sully his reputation by making him over as a “Yank”, I’d offer we consider Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, a citizen, with full standing, of the free states of America. It would be to our advantage, surely.

  137. Anne van der Bom says:
    August 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    “You might think it is only 1 point, but I think we can agree that global temperature predictions are the most important.”

    Uhmm, Anne, the global temp predictions have been consistently wrong. The fact is, I can’t recall a particular global temp prediction to be anywhere close to being correct. Can you point one out to me? If we were to take the predictions seriously, we’d literally all be toast right now, so forgive me if I don’t share your point of view. Perhaps it is because I may be older than you. Not that I’m claiming any inherent knowledge with age, it is just that the predictions of doom and gloom have been going on since before I was born. In my recollections, when I was a child of about 10 years old, we were concerned about climate cooling and we were all going to die because …..same issues as today…….when I was about 20, then we were all going to burn, because…..same issues…..that’s been 20 years……still nothing has happened other than the expense has helped cause a economic melt down. Shouldn’t we, or wouldn’t it be better if we focused on real problems instead of imaginary ones? For 20 years we’ve heard nothing but how we’re killing the planet, all the while people die because our focus is on something that never materializes. You should check what the temps have done for the last 12 of the 20 years. If you can’t see that it is all bs from that, you won’t see. It will be because you refuse to see. There is real enough pain, suffering, and harm done to humanity that you should be able to see past the scam. If you’re worried about people and the world, do something today instead of worrying about a fictional overheating tomorrow that was predicted today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

    But, thanks for your insight, it is noted.

  138. Dang it!!! My post went the the nether world again!!! HELP!!!!!

    [Found it in the spam filter. Posted now. ~dbs]

  139. Wayne Delbeke says:
    August 12, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    “Good to see all the “Real Climate” readers posting here……….”

    You wonder, do they realize we can’t post there? I think they understand they are given equal time here.( I hope they do.) Does it ever occur to them why our statements are not posted there? Then one wonders how they rationalize this phenomena? Anyone from RC still here? Can you explain?

  140. Jim D says:

    [Monckton] “…didn’t think warming had stopped for good when he believes those things. It wasn’t an inadvertent withholding of information. It was quite deliberate. He agrees with a lot of what the IPCC says, but you are not going to see him give a clear statement of those things to a live audience.”

    Wow, Jim D is a psychic! He know what people think, and what is or isn’t inadvertent. Jim D must be a whiz at poker.

    As always, on instruction from Saul Alinsky, the gorebots make the man the issue, rather than discussing the actual issue. The trolls from RC who wouldn’t know the Scientific Method if it bit ’em on the ankle come over here to practice their ad-homs. Even some folks who should know better sometimes let their base emotions rule them [Haw Haw].

    But when there is a “live audience” [of generally warmist types – they can’t be blamed, since the “carbon” propaganda rains down on them 24/7/365] that gets to listen to a real debate, the alarmist PhD’s, pushing CO2 pseudo-science with both front feet in the public trough, always seem to get their hifalutin’ butts kicked. No wonder poseurs like Mann, Schmidt, and the rest of the climate charlatans tuck their tails between their hind legs and scurry away any time someone mentions a debate with Lord Monckton.

    Even planet Earth disagrees with the stale CO2=CAGW conjecture. Who should we believe? Models, or our lyin’ eyes?

    So let’s have a series of televised debates between a team of Monckton and his skeptics, and a hokey team of climate scare promoters. Mutual agreement as to venue, rules and moderators. Let’s let the whole world see the fraud being perpetrated for the sake of money and politics.

    What say you, warmers? You got the huevos? Or are you all hat and no cattle?

    Anyone who still believes the corrupt IPCC and their conniving, money hungry supporting scientists are not in a conspiracy to keep the climate gravy train rolling needs to read A.W. Montford’s excellent page-turner, The Hockey Stick Illusion by the author of the Bishop Hill blog [scroll down -past the Editorial Review – and check out the readers’ comments].

    Using numerous documented examples of scientists, journals, and the IPCC using deceit, trickery, and breaking the rules, Montford makes an airtight case of official corruption at the highest levels. Those picking the silly nits in this Monckton thread would be knocked over backward if they read the book. But of course they won’t — their cognitive dissonance would cause them big problems.

    For everyone else, read the book. It pulls everything together so the entire picture of what is going on in the climate scam is clear. You will never look at the Michael Mann clique or Pachauri’s IPCC again without total contempt.

  141. Anne van der Bom says:
    August 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Looking here I see the current extent for the Arctic is the 2nd lowest of the satellite era. I’m not exactly sure what you are cheering about.

    But I can help you become sure about what is going on. I do know what you are looking at—a graph that makes you feel Arctic ice is not recovering quickly from 2007. But, that is a 15% concentration graph. The 30% concentration graph, the DMi graph, one that is weightier than the 15% because it shows what is happening at the heart of the Arctic, and not just what is happening (for the moment)around the circumference of the ice, shows a rapid, and strong (even surprising for how strong it is this year) growing trend in Arctic ice since 2007.

    DMi graph:

    But that’s how global warming is—you can pick and chose any piece of data out of its context, like the JAXA graph you pointed to, and then make things up about that piece of data that gives the appearance the world is heading to disasters because of car exhaust.

  142. Joel Shore I would like to see a live debate between you and Monckton.

    Live debates are the test.

    Would you do it?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  143. James Sexton says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Dang it!!! My post went the the nether world again!!! HELP!!!!!

    Just copy and paste your comments to a word pad before clicking “Post Comment”. If the comment doesn’t appear appear as “Your comment is awaiting moderation” then just wait a little while. There’s comments that go to the spam filter and moderators always check there. They have their hands full keeping up, especially in a busy thread like this one. So give them some space.

    I’d say if your comment doesn’t show up in 20 to 30 minutes just copy and paste it from the word pad where you saved it back to comments again. Maybe the second time through will work.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    A note: people should not take it personally when a comment of theirs disappears. Moderators don’t pick on anyone here. WordPress spam filter sends some comments away for reasons even some computers programmer don’t know. With some of the negative things posted here by global warming believers (if I was a moderator I would have snipped some of them in whole) that made it through moderation because Anthony is very tolerant it’s hard to imagine any other comment would be singled out as being out of favor.

  144. Abrahams brought a lot of admissions out from Monckton of the type, “if you look at the exact words I said, it is not actually what I seemed to say”. It was very revealing to see Monckton’s response, which completely unraveled his own points he seemed to be making in the talk. In his current video, he defends his 6 cm using IPCC numbers, and doesn’t actually argue with those at all, or with sea-level rise due to warming, only with Al Gore, which also points to some general agreement on the IPCC projection.

  145. Jim D says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:52 pm
    Abrahams brought a lot of admissions out from Monckton of the type, “if you look at the exact words I said, it is not actually what I seemed to say”. It was very revealing to see Monckton’s response, which completely unraveled his own points he seemed to be making in the talk.

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

    Let’s see you in a formal live debate with him. That will be the test.

  146. In his own words:

    LORD MONCKTON, UK …
    His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 –
    the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had
    overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the
    Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise
    – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin,
    made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented
    to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester,
    New York, USA.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/letter_to_mccain.html
    (open the PDF)

  147. villabolo1 says:
    August 12, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    [snip – religious insults – see policy page ~mod]
    ************************************************************************

    [REPLY: Another moderator had snipped your previous comment. I do not know why, or who did it, but based on your reply here, I can guess why you were snipped. You refer to other commentators in your (snipped) post here in these terms:

    “Listen to you thin skinned bullies who whine and wail because it’s suggested that you go live on an iceberg… One could go on forever in bringing up the vicious, lunatic slander that Lord Monckton has been hurling… How dare you, in your sanctimonious arrogance, condemn others for burping when you’ve been hurling a steady stream of vitriolic vomit at their faces for years?… Oil Company puppets, and ideologic moral degenerates, intellectually bankrupt and morally torpid… your abomination of a Lord vomit that obscenity…”

    And so on. This site has a light touch regarding moderation, allowing all reasonable points of view. But your over the top comments here, which are very common at the blogs you normally inhabit, violate site policy. WUWT readers and commentators do not need to have that kind of invective hurled at them.

    Strike one, and strike two. Argue the issue, not the individual. Even one more slightly ad hominem comment from you, now or in the future, and I will snip your entire post. This is not an argument. The decision regarding you has been made, and any replies to it will be deleted without comment. ~dbs, mod.]

  148. A 9-minute talking head video? Boring. Where’s the beef? And where is the libel suit we heard so much about in the media?

    I don’t think Professor Abraham has much to worry him in this windy exposition.

  149. Joel Shore:

    Thankyou for your unintended confirmation of my point that was:

    “AGW supporters attack Monckton because they know he is right.
    If they could show his statements were wrong they would. And they would proclaim his errors whenever he was mentioned.”

    At August 12, 2010 at 6:08 pm you respond with:

    “Not only would they have…but they have:”
    And you follow that with links to AGW propoganda blogs.

    So, what statements of Monckton do you think were errors?
    You do not say.

    What would his statements have been if they were right?
    You do not say.

    Have you taken this opportunity to proclaim his errors?
    No.

    Instead, you have provided the bluster of citing AGW propoganda blogs and you have not stated their disagreement with Monckton.

    And you conclude with more bluster at me that is so devoid of meaning as to be laughable: viz.
    “Of course, that won’t stop people like you who want to believe him from either ignoring these demonstrations of Monckton’s falsehoods or incorrect assertions or falsely claiming that they are wrong or have been rebutted by some diatribe that Monckton releases in response. In other words, your point of view is essentially tautology.”

    “Falsehoods” that are so clear that you choose not to say what they are.

    So, I thank you for your clear demonstration that I was right when I said:
    “AGW supporters attack Monckton because they know he is right.
    If they could show his statements were wrong they would. And they would proclaim his errors whenever he was mentioned.”

    Richard

  150. Smokey says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    Anne van der Bom says at 3:26 pm [ … ]

    That nit has been picked. If you don’t believe so, write Lord Monckton and ask him for his input. It is simply due to different methodologies and makes no difference to the final analysis.

    Ok, so you do not contend that he was wrong. That’s a good step forward.

    The global temperature is the central issue in this debate. We’re still discussing ‘global warming’ isn’t it? If you got your temperature predictions wrong (and that applies equally to the IPPC and Monckton) you loose the debate. Plain and simple. Nitpicking? No way.

    And please stop quoting the troglodytes at the RealClimate echo chamber until they stop censoring scientific skeptics and start to allow different points of view.

    That is ad hominem. Please debate with arguments. Tell me where is their analysis wrong.

  151. “Lord Monckton; never was and never has claimed to be a member of the Britich House of lords. He has I believe run for elective office to the House of Commons; and did not succeed”.

    Then pray tell me why the House of Lords has repeatedly asked Monckton to cease giving the impression he is a member of the upper house, and to cease using portcullis letterheads? The man is obviously well informed on climate, but has lots of skeleton in cupboards otherwise.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/11/christopher-monckton-house-of-lords-claims

    [REPLY: Actually, he has claimed to be a member of the House of Lords on the basis that all Lords are *members* of the House of Lords, which is distinctly different from being *seated* in the House of Lords as a voting member. Think of him like the US House of Representatives has six nonvoting delegates from places like Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, the District of Columbia, and other US territories, some people regard them as not really congressmen, even though they are, but can’t vote… – Mike]

  152. Joel Shore (6:42 pm) says:
    “….Of course, when you cherry-pick your starting periods (and sometimes ending periods by ignoring some recent data), there is even more chance that you can find a trend over short time periods that is very different than the trend of the underlying signal…..”

    That’s true.
    The temperature trend from 1940, the peak of the 1905 – 1946 PDO warm phase, to 1998, the peak of the 1977 – 2008 warm phase, is about 0.06 °C / decade.
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1940/to:1998
    That trend would be noted by some-one who had the pre-conceived notion that the PDO was the most significant determinant of global temperature.

    The IPCC has chosen 1950 as the starting point for their confabulations, because they have the preconceived notion that human GHG emissions (mainly CO2) are the main drivers of the global temperature (the CAGW enthusiasts prefer the post- satellite era because it renders a trend of about 0.16 °C / decade, even though they invariably select one of the terrestrial records, usually GISTEMP).

    There has been only one 20 year period of warming in the 60 years of alleged AGW (human GHGs being the overwhelming climate driving force), despite uninterrupted (and exponential if you like) increase in CO2 concentration.

    Human CO2 emissions may be a factor in driving the post-war climate, but if so, their effect so far is hardly enough to warrant putting world economic development into reverse.

  153. Joel Shore:

    As an addendum, I think it may be pertinent to point out that it is a matter of record that you are wrong when you assert (at August 12, 2010 at 6:08 pm) that
    I “want to believe” Monckton. On the occasion of a public debate in which he and I participated then he supported me. So, it could be argued that he wants to believe me, but there is no evidence to support your assertion.

    And, of course, we wiped the floor with the pro-AGW side in the debate:
    see http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2938

    Perhaps you would like to organise another debate with our side? I am willing and I am sure Chris Monckton and Niklas Morner would jump at the chance, too.

    Richard

  154. Mikael Pihlström: August 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    Have you noticed that the House of Lords wants your Viscount to stop saying he is a member of the upper house? and that the Queens [sic] Chancellor wants him to stop plagiarizing the portcullis emblem?

    Have you noticed that “wants” is not the same as “cites the law as justification”?

    The House of Lords, by definition, is the entire body of the Lords Spiritual (Archbishop and Bishops of the Anglican Church) and the Lords Temporal (everyone granted or inheriting a patent of nobility from the British Sovereign). The political restructuring of 1999 barred some of those members from physically *sitting* in the House, but did nothing to re-define the House of Lords, as evidenced by a parliamentarian demand (an illegal one, btw) that everyone barred from sitting return those patents. The Queen’s Chancellor is in the same position as an American Lefty screaming “It’s unconstitutional” about an action which makes him uncomfortable, but is not, in fact, unconstitutional — both individuals are ignoring the actual law, and are fervently hoping that, if they wave their arms wildly enough, no one will realize it.

  155. Amino Acids in Meteorites: August 12, 2010 at 10:50 pm
    I’d say if your comment doesn’t show up in 20 to 30 minutes just copy and paste it from the word pad where you saved it back to comments again. Maybe the second time through will work.

    Good advice, but after the Double-Post Monster bit me in the butt twice when I did that, I decided to give the mods a break and just wait patiently for my deathless prose to appear — it’s not like I have anything time-critical (or blindingly brilliant) to add to the conversation…

  156. Amino Acids,

    you’re not getting it. Every other graph shows what is in the Jaxa graph does, except the DMI one. You keep posting the DMI one but we know it’s the only one that shows such a large extent.

    That’s worth thinking about don’t you think? It makes you sound like a fanatic frantically clinging to the one piece of information which proves your belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Not so helpful in an argument.

  157. Fantastic – every AGW poster apart from the honorable if somewhat innacurate exception of Anne van der Bom – launches an ad-hom. Haha.

    I think the last is best:

    toby says:
    August 13, 2010 at 1:04 am
    A 9-minute talking head video? Boring.

    Or this one maybe:

    ‘Ad hominem’ you will say – but, if you are honest, does he have
    good common sense in his head?

    Which seems to be quote from Stalinist Russia…….

  158. NS: August 13, 2010 at 2:56 am
    Fantastic – every AGW poster apart from the honorable if somewhat innacurate exception of Anne van der Bom – launches an ad-hom. Haha.
    “toby says:
    August 13, 2010 at 1:04 am
    ‘Ad hominem’ you will say – but, if you are honest, does he have
    good common sense in his head?”
    Which seems to be quote from Stalinist Russia…….

    But it isn’t.

    You seem to have an odd notion of what constitutes an ad hominem attack.

  159. toby says:
    August 13, 2010 at 1:04 am
    A 9-minute talking head video? Boring. Where’s the beef? And where is the libel suit we heard so much about in the media?

    I don’t think Professor Abraham has much to worry him in this windy exposition.

    Have you ever actually listened to Abraham’s presentation? Monckton’s videos may not be the liveliest entertainment available, but that is not their intended purpose and still compared to Abraham’s monotonic droning they’re like watching the “Matrix Reloaded”. They also benefit from a presenter who has some grasp of how to arrange a logical argument.

  160. James Sexton says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    Uhmm, Anne, the global temp predictions have been consistently wrong. The fact is, I can’t recall a particular global temp prediction to be anywhere close to being correct. Can you point one out to me?

    Ok, I’ll take that challenge. Let’s take the most famous of them all: the Hansen et al 1988 paper.
    This is the ‘official’ analysis. Looks close enough for me.

    This is the one from climate audit. The article talks about some recentering which causes the predicted temperatures to be ~0.1 C higher than the Hansen paper. It also uses a different temperature dataset than the ‘official’ analysis. I am not in a position to argue about the validity of these decisions, but I have a feeling that climateaudit is regarded here as a ‘trusted source’, so let’s use if anyway.

    Yes, the black temperature line diverges from the ‘B’ scenario (the most realistic one). But it was from an analysis done in early 2008. Since then, global temps have gone up very fast and and we are now almost at the same level as the 1998 peak. So if you extend the black line with the latest RSS data, you’ll see that the real temps are very close to the prediction. Definitely ‘anywhere close to being correct’.

    The problem here is that we deal with a long term prediction of a highly variable, noisy signal. It’s easy to find divergence over short time periods. In this context a few years, or even 10 years, is considered a short time period.

    If we were to take the predictions seriously, we’d literally all be toast right now
    Care to point to proof of that assertion? Who predicted that where and when?

    Perhaps it is because I may be older than you. Not that I’m claiming any inherent knowledge with age, it is just that the predictions of doom and gloom have been going on since before I was born. In my recollections, when I was a child of about 10 years old, we were concerned about climate cooling

    The ‘global cooling scare’ was a news article in Newsweek, dated 28 april 1975. If you were 10 at the time, that makes you exactly as old as I am.

    For 20 years we’ve heard nothing but how we’re killing the planet, all the while people die because our focus is on something that never materializes. You should check what the temps have done for the last 12 of the 20 years.

    12 years is too short for any meaningful conclusions and you know that. But the ‘short term trend’ discussion has already been done ad nauseum. I’m not gonna repeat that, but since you asked, here are the linear trends of all 4 indices . They’re all going up.

  161. It’s rather ironic that posters on a site that is devoted to and/or allows ridiculing, casting aspersions and demeaning the motives of an entire discipline of scientists are crying about ad homs.

    [REPLY: Which only shows that you have no clue about the distinction between an illegitimate ad hominem attack on a person, and a legitimate intellectual attack on that persons ideas, motivations, and political agenda. Try researching the topic of logical fallacies and particularly ad hominem attacks, then come back and continue this line of argument.. – Mike]

  162. Bill Tuttle says:
    August 13, 2010 at 2:06 am

    “The political restructuring of 1999 barred some of those members from physically *sitting* in the House, but did nothing to re-define the House of Lords, as evidenced by a parliamentarian demand (an illegal one, btw) that everyone barred from sitting return those patents. ”

    ——-
    “The House of Lords said today it strongly rejects Monckton’s
    interpretation. A spokeswoman said: “Lord Monckton is not and
    never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the
    parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he
    has no association with the House and advising him to stop
    branding himself as such.” She said Monckton’s claim that the
    1999 act was a general law was “misleading”.

    “The 1999 act does not remove letters patent, it just ends the
    right to be a member of the House by virtue of the hereditary
    peerage. The Act is pretty clear and uses the term ‘membership’
    not the ‘right to sit/vote’,” she added.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton

    —–
    Now, if the South Finland Pig Farmers Association tells me I am not a
    member according to their rules – then I am not a member. I will just
    accept that.
    But then again I am not a Nobel laureate like Monckton:

    “His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 –
    the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had
    overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the
    Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise
    – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin,
    made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented
    to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester,
    New York, USA.”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/letter_to_mccain.html
    (open the PDF to verify)

  163. Moderators:

    I would be obliged if you were to inform me as to why my post at August 13, 2010 at 1:14 am is still “awaiting moderation” when later posts – incuding one from me that is an addendum to that post – have appeared.

    With thanks in anticipation of your answer to my request for this information

    Richard

    [Try hitting refresh or clear your browser cache. – Mike]

  164. With such a fine collection of insults hurled at him, I wonder which one is Lord Monckton’s favorite? I’m sure there are some real gems out there!

  165. Tom_R,

    the problem with skeptic versus proponent debates is that skeptics don’t have to be held accountable for what they say. They can play on the crowd’s emotions and say all the right things. It’s not as if there is time mid-debate to diverge, go find a graph and show that the skeptic is wrong. If there was a debate in which each side has the ability to come in and present based upon the others argument then I think the “warmest priests” would win.

    Smokey,
    That would be great. With respect to the high school diploma thing, I’m not sure what you mean by that? John Cook has a bachelor of Science in physics…whereas Monckton studied classics…

    To others,
    The reason that Tamino addressed that one point is because Monckton was arguing with commentators in the real climate comments underneath the post on that topic. Therefore, Tamino showed that what Monckton said and argued in the comments was incorrect. I see nothing really open for debate? One could spend a lifetime correcting monckton’s errors so I see no point in Tamino wasting any more time on it.

    Rational Debate,
    Monckton was notified in the real climate comments. I believe tamino made a comment just after him saying to him that he addressed his argument over at his website. Monckton had been surveying the comments there prior to that but shut up after… The thing you don’t get about this is there is no room to reply. When one is proven to be wrong based upon simple statistics then one is wrong. Nothing up for debate and no need for him to beat around the bush with rhetoric when its been proven. Good thing about math is you can’t really debate a lot of it.

    Finally, that’s not Monckton’s only error. He makes tons but who really wants to spend all that time going through each one. The only reason tamino did there was cause he was arguing about it in the comments.

  166. Aristocrat admits tale of lost home was stunt to boost puzzle sales
    “I was selling the house anyway and they asked me if I would be willing to tell people I was selling the house because I was afraid somebody might solve the puzzle too fast. I said ‘yes’. They said, ‘Don’t you mind being made to look an absolute prat’, and I said, ‘No – I’m quite used to that’. History is full of stories that aren’t actually true.
    http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Aristocrat-admits-tale-of-lost.3340554.jp

    Be careful about who you worship and look up to…

  167. [REPLY: Which only shows that you have no clue about the distinction between an illegitimate ad hominem attack on a person, and a legitimate intellectual attack on that persons ideas, motivations, and political agenda. Try researching the topic of logical fallacies and particularly ad hominem attacks, then come back and continue this line of argument.. – Mike]

    To help with my research on logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks I was wondering if the following selection of comments lifted from just two threads on here represent legitimate intellectual attacks on a persons ideas, motivations and political agenda?

    May 27, 2010 at 10:25 am
    Have some of the principals on the side of AGW been separated at birth? Does AGW climatology have some special appeal for dorky looking bald guys like Hansen, Mann, Romm, and Gavin Schmidt? They all look as if they’re related

    May 27, 2010 at 10:09 am
    Gavin Schmidt may have some time this weekend. They are very busy blogging. I am sure they have been deleting records and files.

    May 27, 2010 at 11:05 am
    Gavin Schmidt is such an incredible weasel. That picture does him no justice – you really need to watch video of him to fully observe his snake oil salesmanship.

    May 28, 2010 at 2:48 pm
    Gavin Schmidt’s website “Real Climate” is a roos, fraud and propaganda machine in my opinion.

    March 3, 2010 at 8:05 am
    I see nutter Schmidt is trying hard to win hearts and minds….

    Thanks.

  168. mikael pihlström: August 13, 2010 at 3:32 am
    “The House of Lords said today it strongly rejects Monckton’s interpretation. A spokeswoman said: “Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such.” She said Monckton’s claim that the 1999 act was a general law was “misleading”.

    The spokeswoman is — to put it politely — in error. She is conflating being a member of the House of Lords *by definition* with being a sitting member of the House of Lords. The rearrangement in 1999 only changed the seating arrangements, it did *not* re-define the membership.

    “The 1999 act does not remove letters patent, it just ends the right to be a member of the House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. The Act is pretty clear and uses the term ‘membership’ not the ‘right to sit/vote’,” she added.”

    Doublespeak. If the law did not remove the Letters Patent, it did not change the membership, because, by definition, the membership includes all those who hold a Letter Patent.

    Now, if the South Finland Pig Farmers Association tells me I am not a member according to their rules – then I am not a member. I will just accept that.

    If you reside in South Finland and if you are a Pig Farmer, and the by-law requirements for membership in the South Finland Pig Farmers Association are solely

    1. that you reside in South Finland, and

    2, that you are a Pig Farmer,

    then you meet the requirements. If the Supreme Grand Poobah of the South Finland Pig Farmers Association decides that only those members of the South Finland Pig Farmers Association who spin around three times and say, “Sooo-ey” before brushing their teeth are to be considered members of the South Finland Pig Farmers Association and the bylaws of the South Finland Pig Farmers Association are not amended to reflect that change, then you meet the requirements for membership in the South Finland Pig Farmers Association, and all their protestations to the contrary are just hot air.

  169. Thanks to the anonymous moderator who snipped the first “religious” post of “villabolo1.”

    Villabolo’s invective is routine — and even actively encouraged — at blogs like climate progress, RealClimate, and most other alarmist blogs — while polite and courteous comments with a different opinion are routinely deleted. That is the difference between those holding alarmist beliefs, and skeptics, who simply ask them to ‘prove it for us.’

    Readers and commentators come to this “Best Science” site to avoid that kind of over-the-top attack on other posters — which include Lord Monckton, who has politely and graciously commented here despite the incessant attacks by people who know they lose when they argue the science.

    Some of these loco wild-eyed nuts go apoplectic at a few de minimus errors by a respected voice here [and at Oxford], as if no one on their side ever makes a mistake. One only needs to look at Michael Mann’s MBH98, MBH99, and subsequent publications, which have really astonishing major errors — such as Mann flipping the Tijlander data upside down in order to produce a hockey stick shape — to see that Lord Monckton’s critics are trying to create a tempest in a teapot. There really is no comparison between the two. The only difference is that Monckton answers questions, while Mann hides out; a man, and a mouse.

  170. ” NeilT says:
    August 13, 2010 at 2:44 am
    Every other graph shows what is in the Jaxa graph does, except the DMI one. You keep posting the DMI one but we know it’s the only one that shows such a large extent.”

    Ice area at ArcticROOS-Nansen, which has been following the funny little bump from 2009, has diverged and is now above 2009, while extend is just crossing the line.
    These **** scandinavians!!

  171. Some people are still arguing if Monckton is a British Lord. So silly. Do these same people get worked up the same about Al Gore saying he used to be the President? Monckton is a real Lord. Al Gore never was President. The media proclaimed him President but the votes showed Bush was President.

    This claim that Monckton is not a Lord must somehow be making the people claiming it feel better. Or at least they’re attempting to feel better.

  172. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    But I can help you become sure about what is going on. I do know what you are looking at—a graph that makes you feel Arctic ice is not recovering quickly from 2007. But, that is a 15% concentration graph. The 30% concentration graph, the DMi graph, one that is weightier than the 15% because it shows what is happening at the heart of the Arctic, and not just what is happening (for the moment)around the circumference of the ice,

    Why then is the graph I pointed to listed here on this blog in the ‘Live Weather Roll’ and not yours?

    shows a rapid, and strong (even surprising for how strong it is this year) growing trend in Arctic ice since 2007.

    Let’s forget the short term trends, let alone the ultra short term trends, shall we? They are dominated by noise and therefore tell you exactly nothing.

    But that’s how global warming is—you can pick and chose any piece of data out of its context, like the JAXA graph you pointed to

    You lost me here. Tell me exactly how that graph is ‘out of context’. I just pointed to that graph to provide balance and show that not all data about the Arctic tells the same story. Regarding the Arctic we’re not out of the woods. The trend since 2007 is definitely not robust and with different metrics not in close agreement there is no reason to say that the Arctic is recovering.

    and then make things up about that piece of data that gives the appearance the world is heading to disasters because of car exhaust.

    Huh? You are making things up. I never said such a thing. Please take that back.

  173. Robert: August 13, 2010 at 5:00 am
    the problem with skeptic versus proponent debates is that skeptics don’t have to be held accountable for what they say.

    In whose world is that taking place? I haven’t seen any evidence of that, so could you cite me a few examples, and give links, please?

    They can play on the crowd’s emotions and say all the right things.

    You’re *supposed* to say the right things — that’s part of a debate. And I hope you’re not suggesting that the AGW side *doesn’t* appeal to emotion and play on people’s fears.

  174. NeilT says:
    August 13, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Amino Acids,

    you’re not getting it. Every other graph shows what is in the Jaxa graph does, except the DMI one. You keep posting the DMI one but we know it’s the only one that shows such a large extent.

    That’s worth thinking about don’t you think?

    I think you’re saying I am ignoring what other graphs are showing and not giving them consideration? But as anyone who reads my comment you refer to can see I fully addressed what is happening in both graphs. Would you re-read my comment? You will see I addressed both graphs, considering both in what I said:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/#comment-455618

    By the way, do you understand why the DMi graph is different? It is important to understand all of the graphs if you want a complete picture of Arctic (North Pole) ice.

  175. Anne van der Bom says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:21 am

    James Sexton says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    ………..

    “Ok, I’ll take that challenge. Let’s take the most famous of them all: the Hansen et al 1988 paper.
    This is the ‘official’ analysis. Looks close enough for me.”

    Anne, even you surely noticed the wide variance in Hansen’s predictions. He covered the entire thermometer with his predictions to a point of over 1degree C anomaly in less than 20 years! That’s like going to a roulette wheel and betting on both red and black and then talking about a system when it is indeed red or black. That’s ridiculous.

    As for your trends, yes, thank you, woodfortrees is one of my favorite sites, too. A note, you’ll notice Hansen’s GISS is altogether out of step with all the other. Anne, no one is arguing the positive trends on the temps. I would argue they are not of any significance. Further, I’d like to note the satellites don’t measure ground temps and probably shouldn’t be on the same graph. Its an apples and oranges comparison.

    As for predictions, (and I know this probably isn’t fair, but…) and since you’re fond of quoting Dr. Hansen, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/ :-) There are, of course, plenty more, but I think this will suffice for now.

    Anne, I wish to thank you for your input. It is only through free flow of thoughts and ideas that we may finally get truth out of the climate debate. While I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to engage at some of the advocacy sites, they don’t seem all that keen on the “free-flow”. With that in mind, do come back, I look forward to many more discussions regarding our climate and energy use and the underlying causes of concerns.

  176. Richard S Courtney says:

    At August 12, 2010 at 6:08 pm you respond with:

    “Not only would they have…but they have:”
    And you follow that with links to AGW propoganda blogs.

    So, what statements of Monckton do you think were errors?
    You do not say.

    What would his statements have been if they were right?
    You do not say.

    Have you taken this opportunity to proclaim his errors?
    No.

    Instead, you have provided the bluster of citing AGW propoganda blogs and you have not stated their disagreement with Monckton.

    Ah…The irony. In a post dedicated to complaining about supposed ad hominem attacks on Monckton, you dismiss any blog that posts discussions of his errors and falsehoods with the ad hominem label “AGW propoganda blogs” (sic) and refuse to read what they say!

    P.S. – I discussed one of the errors / falsehoods in this post responding to Bill Illis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/#comment-455522 I think you are capable of reading about the others from the links that I provided.

  177. Anne van der Bom says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Anne, please specify exactly how emissions have deviated from scenario A. Thanks.

    Also, anyone referencing RC is wasting my time. I no longer spend any time there since I know logical, polite comments that refutes the AGW dogma will be deleted. If you have an argument then specify it here and we can discuss it.

    I might change my mind about RC if Mike or Gavin posted a response here stating they are changing their policy and then follow through. Of course, I won’t hold my breath as they would be skewered by the likes of Steve Mc, etal.

  178. “To: The Honourable Senator Olympia Snowe (Republican, Maine) The Honourable Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)

    Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.”
    http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

    “Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not and has never been a member of the House of Lords. However, allegations that he has claimed to be a member, and that he has used an emblem resembling the parliamentary emblem, have been drawn to our attention.
    The House is currently taking steps with a view to ensuring that Lord Monckton does not in future either claim to be a member of the House or use the parliamentary emblem or any variant thereof.
    House Of Lords Information Office”
    http://friendsofginandtonic.org/files/867576d3dfe135ff8dcd26715bd86ac5-187.html

    Can anyone possibly deny that he falsely claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” ?

  179. James Hansen was wrong in his 3 famous predictions. Wrong in every one of them.

    The wide temperature range of Hansen’s predictions gave him plenty of wiggle room. Even with that big advantage, Hansen was wrong 3 out of 3 times.

  180. NeilT says:
    “That’s worth thinking about don’t you think? It makes you sound like a fanatic frantically clinging to the one piece of information which proves your belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

    In science, weight of numbers as in “we have more graphs showing this” counts for nothing. The main issue is that none of these graphs can support the notion of an Arctic ice “death spiral”.

  181. What a marvelous series of comments!
    The point-by-point refutation of Lord Monckton and his presentations and publications is missing.
    What more do you want? He has put it ALL in a pdf, which Anthony has linked to in the past.
    How in the world do you think you refute someone’s presentation by maligning them? I do not get this.
    There are certain facts which have become all too apparent in recent years, thanks to Anthony. Temperature as a measurable quantity, and the associated discipline of thermodynamics, are of recent development. Just because modern thermocouple devices are accurate to .01 degree or better does not make the measurement of temperature any easier. Temperature is itself an averaging; all molecules do not travel at the same velocity; when we quantify temperature we are seeking the peak of a distribution, not a value which pertains to all matter nearby.
    Air temperature varies from moment to moment: did you ever notice that? Even a passing cloud will cause variation. How do you compute a mean or average temperature for something that varies? Do you hook up a recording device which posts every 5 minutes and integrate? That would be way expensive.
    Do you measure every hour and fit a curve to the data, then integrate?
    Or do you look for patterns in maxima and minima?
    Thanks to Anthony, we now know the parlous state of the Stevenson screens which purport to measure the temperature, and the incredibly low level of compliance with the Government’s own standards for siting such measuring devices. The radical deletion of so many stations in recent years, and the inferring of temperature at locations where measurements were once made, calls into question the whole process. Especially as the stations which are used for performing the projections are themseles subject to the documented heat island effect. I note with horror the use of airport sites, surrounded by asphalt and the heated air from jet exhaust. Such temperatures are vital for aircraft (please believe this; pilots must know the ambient temperature for both landings and takeoffs–it is an essential part of the throttle setting computation, as well as the fuel needed).

    Last but certainly not least, I note the complete lack of any data which demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere precedes temperature change. The ice core data is rather conclusive that the situation is the other way around. And then there is the question about just how long the carbon dioxide can hold on to the heat that it supposedly traps.
    The unpleasant fact remains that when one decides upon one’s conclusion before conducting the experiment, one is unlikely to produce any new information.

  182. JSmith says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Can anyone possibly deny that he falsely claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” ?

    This is silly isn’t it? You are saying Monckton is not a Lord?

    Would you like to talk about the science of ‘global warming’ at some point?

  183. James Sexton says:
    August 13, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Anne, even you surely noticed the wide variance in Hansen’s predictions. He covered the entire thermometer with his predictions to a point of over 1degree C anomaly in less than 20 years! That’s like going to a roulette wheel and betting on both red and black and then talking about a system when it is indeed red or black. That’s ridiculous.

    Could you explain that a bit? Are you referring to the 3 scenarios? Because that’s not what scenarios are about.

    Eyeballing the graph, the ‘B’ scenario that I referred does about 0.25 C/decade. That’s 1 degree in 40 years, not 20. A bit of an explanation is welcome, since he didn’t specify any error margins in that graph. I do not see what your roulette analogy applies to.

    A note, you’ll notice Hansen’s GISS is altogether out of step with all the other.

    Not when you look at the long term trends

  184. JSmith: August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am
    Can anyone possibly deny that he falsely claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” ?

    Q. What is the common term for the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature?

    A. The House of Lords.

    Q. Is claiming to be a member of the House of Lords solely by virtue of inherited title while not being elected to a seat in the House of Lords a false claim?

    A. No. The 1999 law upon which all those aspersions is based did *not* change the composition of the House of Lords, it merely changed the conditions for being *seated* in the House of Lords.

    Next question, please?

  185. JSmith says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am

    “Can anyone possibly deny that he falsely claimed to be “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” ?”

    Yes, you need to familiarize yourself with British constitutional law. If you don’t understand it, you probably shouldn’t speak of it. You should ask a British citizen to clarify for you.

  186. “”” George E. Smith says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:41 pm
    “”” harvey says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    hmm ok, may I rephrase

    If Lord Monckton has any complaints about those who criticize him, why does he not sue them for Libel? I heard of one aborted attempt. Since those who criticize him have raised serious legal and ethical issues, why has he not responded in the legal area where *TRUTH* will pervail. “””

    Why bother ? Let those who have raised “serious and legal issues” try suing him. Have you heard him uttering any complaints ?

    I presume that “pervail” means something similar to “prevail ” ? “””

    “”” Ric Werme says:
    August 12, 2010 at 7:12 pm
    George E. Smith says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    > I presuem that “pervail” means something similar to “prevail ” ?

    Most preceptive!

    Except that you can’t pre-sue-’em because it’s unlikely they’ve done anything yet except get a little red faced in the facade. “””

    Fancy that; each of the two is not the same !

    Not only can you not believe anything you hear any more, but you can’t believe anything you see or; apparently; read.

  187. Richard M says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Anne, please specify exactly how emissions have deviated from scenario A. Thanks.
    I think I will not try to outdo Steve McIntire.

    Also, anyone referencing RC is wasting my time. I no longer spend any time there since I know logical, polite comments that refutes the AGW dogma will be deleted.

    Still, more than enough opposing comments make it through. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if are more comments critical of AGW on RealClimate than comments supporting AGW on WUWT. But that of course could also be due to the willingness of both sides to venture in “the dragon’s den”. However, I can offer you some consolation through the fact that Lord Monckton has been able to comment. Perhaps you should ask him how he pulled that off. :-)

  188. Amino Acids in Meteorites wrote : “This is silly isn’t it? You are saying Monckton is not a Lord?”

    No, I am not. He has the title of ‘Lord’ (by virtue of being a Viscount) but he is not a MEMBER of the House of Lords, as explained here :

    “Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a “non-voting” or “honorary” member.

    Christopher Monkton’s father, the 2nd Viscount Monckton, was a Member of the Lords until 1999. The House of Lords Act 1999 ended the automatic link between the holding of a hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords, and the 2nd Lord Monckton ceased to be a member of the House at that point.

    Christopher Monckton is the 3rd Viscount Monckton and inherited the title following his father’s death in 2006. He has never sat in the House.

    Since 1999 92 hereditary peers have remained as members of the House; these 92 hereditary peers were originally elected by the House in 1999, and any vacancy arising as a result of the death of one of the 92 is now filled by means of a by-election. All hereditary peers who are not members, including Lord Monckton, are entitled to stand as candidates in such by-elections. Since succeeding to his title in 2006 Lord Monckton has stood, unsuccessfully, in three by-elections.
    Information Office
    House of Lords”
    http://home.comcast.net/~bbickmore/Climate/KingOfFantasyland.htm

  189. Bill Tuttle says:
    August 13, 2010 at 8:10 am

    responding to: JSmith: August 13, 2010 at 7:18 am

    A. No. The 1999 law upon which all those aspersions is based did *not* change the composition of the House of Lords, it merely changed the conditions for being *seated* in the House of Lords.

    Next question, please?
    ——–

    The 1999 law clearly changed the ‘membership’ status. The remaining
    92 peers in remaining (Monckton is not among them) are even termed
    ‘temporary members’, awaiting further reforms.

    The central point is that Lord Monckton clearly wants to give the
    impression that he is involved in UK legislature, which is false.

    Further, plagiarizing the national emblem (property of the Royal
    House) is rather distasteful in any country. Not to speak of Lord
    Monckton’s boasting about the Nobel prize.

  190. Good to see the “lads” from RC posting here. To bad for them, responses don’t get “censured” , or cut here.

    Just goes to show, which site is afraid of open discussion.

  191. Bill Tuttle wrote : “The 1999 law upon which all those aspersions is based did *not* change the composition of the House of Lords, it merely changed the conditions for being *seated* in the House of Lords.
    Next question, please?”

    I’m afraid that it DID change the composition of the House of Lords, because :

    “The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. 92 hereditary peers remain in the House until full reform.”
    http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-legislation/

    Next question : Since he claimed to be a member of the Lords AFTER his right was removed (and while his father held the title), how can you defend the indefensible ?

  192. Anne van der Bom says:
    August 13, 2010 at 8:04 am

    “Could you explain that a bit? Are you referring to the 3 scenarios? Because that’s not what scenarios are about.”

    Yes, as you know, Hansen came up with 3 different scenarios. (A,B, & C) The 1 degree/20 is the difference between the top (over 1.5 C) and bottom (less than 0.5 C) predictions made 20 years ago. That’s a pretty wide margin of error, wouldn’t you agree? If the temps were to land anywhere close to any of the 3 predictions, he could sit back and say, “See, I told you so!”

    Further, what you called the “official analysis”, was from a study by Hansen himself (source of your graph, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf ) as you scroll up and see a couple of references to other comparisons, (Like Smokey https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/#comment-455926 ) you’ll see a bit of disagreement with reality.

    Anne, what you just did, was ‘prove’ to me Hansen was correct by asking Hansen if he was correct. (He said, ‘Yes, yes I am correct, and if you ever have a question about it again, just ask me again.’)

    Your woodfortrees graphs are quite compelling, until you realize that the further down the time line one goes the less visual divergence one sees. Anne, let’s not be reduced to graph acrobatics to try and prove points. (I’ve got Excel 2007 on my pc and I know how to use it!!!…lol.)

  193. I haven’t read the comments yet, but I’m much happier with the tone he’s taken here (and the medium he’s expressed it in–video) than that of his initial angry response and its hints of legal action. He should not have been offended, but delighted, by Abraham’s attack (easy for ME to say, of course), offering as it does (as he now points out) a wonderful opportunity to expose the errors and shiftiness of the catastrophists.

  194. Christopher Monckton is an extremely intelligent and witty individual who is obviously hated by those who wish to push the false doctrine of CAGW. Monbiot of the Guardian becomes quite lost even attempting to describe Monckton’s verbal and written thrusts at his (Monckton’s) would-be tormentors. For those who attempt to impugn his character and veracity by making silly claims about his hereditary title and what that entitles him to obviously do not realise what a ‘dog’s breakfast’ the last labour government of the UK made of the legislation which controls who may sit and vote in the House of Lords.
    As a non-British resident in the UK, I see Christopher Monckton as a shining light for truth and freedom, a veritable national treasure. And he always makes me see the ridiculous side of the Doomsters.

  195. This thread does of course have a heading:-

    Target: Monckton

    And the game seems to be not to debate the substance of his utterances or writings; but to argue pedantically about obscure legal niceties of British Law relating to Titles of Nobility.

    OK; perhaps I was lax in that I did not make a distinction between “Sitting” Members of Britain’s “House of Lords.” which apparently serves a Governmental Function not unlike; but also apparently not like the US Senate; and a broader category of persons who are members of the Peerage in some fashion; in Lord Monckton’s case, being a Hereditary Viscount.

    As I pointed out “Lord” is not a Title; but like “Sir” or “Ms” is a mode of formal address. So there are NO Lords in the British House of Lords; either “sitting” or standing, or in any other posture. Those who do sit there as participating elements of the British Governmental System; presumably each have Titles of Nobility, as does Lord Monckton; which in his case is Viscount.

    While such elevated concepts are alien to America, and American Citizens; we do have some semblance of formality of addressing.

    President Obama; whatever one thinks of him as a person, or a man, or a leader; and in my case, I don’t know words of the English Language that represent how low I view him; is The President of The United States of America; and protocol insists that he be addressed as “Mr President.”
    And if I ever met up with him, I would address him as Mr President; because whatever else he may be; he is MY President, and he will always receive the courtesy that that Office deserves.

    Of course he also has been the subject of “legitimacy” debate or comment. The “birthers” I guess they are called, think he was not born in the USA. I’m not familiar with all the claims on both sides of that issue; and don’t engage in that debate; since not being a US citizen myself; it is none of my business.
    To others, the debate is whether he is anti-American, and a Marxist. Is he a Christian or a Moslem ? Evidently under Moslem Law he is one of their own. In the USA that too is no-one else’s business but his.

    I simply judge him by his actions. And if he sits in his chair in the Oval Office with his shoes and feet up on the desk; a very special desk that was a gift to America from the United Kingdom; and if one of his first actions upon entering that office was to have a bust of Sir Winston Churchill removed from that office; then I quickly learn where to place him; as far as his his cultural compass extends.

    Of course in the Moslem community; the soles of one’s shoes have a special position of disdain; so having your picture taken with your shoes on the Oval Office desk sends a very clear message. Americans saw that message in the actions of Iraqi citizens; when the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad, as they all threw their shoes at it.

    Removal of the Churchill bust evidently was a temper tantrum relating to Churchill’s actions, or the British Government actions taken when President Obama’s Mau mau terrorist ancestors went on a tribal rampage in Kenya; hacking innocent white civilians to death with machettes, in the night; back in Kenya’s colonial days. I’m old enough to remember the barbaric images of those events.
    And when our President has the Prime Minister of Israel; our most dependable ally in the Middle East, enter and exit the White House through some tradesman’s doorway; rather than through the front door; that too sends a message.

    But like I said he is our President; and he is MY President; and I will address him as Mr President, because that is what protocol requires; and without some attendance to proper behavior, we all become savages.

    But I don’t wish to see WUWT descend into any position on a list of political blogs; I’m comfortable to see it at the top; deservedly of the list of Science Blogs.

    It’s quite amusing actually to see the steady stream of erstwhile inhabitants of other so-called Science Blogs drifting over here to post their wares.
    Now if your were a regular poster on “Real Climate”, why on earth would you choose to come over the WUWT to post stuff; when you already have an echo chamber over there.
    Perhaps you get bored by the absence of debate over there; I’ve tried reading it; and there is no debate; just a claque of tired typists doing a Conga dance so they can all move around in a circle so they can pat each other on the back.

    Well come on over; I am sure that Anthony can use the traffic; and you will actually get some action over here. While RC is doing the Conga, WUWT is more like a Cocktail party. Small (and not so small) groups of people arguing about a variety of issues of common interest; with complete freedom to leave one band and sidle on over to another, to see what they are getting so loud about.

    Without dissent and debate, one might as well be standing before a mirror, and addressing one’s thoughts to that agreeable device.

    But don’t come over here with expectation of not being challenged; I’m sure your views and insights will be welcome; but they will also be questioned. And we will not be in too much of a hurry to accept something you say; if your reference is simply to someone else in the Conga line.

    If it is your choice to question the issues that Lord Monckton has raised; then address those issues of science or fact, or interpretation; but there will always be plenty of space over at RC to sling mud; we’re too busy over here to bother with that.

  196. James Sexton wrote : “Yes, you need to familiarize yourself with British constitutional law. If you don’t understand it, you probably shouldn’t speak of it. You should ask a British citizen to clarify for you.”

    Oh, I see. Well, as a British citizen with a long and deep interest in “British constitutional law”, I will ask myself. Thanks for the advice.

  197. Mikael Pihlström says: [ … ]

    As usual, wrong. See Bill Tuttle’s explanation. With the most right-leaning politicos in the UK far to the Left of the average American, if Lord Monckton was misrepresenting anything, there would be a law passed promptly to rectify the situation. Your ad-hom monkey-piling on a hearsay meme brings nothing to the table.

    Really, all this impotent oinking about status here has nothing to do with the fact that the AGW contingent has no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 will lead to runaway global warming. None. All they have is conjecture built on always-inaccurate climate models.

    Regarding RC’s rampant daily censorship of differing comments, Anne van der Bom says:

    “Still, more than enough opposing comments make it through.” Got a question for you, Anne: what color is the sky on your planet? Ours is blue. And on our planet, RealClimate is a censoring machine. Believe what you want, but that is a fact.

    All the Oprah fans from the censoring alarmist blogs come here because they can say pretty much what they want [with the exception of villalobo]. As with all Oprah fans, they are fixated on Royalty, eagerly drinking in every word on the subject like any plump housewife at her ironing board. But of course that has nothing to do with the only issue that matters: will an increase in CO2 cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe?

    If the answer is Yes, then provide chapter and verse according to the scientific method: testable, replicable experiments and observations. Otherwise, your conjecture is WRONG.

    The CO2=CAGW conjecture is falsified by experimental evidence. Therefore, it is wrong. That’s why the warmist crowd speculates about British royalty. They need to calm down and take some time out for Oprah.

  198. Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
    August 12, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    I had the extraordinary opportunity of meeting and talking with Lord Monckton at the 2nd ICCC.

    I was humbled by his willingness to take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to talk one-on-one with someone he never even met before.

    That is the difference between the Al Gore and Lord Monckton. The former is a noisy empty barrel who refuses to discuss issues with anyone. The latter, even with a Title, is not so big that he cannot take the time to discuss issues with an unknown engineer.

    That reminds me of a quote. Lord Kelvin was touring America and visited a new electric power plant at Niagara Falls. The newspaperman who interviewed him and the full-of-himself plant manager about their views on electricity reported wonderingly that (paraphrasing), “The Lord might be your next-door neighbor; the plain citizen might be the Emperor of all the Russias.”

  199. He clearly states that
    “The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/12/a-detailed-rebuttal-to-abraham-from-monckton/
    Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch.
    I read that as him not accepting that the government had the right to do what they did.
    He accepted that he could not sit.That’s as far as he went.
    I don’t see the British government charging him for using the title,or the queen demanding he cease.

  200. Joel Shore:

    Thank you for the laugh. I enjoyed it. At August 13, 2010 at 6:38 am you say to me:

    “Ah…The irony. In a post dedicated to complaining about supposed ad hominem attacks on Monckton, you dismiss any blog that posts discussions of his errors and falsehoods with the ad hominem label “AGW propoganda blogs” (sic) and refuse to read what they say!
    P.S. – I discussed one of the errors / falsehoods in this post responding to Bill Illis: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/12/target-monckton/#comment-455522 I think you are capable of reading about the others from the links that I provided.”

    Laugh? I almost wet myself!

    I had said to you:
    “So, what statements of Monckton do you think were errors?
    You do not say.
    What would his statements have been if they were right?
    You do not say.
    Have you taken this opportunity to proclaim his errors?
    No.
    Instead, you have provided the bluster of citing AGW propoganda blogs and you have not stated their disagreement with Monckton.”

    And your reply at August 13, 2010 at 6:38 am claims to rebut that by doing the same again!

    Your posts do not state any error by Monckton then cited any source (blog or otherwise) in support of your statement. And you have certainly not “proclaimed” any such error. Instead, you have merely cited propoganda blogs (you are surely are not going to claim that RealClimate is not a propoganda blog when Soros funds it to be precisely that?).

    The nearest to an error by Monckton that you seem able to find is – at very least – debateable as your debate with Bill Illis demonstrates.

    Importantly, why should I – or anyone else – bother to read your links when you demonstrate that they say so little of merit that you are not willing (or able?) to explicitly state it? I may bother to investigate them to assess the merit of their arguments if I were given some reason so to do, but your posts here demonstrate that you think they say nothing of sufficient significance for you to think it worthy of statement.

    Richard

  201. James Sexton wrote : “Yes, as you know, Hansen came up with 3 different scenarios. (A,B, & C) The 1 degree/20 is the difference between the top (over 1.5 C) and bottom (less than 0.5 C) predictions made 20 years ago. That’s a pretty wide margin of error, wouldn’t you agree? If the temps were to land anywhere close to any of the 3 predictions, he could sit back and say, “See, I told you so!” ”

    That’s not quite how those scenarios were determined – the temperatures are determined by the amount of GHGs emitted. From the link you gave, you can read the following, which explains what the scenarios actually are :

    “Scenario A was described as ‘on the high side of reality,’ because it assumed rapid exponential growth of GHGs and it included no large volcanic eruptions during the next half century.

    Scenario C was described as ‘a more drastic curtailment of emissions than has generally been imagined,’ specifically GHGs were assumed to stop increasing after 2000.

    Intermediate scenario B was described as ‘the most plausible.’ Scenario B has continued moderate increase in the rate of
    GHG emissions and includes three large volcanic eruptions sprinkled through the 50-year period after 1988, one of them in
    the 1990s.

    Real-world GHG climate forcing (17) so far has followed a course closest to scenario B. The real world even had one large
    volcanic eruption in the 1990s, Mount Pinatubo in 1991, whereas scenario B placed a volcano in 1995.”

    Not bad for a model from the mid- to late-80s, surely ?

  202. Smokey says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Mikael Pihlström says: [ … ]

    As usual, wrong. See Bill Tuttle’s explanation. With the most right-leaning politicos in the UK far to the Left of the average American, if Lord Monckton was misrepresenting anything, there would be a law passed promptly to rectify the situation. Your ad-hom monkey-piling on a hearsay meme brings nothing to the table.

    Really, all this impotent oinking about status here has nothing to do with the fact that the AGW contingent has no empirical, testable evidence showing that CO2 will lead to runaway global warming. None. All they have is conjecture built on always-inaccurate climate models.
    ——-

    On Lord Monckton pretending to be part of the actual legislative
    process in UK: the case is quite clear, he has given that impression.
    Do you think the UK parliament and Queens representative would go
    public on such an issue without a strong case?

    On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
    with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing. The IPCC
    models are not perfect, but if drawn correctly and not Moncktonly
    distorted as yoy prefer, they do fit observations rather well. To the
    extent that they don’t fit, the message is that there is a lot of work
    to be done, but for instance adding biogeochemistry feedbacks will
    likely not lessen the RF, on the contrary.

  203. Watching the “debate” in the comments on Anthony’s article I think it is time that someone at WUWT made a good answer on the issue that is presented with Monckton’s graph at Realclimate and even Lucia’s blog. This article featuring now is only rhetorical, the video is also rhetorical so there is still need for a proper answer that up till now isn’t presented as far as I know. Personally I wouldn’t mind too much if the debate in this case ended with ok in this case Monckton overplayed his hand and was a bit too creative with his graph.

  204. Gareth Phillips says:
    August 12, 2010 at 2:37 pm
    He is a senior member of one of the most right wing parties in Europe ( UKIP) … don’t decieve yourselves, Lord Monkton has the sort of politics most people would want not want to be linked to.

    I think you’re mixing the UKIP up with the BNP. (Excuse me if someone has mentioned this before.) As for being a senior member, I think he only cast his lot with them within the past year.

  205. “”” Anne van der Bom says:
    August 13, 2010 at 5:54 am
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    …………………………………………….
    Let’s forget the short term trends, let alone the ultra short term trends, shall we? They are dominated by noise and therefore tell you exactly nothing. “””

    I’m a bit puzzled by your terminology Anne. Your usage of the term “Trend” for example; which I presume is a technical term having some specific defined meaning; at least as used in the field of climate science; and not to be confused with lay usage of the word “trend”.

    So what would comprise “short term trends” or “ultra short term trends”, and how would those differ from simply “changes”.

    In my mind, a “change” would be something like when some specific variable goes from having a value (a) to a new value (b) where (b-a) would be the “change”.
    To me “trend” would imply the replacement of real experimental observed values of some variable with completely fictional values that are never observed ; for some purpose or other.

    Then you say that short or ultrashort trends are dominated by “noise” .

    I’m quite familiar with “noise” which represents anything appearing in an output value, of some variable that is neither present in the input nor dependent on any input value; and of course that “appearance” could be real as an actual component of an output signal, or it could be the result of experimental measurement error; due to limitations of the experimental method or equipment.

    So are short or ultra short trends “noisy” by virtue of instrumental limitations; or are they noisy because of actual components of the output signal to be measured.

    For example; when I look at a plot of GISSTemp over whatever time frame the graph drawer has chosen to plot, I see what by itself could be classed as a “noisy” function; in that at no point in the function is it possible to predict, deduce, or otherwise project what the value of the function would be after the last point plotted; and that is true no matter where in the function the last point plotted happens to be. Not only is the next as yet unplotted point not determinable; but it is not even possible to project in which direction the function will move to the next point.

    Now I assume that Dr James Hansen is competent to read a thermometer and that he has available to him thermometers of whatever precision he could want; so I take the position that mostly the GISS graph is an actual plot of nearly noiseless values of a variable; and the plotted value at any time represents what the actual signal observed was at that particular time.

    Despite my belief that the plotted values are real observed values of some defined function; I have not the slightest idea what that specific function is; or how the instantaneous value of the function is obtained.
    Yet the function as plotted exhibits the sort of viual “noisiness” that says that no future value of the variable may be discerned from any amount of past data about the function; nor can the direction of change from the current value be discerned.

    So to me; for a function of that type; the entire concept of a “trend” is without meaning; there is no trend; the variable simply changes value from one observed number to a next observed number; which contains no information relative to any prior values of the function whatsoever.

    And of course, in the case of GISSTemp (or HADCrut if you prefer) what is plotted is not Temperatures; but “anomalies” or deviations from some other function which itself is indeterminate.

    GISSTemp cannot possibly define the mean global Temperature of the earth; since it is not even possible to determine what the baseline value to which the anomalies are indexed is; given that the sampling regimen does not comply with the Nyquist Sampling Theorem requirement for Sampled Data Systems.

    So as I have often remarked; GISSTemp is a plot of GISSTemp, and nothing else; and has no scientific connection with anything real. So long as Dr Hansen does not change the algorithm; he can continue to spend budget money extending the plot of GISSTemp till the cows come home; and add no knowledge to our understanding of planet earth.

  206. Noelene wrote : “He clearly states that
    ‘The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch.'”

    Are we to assume that the Viscount is now a legal expert as well as being a Climate expert ? Does the man’s knowledge know no bounds ?
    Anyway, here is another legal opinion – from an actual lawyer :

    “On Ashley Mote’s idea, you should always be sceptical of a claim that Parliament ‘can’t’ do something, or that something it has done is ‘invalid’ – a type of claim that only makes any sort of legal sense if you mean Parliament has breached human rights or especially EU law, yet which seems to be coming increasingly often from Eurosceptics, who ought to support Parliamentary sovereignty, you might think. He argues that Letters Patent creating peerages can’t be amended by general legislation – but his only basis for this argument appears to be a written answer from Baroness Ashton which he’s misconstruing. All she was saying was that Acts don’t have the effect of changing the legal effect of Letters Patent incidentally – it needs to be clear that Parliament does indeed intend to change their effect. She actually cited the House of Lords Act 1999 as an example of an Act plainly intended to change the membership of the House. In any case, Letters Patent are irrelevant anyway. The entitlement to sit in the Lords is not created by Letters Patent but by the Queen’s writ of summons; the only question is whether she has failed to summons anyone qualified to sit. But the House of Lords Act 1999 makes clear the old hereditaries are no longer qualified. Plus, he’s forgotten the enrolled bill rule in Wauchope and in Pickin. The courts wouldn’t entertain any legal challenge to Acts of Parliament based on arguments like his.”

  207. ” Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
    On Lord Monckton pretending to be part of the actual legislative
    process in UK: the case is quite clear, he has given that impression.”

    In his OWN words again: ” … a member of the Upper house but WITHOUT the right to sit or vote …”

  208. JER0ME says:
    August 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    It’s funny seeing the criticisms of Monckton here, as they are all unsubstantiated or ad hominem or refer to blog posts that attack a very minor point in a much larger argument. It basically proves the article right!

    In my opinion, for what it may be worth, there are two main ‘debaters’ on the heretic’s side. These are Monckton and McIntyre …

    And Morano. (3M!)

  209. Back to the subject of today: Monckton

    Although I disagree completely, I can respect
    a sceptic stand based on honest conviction: that IPCC is
    wrong, alarmist and motivated by a hidden agenda.
    Monckton expounds along these lines, but then he
    suddenly wants to claim share of the honour: the Nobel
    Peace prize, awarded to the organisation he despises?
    Not much moral integrity here. If I were an honest
    sceptic I would be really disappointed.

    And I would start questioning his judgment: he really
    thinks submitting a comment during the review process
    means he has ‘earned’ the Nobel prize?

    And he really believes that a sceptic colleague from Univ
    of Rochester has the mandate to mint a Nobel prize
    pin and decorate him?

    reference: Monckton presents himself in the introduction to a
    letter addressed to John McCain

    “His contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 –
    the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had
    overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the
    Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise
    – earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate. His Nobel prize pin,
    made of gold recovered from a physics experiment, was presented
    to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester,
    New York, USA.”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/letter_to_mccain.html
    (open the PDF to verify)

  210. “”” Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
    Smokey says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:08 am

    Mikael Pihlström says: [ … ]
    ………………………………………..
    On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
    with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing. “””

    Well not true Mikael; and why the 30 year time limit ? I thought anything that happens in less than 30 years is weather; not climate.

    The “plausible theory” which you declare is absent; has in fact always been present and for thousands of years; not just 30.

    That theory; which AGW proponents have yet to disprove, is that CLIMATE CHANGES, and always has, and always will and nothing that has happened over in fact milions of years can be shown to be outside the bounds of natural variability.

    If we would choose to define the era of “un-natural” as being that part of earth’s history since the appearance on it of the mammalian species; homo sapiens sapiens; then clearly anything that happened to climate prior to that time falls into the realm of the range of natural variability; by definition; since no non natural influencing mechanism is known prior to that time.

    So ACC or man-made climate change, can only have come about since the appearance on earth of homo sapiens sapiens; and to prove it has happened would require demonstration that changes have occurred since that time; that have never been found to have occurred during the range of times for which natural variability was in charge of climate change.

    So don’t come over here and claim that “Skeptics” have not posed any response to your AGW nonsense; the “skeptics” model has always been in existence since the formation of the earth.

    You just wait; climate is going to change, just like it always has; and nothing you or anybody else can do is going to alter that fact.

    By the way; I’m NOT a “skeptic”; I’m quite sure that”the science” is wrong. IT’S THE WATER !!

  211. Mikael Pihlström: August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
    On Lord Monckton pretending to be part of the actual legislative process in UK: the case is quite clear, he has given that impression. Do you think the UK parliament and Queens representative would go public on such an issue without a strong case?

    Despite several elucidations, you’re stuck on this topic. Do you think if the UK Parliament and Queen’s Representative would hesitate to get a “Cease and Desist” order if they *did* have a strong case?

    On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing.

    Wrong answer, boyo. The skeptic point of view is that it’s natural variation, as demonstrated in the historical and geological record — we don’t *have* a model, we have the data. You just don’t happen to like that.

    The IPCC models are not perfect, but if drawn correctly and not Moncktonly distorted as yoy prefer, they do fit observations rather well.

    Can they hindcast? No. Because they can’t hindcast, they are worthless as predictors.

    To the extent that they don’t fit, the message is that there is a lot of work to be done, but for instance adding biogeochemistry feedbacks will likely not lessen the RF, on the contrary.

    “To the extent that they don’t fit” means that they don’t fit. Period.

  212. Noelene says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:36 am

    He clearly states that
    “The House of Lords Act 1999 debarred all but 92 of the 650 Hereditary Peers, including my father, from sitting or voting, and purported to – but did not – remove membership of the Upper House. Letters Patent granting peerages, and consequently membership, are the personal gift of the Monarch.

    ——-

    Noelene, those are his words. The UK Parliament officials says he is
    misinterpreting (surprise, surprise): the voting, sitting and membership
    go together. The Letters patent is a document he can keep in his drawer.
    Actually, the Queen has demanded him to cease using the portcullis
    emblem (slightly modified copy), which is her property. So their position
    is unequivocal.

  213. Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:07 am
    As a a person hopelessly contaminated by AGW theory, I am very happy
    that Monckton is your front man.

    Did you note that the House of Lords wants your Vicount to stop saying he
    is a member of the upper house and that Queen’s Chancellor wants him to stop
    plagiating the Parliament portcullis emblem? If he wasn’t so great in climate
    science one might suspect that he is a pompous clown.

    Of course Mikael, they can’t debate him so they must threaten him or focus on the man and not the facts. Contaminated might be the proper analysis, your words not mine. Lord or not, he has your panties in a wad. You can’t do anything about it except for using Alinsky tactics on him and still he wins.

  214. For those trying to say Hansen’s 1988 projections are good, here are the actual numbers.

    Scenario B is at +1.035C for 2010 while GISTemp in a high cycle El Nino-impacted year is going to be a little over +0.600C (which is still lower than Scenario C (+0.632) which stopped CO2 increases in the year 2000 at 367 ppm – while we are already up to 388 ppm.

    http://www.realclimate.org/data/scen_ABC_temp.data

    http://www.realclimate.org/data/H88_scenarios.dat

    Now when the La Nina starts impacting temperatures going into the Winter and next Spring, one might find that the most accurate forecast Hansen could have submitted would have been a “Scenario D” – where GHGs stopped increasing in 1988 – that would be not far off.

  215. Mikael Pihlström,

    “On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
    with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing.”

    Ah but with vast funding, direct access to the best students each university has had pass through their doors and the luxury of being able to place desired results (the cart) ahead of the methodology (the horse), “That’s the best YOU could do?” is the real question to be asked. The “sceptics” have just gotten started and their coffers are empty as compared to the fortunes already having passed into and out of your own.

    AGW is an intergovernmental monopoly with tens of thousands of fortunes and careers riding on it. You are slighting those trying to break through barriers erected in both governments and academia to protect their “precious” from scrutiny? Belittling their successes made on threadbare budgets against the great and powerful intergovernmental AGW machine is truly a sad position to take. You must be working for The Mann.

  216. JSmith: August 13, 2010 at 9:01 am
    I’m afraid that it DID change the composition of the House of Lords, because :
    “The House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit and vote in the Lords. 92 hereditary peers remain in the House until full reform.”
    http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-lords-faqs/lords-legislation/

    No, it didn’t change the *composition* of the House of Lords — it merely removed the right of most hereditary peers to sit. Now, bear with me: by long-standing tradition and *definition*, the House of Lords is composed of *all* Lords (regardless of actual title) of the realm —

    1. the Lords Spiritual, prelates of the Church of England, who are members by virtue of position, and

    2. the Lords Temporal, who are members by virtue of Letter Patent granted by the Sovereign.

    The act of 1999 did not legally re-define the House of Lords, all it did was remove the right of most of the hereditary peers to sit and vote. In order to re-define the House of Lords itself, Parliament must pass a law specifically declaring the House of Lords to mean only those peers who have been either elected or selected to seats in the House. Parliament didn’t do that — in fact, it specifically allowed several hereditary peers to remain seated on no other basis than to obtain the votes needed to pass the “reform” act.

    Next question : Since he claimed to be a member of the Lords AFTER his right was removed (and while his father held the title), how can you defend the indefensible?

    What makes you say it’s indefensible? Again, the act merely removed his right to sit — removing his membership can only be accomplished by a request from the Sovereign to return the Letter Patent which was given to his forebears.

    This is fun.

    I’ll take “Parasite Drag In A Fully-Articulated Rotor System” for $200, Alex…

  217. Intermediate scenario B was described as ‘the most plausible.’

    Because at the time Hansen thought it most plausible that an intermediate level of CO2 reduction would occur as a result of legislation. But it didn’t. What happened instead, with the exception of Europe, was Business s Usual, Scenario A. (Looked at another way, what happened is that carbon emissions tracked Scenario A most closely.)

    Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am

    On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
    with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing.

    Except Roy Spencer’s recent insight in teasing apart the confusing influence and interaction of forcings and feedbacks in ch. 5 of his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder, where he argues that the climatological community has mixed up cause and effect (and which should therefore have been titled, An Inconvenient Goof). Here’s a brief synopsis and link to a review:

    INGSOC says:
    August 7, 2010 at 7:34 am

    “At the end of Spencer’s careful analysis, a simple picture emerges. The PDO is a long-lived ocean-to-atmosphere heat transfer process (similar to the better-known El Niño and La Niña) but of much longer duration. Cloud cover decreases significantly during the positive PDO phase, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth’s surface. In the ocean, this extra energy is stored as heat. In its negative phase, the PDO acts in reverse and cools the atmosphere. And all of this occurs in roughly thirty-year cycles. While this mechanism is operating, mankind is dumping a small, vanishing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Big deal.”

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/global_warming_rip.html

  218. JSmith says:
    August 13, 2010 at 9:57 am

    James Sexton wrote : “Yes, you need to familiarize yourself with British constitutional law. If you don’t understand it, you probably shouldn’t speak of it. You should ask a British citizen to clarify for you.”

    “Oh, I see. Well, as a British citizen with a long and deep interest in “British constitutional law”, I will ask myself. Thanks for the advice.”

    No problem :-). I’ll take my own advice and only ask a question. When determining peerage, is it the legislative branches that determine such? By what authority did the House of Lords come into existence?

  219. I forgot to add a couple of questions, why is there such obsession regarding the Monckton’s title? Isn’t’ this simply a ploy to divert attention from his statements regarding climate change? Or is there some other deeper meaning regarding his peerage status of more importance than climate change? Or is there, in a way that isn’t obvious to me now, that his peerage status is directly related to the CAGW issue? I’m simply astounded and fascinated by these diversionary tactics.

  220. Mikael Pihlström apparently had to take a time out because Oprah is on.

    MP is an amazing poster; the citations and links of others simply fly right over his head. Earth to Mikael: read the original article. It is making fun of people who make Monckton the issue.

    A friend of my mother’s was a clone of the people here who are so anxious to split hairs over things that matter little to normal folks. She couldn’t talk about anything but the Royal Family and Princess Diana.

    Mikael needs something else to get interested in. ☺

  221. Smokey says:
    August 13, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Mikael Pihlström apparently had to take a time out because Oprah is on.

    Could not find Oprah, so I had a beer.
    The credibility of your front man should be an issue, above all
    for your congregation itself. I am just curious – how you can rationalize away
    obvious embarrasing facts about your star player. Mostly the Nobel
    prize golden pin!

  222. James Sexton says:
    August 13, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    I forgot to add a couple of questions, why is there such obsession regarding the Monckton’s title? Isn’t’ this simply a ploy to divert attention from his statements regarding climate change? Or is there some other deeper meaning regarding his peerage status of more importance than climate change? Or is there, in a way that isn’t obvious to me now, that his peerage status is directly related to the CAGW issue? I’m simply astounded and fascinated by these diversionary tactics.

    ———

    Well, one explanation is that everything else about him is, sorry,
    utterly boring. I mean his reply to Abrahams – it’s unreadable.

  223. Alan F says:
    August 13, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Mikael Pihlström,

    “On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
    with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing.”

    Ah but with vast funding, direct access to the best students each university has had pass through their doors and the luxury of being able to place desired results (the cart) ahead of the methodology (the horse), “That’s the best YOU could do?” is the real question to be asked. The “sceptics” have just gotten started and their coffers are empty as compared to the fortunes already having passed into and out of your own.

    AGW is an intergovernmental monopoly with tens of thousands of fortunes and careers riding on it. You are slighting those trying to break through barriers erected in both governments and academia to protect their “precious” from scrutiny? Belittling their successes made on threadbare budgets against the great and powerful intergovernmental AGW machine is truly a sad position to take. You must be working for The Mann.
    ——-
    1/ The tenured scientists are most important; I would think your
    Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Soon, Idso, Michaels etc were tenured
    (that is financially secured) way back? They just did not convince
    the world, were not proliferate article writers (spent to much touring
    with Heartland etc?).
    2/ Of course students tend to go were money and reputation lives.
    But, the question you have to ask yourself: why did not your side
    build up the scientific reputation.
    3/ There is no intergovernmental AGW industry; that is pure
    fantasy.

  224. Mikael Pihlström says: [ … ]
    ………………………………………..
    “On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
    with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing. “””

    Mike that’s a beautiful bit of logic. Let’s test that.

    I say the sky will fall in 100 years if we don’t tax energy into oblivion and force people to give up their individual liberties and freedoms for the collective good.

    By your logic the onus is upon you to disprove my outrageous assertions and if you don’t I should be free to commence with the usurpation of liberties and start taxing modernization and industrialization? Do you see a flaw in the thinking there?

  225. “I forgot to add a couple of questions, why is there such obsession regarding the Monckton’s title? Isn’t’ this simply a ploy to divert attention from his statements regarding climate change?”

    No, the whole concept that some men are “Lords” because of their birth is offensive. (Further, he doesn’t seem to be one, even, but regardless.)

  226. JSmith says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:41 am

    “That’s not quite how those scenarios were determined – the temperatures are determined by the amount of GHGs emitted. From the link you gave, you can read the following, which explains what the scenarios actually are :….”

    Yes, thank you, oddly, I’ve already read the referenced .pdf I’m fully aware of what methodology he stated he used to make his various predictions. It doesn’t change what I stated. The fact is, while he claims he was correct, there is a difference of opinions. See links provided above. I’d be lot more impressed if he made one prediction and got it right. and is validated by someone other than himself. The only study I’m aware of that validates his predictions is his own work. I can’t believe alarmists actually use this in arguments regarding the validity of his work. The only reason I even mention it, is because I start to laugh when I type it and my co-workers think I’m nuts and leave me alone. :-)

  227. Anne van der Bom says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:21 am


    The ‘global cooling scare’ was a news article in Newsweek, dated 28 april 1975. If you were 10 at the time, that makes you exactly as old as I am.

    I’m older still, but my memory is not faulty yet. The global cooling scare was much bigger than a single story in Newsweek. This is an interesting myth that people are trying to transmute into truth. Try National Academy of Sciences. Ever hear of them? There were others as well. The point was that the snowpack considered “permanent” in North America jumped by something like 20% in the early 1970s. Many people believe that something like this is the opening act of an ice age. So they were worried. It didn’t turn out to be so in this instance.

  228. Bill Tuttle says:
    August 13, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Mikael Pihlström: August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
    Despite several elucidations, you’re stuck on this topic. Do you think if the UK Parliament and Queen’s Representative would hesitate to get a “Cease and Desist” order if they *did* have a strong case?
    —–
    I hope they will just make the matter very clear (done, see Guardian,
    below) and leave the man with , obviously, a very complicated inner life
    and grave problems with reality perception alone.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/11/christopher-monckton-house-of-lords-claims

  229. Bill Tuttle says:
    August 13, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Mikael Pihlström: August 13, 2010 at 10:42 am
    On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing.

    Wrong answer, boyo. The skeptic point of view is that it’s natural variation, as demonstrated in the historical and geological record — we don’t *have* a model, we have the data. You just don’t happen to like that
    ——
    Whether we like it or not, the task of science in the modern world
    is, to the best of its abilities, predict or project or produce storylines
    about future developments of great importance to society. Your reliance
    on the ‘record’ without even knowing the causal interpretations is not
    really useful.
    ———
    “To the extent that they don’t fit” means that they don’t fit. Period.
    ——–
    That is a naive view of scientific method. Models are always abstractions
    of the truth. The question is whether they give the general picture,
    well e.g. Hansens scenarios seem to perform in this respect.

  230. George E. Smith says:
    August 13, 2010 at 11:26 am

    On falsification of AGW: you sceptics have had 30 years to come up
    with some plausible theory or your own model: nothing. “””
    ——————-
    That theory; which AGW proponents have yet to disprove, is that CLIMATE CHANGES, and always has, and always will and nothing that has happened over in fact milions of years can be shown to be outside the bounds of natural variability.
    ———
    Oh, climate changes eternally? I did not realize that, being so
    focused on the period 1900-2100, namely the period when we can
    still do something about warmimg, provided the change is anthropogenic.

    Now in this specific time period, what is the ‘natural causes model’ you
    sceptics been working on? The sun; not likely anymore? PDO, but it
    is cyclical so prolonged rising trend?

    ——–
    By the way; I’m NOT a “skeptic”; I’m quite sure that”the science” is wrong. IT’S THE WATER !!
    ——–
    Water is good, in principle. But, what constant rising trend could you
    postulate in relation to water, moisture and clouds and fit a model?

  231. Anne van der Bom says:
    August 13, 2010 at 8:38 am

    “Anne, please specify exactly how emissions have deviated from scenario A. Thanks.”

    I think I will not try to outdo Steve McIntire.

    What part of “emissions” did you not understand? While CO2 levels have increased close to linearly, emissions have shot through the roof. That alone shows how poorly Hansen understood CO2.

    Still, more than enough opposing comments make it through. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if are more comments critical of AGW on RealClimate than comments supporting AGW on WUWT. But that of course could also be due to the willingness of both sides to venture in “the dragon’s den”. However, I can offer you some consolation through the fact that Lord Monckton has been able to comment. Perhaps you should ask him how he pulled that off. :-)

    For the most part, the comments that make it through on RC are ones that can be addressed easily. The difficult questions are deleted. Everyone knows this, what planet do you live on? As for RC letting more comments through … that’s a joke, right?

  232. I’m intrigued that so many of the bed-wetters, hand-wringers, and wolf-criers who populate the Church of Canutism are so mesmerized by my status as a member (albeit non-sitting and non-voting) of the House of Lords. For these, here is a copy of a letter I sent earlier this week to the Clerk of the Parliaments:

    “Michael Pownall, Esq., Cler. Parliamentor.,
    “House of Lords, LONDON, SW1A 0PW.

    “Sir, – I should perhaps confirm for the avoidance of doubt that, as my title implies, I am a Peer of the Realm, a member of the House of Lords or House of Peers or upper House of the UK Legislature, and a member of the Peerage of the United Kingdom, albeit without the right to sit or vote (a right which I do not pretend to possess). This is a free country, where law and custom entitles me to express my opinion, and that, Sir, like it or not, is my opinion.

    “The House of Lords Act 1999, which purported to exclude hereditary peers from membership of the House of Lords, is defective, regardless of its terms. I note that you have not answered those questions in my earlier letter to you that would swiftly have drawn your attention to official internal advice to the effect that the Act in the form in which it was passed was not and is not effective in removing membership of the House.

    “However, some months before you first wrote to me, and as soon as I discovered – regrettably by way of a newspaper reporter – that your enquiry clerks had been instructed to say that I was not a member of the House, I took the earliest convenient opportunity to place on the public record the fact that the House ‘authorities’ disagree with my interpretation of the Act, so that no one was in any way misled. Until then, I had had no idea that you did not regard excluded hereditary Peers as members of the House.

    “If you had contacted me at the same time as your clerks contacted the third party to whom they first gave your interesting but in my view defective opinion to the effect that hereditary peers excluded from sitting and voting are also excluded from membership of the House, I could and would of course have made your position publicly known very much sooner. You have only yourselves to blame for any delay in placing your opinion on the public record that may have resulted from your clerks’ conveying information about me to a third party without, at the same time, conveying it to me.

    “It has now been brought to my attention that your enquiry clerks have again been conveying information about me to third parties without telling me at the same time. Apparently third parties are being told that I am not entitled to use as a logo a purple portcullis surmounted by the Vicecomital Coronet. I had asked you questions about this matter in my earlier letter. You had replied saying you would consult the Lord Chamberlain. I have heard nothing from him. Would it not have been wiser if you not instructed your Clerks that you would be taking steps to prevent me from using my own logo until the Lord Chamberlain had given me his opinion? My logo is not a registered badge of Parliament, and is plainly distinct from Parliament’s badge in numerous material respects. The Lords do not use the portcullis at all on their notepaper: they use the Royal Arms within an elliptical cartouche.

    “The United Kingdom Independence Party will one day succeed in winning back the democratic and public supreme lawmaking power that formerly lay with Parliament and with Parliament alone, but is now vested overseas in unelected Kommissars (the revealingly apposite official German title for European Commissioners). Once Parliament is again sovereign, when the House ‘authorities’ wish to stand on their dignity there will at least be some genuine dignity for you to stand on.”

  233. Gareth Phillips wrote:

    “Lord Monckton … is a senior member of one of the most right wing parties in Europe ( UKIP).”

    So what? UKIP’s most distinctive policy is that the laws affecting the British people should be made by the UK Parliament in London and not the EU in Brussels. That policy can be described by a single word – “democracy.”

    Gareth Phillips also wrote:

    “He is a hereditary peer, the sort of guy Americans fought to be free from in the war of independence.”

    No they did not. (Many Americans actually supported the British and a lot of those moved to Canada afterwards). Those Americans who fought against British rule did so because they wanted to make their own laws, not have them made in London. In other words their motivation was rather similar to that of UKIP!

    However, none of this has any bearing at all on whether or not Lord Monckton’s views on global warming are correct or not.

  234. James Sexton,
    Hansen didn’t make predictions. His scenarios projected that if emissions were X, the atmospheric percentage of CO2 would be Y, and the planet would have an avg temp in the range of Z.
    A prediction would have been: in 20 years there will be 400 ppm of CO2 and the avg temp will be 57 degrees (F).

    [REPLY: Which only shows that you have no clue about the distinction between an illegitimate ad hominem attack on a person, and a legitimate intellectual attack on that persons ideas, motivations, and political agenda. Try researching the topic of logical fallacies and particularly ad hominem attacks, then come back and continue this line of argument.. – Mike]

    Translation: When we do the same thing, it’s not the same thing. And even though we fired the first ad hom salvos, it’s not wrong when we do it.

  235. J Smith
    The socialists did make a royal mess of everything, including the house of lords, this they had to do as it was a great democratic safeguard for democracy, as an englishman totally disgusted by the unholy mess the labour bastards have done to me and my country I left with what little I have left. You are wrong about Lord Monkton, I suspect you know this but as he is correct about most things you have to find a red herring to deflect from truth.

  236. Mikael Pihlström :-leaving aside the dodgy science for a while the AGW crowd have failed with all their forcasts, however history in real books is hard to get round without burning all the books(been done, worked for a while locally)the Viging farms are just coming out fron under the glacier, still colder than when they farmed there then. The fabled north west passage was open to non atomic icebreakers in 1939, it needed at least 2 huge atomic powered ice breakers last year to get 2 ships through, colder now then. So it goes on, we know the glaciers on Greenland are still growing as the end of one got too big and fell off. Then the AGW try to con us with sea level rise, tyhere is no way ever to quantify this honestly, there never will it is just scaremongering. I might take AGW as more than a scam when the best brains on their side want to fix it by moving all industry from well regulated northern hemispere countries (putting us into the dark ages again) and shifting it to unregulated china and india, runaway pollution anyone.

  237. Joel shore: who cares about projections any more? The new satellites are demonstrating that the earths temperature is is no danger of going out of control and this whole agw fright night is nothing more than a tempest in a gigantic tea pot. Get over it. Move on. Nothing to see here.

  238. Mikael Pihlström: August 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    Whether we like it or not, the task of science in the modern world is, to the best of its abilities, predict or project or produce storylines about future developments of great importance to society. Your reliance on the ‘record’ without even knowing the causal interpretations is not really useful.

    Your insisting that we *understand* everything that causes natural variation before we can say that, in light of the record, there is nothing happening that hasn’t happened many times in the past, and can’t be explained by natural variation, is pure sophistry. Natural variation is the null hypothesis — your side has to falsify it to have any scientific credibility, and to be blunt, you got nothin’.

    “To the extent that they don’t fit” means that they don’t fit. Period.
    That is a naive view of scientific method. Models are always abstractions of the truth. The question is whether they give the general picture, well e.g. Hansens scenarios seem to perform in this respect.

    I haven’t been patronized all day, and never with reference to a Platonic abstract. How refreshingly droll.

    Answer me this: since the AGW theory predicts an upper atmospheric tropical hot spot, and since the models predict the existence of that upper atmospheric hot spot, kindly tell us where it is to be found. In the real world, please, not in the truthy abstraction.

  239. Mikael Pihlström says:

    “The credibility of your front man should be an issue, above all”

    Mikey, I am my own front man, and it is you who has major credibility issues. So I have a question for you. You said:

    “There is no intergovernmental AGW industry; that is pure fantasy.”

    What color is the sky on your planet? You keep dodging that question.☺

    I’ll help you out: The intergovernmental AGW industry is Pachauri’s UN/IPCC. It’s in the IPCC Charter. On our own planet Earth we know about these things. You’re welcome to visit any time.

    And for my next trick:

    Marge, regarding your 2 lame links: Pf-f-f-ft. I’ll give you something you can actually learn from — if your mind isn’t made up and closed tight.

    The following dozen papers are the minimum required reading necessary to understand exactly why the climate sensitivity number is unknown to any precision — but note that every UN/IPCC Assessment Report has been forced to ratchet down the number.

    Prof Richard Lindzen and many others peg the sensitivity number at well below 1°C. If so, there is absolutely nothing to worry about WRT increasing this beneficial and necessary tiny trace gas.

    The climate sensitivity number is closely associated with the residence time. Note the disparity between the IPCC’s outright guesstimate and numerous other peer reviewed papers.

    The climate’s sensitivity to CO2 must be understood in context. Here is the minimum reading necessary to understand the concept:

    http://www.osta.com/gw/GWanalysis.htm

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

    http://tiny.cc/tedpn

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/StupakResponse.pdf

    http://junkscience.com/mar08/Lindzen-Rahmstorf-Exchange.pdf

    http://tiny.cc/h7qj4

    http://www.heartland.org/events/newyork09/pdfs/lindzen.pdf

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Response.to.Dingell.EAQ.pdf

    http://tiny.cc/dpbo9

    http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.pdf

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf

    You think you had a royal flush? Nah. You just got stuck with the Old Maid.

    Report back when you’ve finished your reading assignment. And remember, we grade on a curve.

  240. Kevin Kilty says:

    The global cooling scare was much bigger than a single story in Newsweek. This is an interesting myth that people are trying to transmute into truth. Try National Academy of Sciences. Ever hear of them?

    Yeah…I’ve heard of them. And, what are you under the impression that they said that differs from this summary of their 1975 report: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html ?

  241. Do you people trying to convince us Monckton is not a Lord really think you are changing anything?

  242. Mike says:
    August 12, 2010 at 10:56 am

    Personally I view Mr. Monckton as a crackpot.

    That says something about you Mike, not Lord Monckton.

  243. Mikael Pihlström says:
    August 13, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    James Sexton says:
    August 13, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    I forgot to add a couple of questions, why is there such obsession regarding the Monckton’s title? …

    Well, one explanation is that everything else about him is, sorry,
    utterly boring. I mean his reply to Abrahams – it’s unreadable.

    Well, I saw his performance in the Oxford Union debate, and one might describe him in many ways, but not as boring. He was quick, and very funny. Maybe the other side needed better debaters, but Monckton handled them all well. Theatre almost.

  244. Wow! That Crosstalk bit linked by “kwik” was refreshing. Thank you, Kwik and thank you, Lord Monckton.

  245. Richard S Courtney says:

    Your posts do not state any error by Monckton then cited any source (blog or otherwise) in support of your statement.

    I am relying on your ability to click on a link and read it. Am I assuming too much?

    The nearest to an error by Monckton that you seem able to find is – at very least – debateable as your debate with Bill Illis demonstrates.

    Great logic there, Richard. So, if you say the moon is made of rock and I argue that it is made of green cheese, then your point is debateable because I have debated you on it? By that standard, anything is debatable…We can find plenty of people who will debate whether the earth is more than 10000 years old. Heck, we can find people who will debate whether the moon landings really occurred, whether 9/11 was really the act of terrorists, and whether the earth is really not flat.

    Yes, that is some standard of evidence you’ve set up there.

  246. I have got on to YouTube via the link provided but cannot get
    on to programme 7 and further … all that shows are parts 1-6.
    I wonder what I am doing wrong ?

  247. Smokey “regarding your 2 lame links: Pf-f-f-ft”

    This is your idea of a rebuttal? LOL.

    Smokey “Report back when you’ve finished your reading assignment.”

    You obviously haven’t been reading what you’ve cited, just as you didn’t read what I cited.

    Here’s Roy Spencer on the Lindzen and Choi paper……Megadittos!

    “But I predict that Lindzen and Choi will eventually be challenged by other researchers who will do their own analysis of the ERBE data, possibly like that I have outlined above, and then publish conclusions that are quite divergent from the authors’ conclusions.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper/

    Here’s the APS preface to the Monckton paper you cited.

    “The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: “Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

    http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

    If you’ve an open mind and would actually like to learn something, try this.

    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/jacobbook/bookchap7.pdf

  248. adrian smits says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    a gigantic tea pot.

    Speaking of tea, how is the Tea Party doing? Even Republicans better straighten up because Americans are tired of them too, not just the Democrats. Monckton is looking forward to the day Brits have their rightful freedom back. Americans are taking their freedom back too. :-)

  249. OK Evan–

    Irish-American performance artist affecting an Upper House accent to compellingly imitate a British lord

    Since the original Lord Monckton was created viscount in 1957 to reward his role in defeating Lord Haw Haw’s employers, one can only be saddened by his grandson’s entry into in the propaganda trade.

  250. Monckton of Brenchley says:
    August 13, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    I’m intrigued that so many of the bed-wetters…..

    Yes mi Lord, you’re right. They’re having hissing spits, sucking their thumbs, pouting their lips, throwing their toys, kicking and kicking while lying on the floor. It’s all going so badly for them the past few years with temps going down, and with ClimateGate and allll the other -Gates, that all they can do is throw a fit until they think we will pay attention to them.

    But it’s a different day now. No more putting up with the ones that make the most noise and letting them have their way. No more of the super sensitivity to political correctness that has a chilling effect on people being themselves. Folks are actually scared of what the future could be with the path we are headed on now. That fear is acting as a smelling salts. The 60’s-Peace-Love-Dope-Marx-was-right-man-Baby-Boomers have screwed things up profoundly. Now it’s time for the big boys and girls to set things straight. The kids will just have to like it. :-)

  251. Joel Shore:

    I am replying to your post to me at August 13, 2010 at 8:18 pm for no other reason than I wish to encourage your posts to me because I enjoy laughing them.

    My original post above was at August 12, 2010 at 1:27 pm and I copy it here to avoid others needing to find it.

    “Friends:
    AGW supporters attack Monckton because they know he is right.
    If they could show his statements were wrong they would. And they would proclaim his errors whenever he was mentioned.
    But they cannot fault his statements in any significant manner, so they attack him with the intent that by discrediting him they will induce people to ignore what he says.
    This tactic is known as Playing The Man Instead Of The Ball.
    So, the attacks on Monckton prove he is acurately addressing the AGW scare.
    As WW2 bomber pilots said;
    “You always know when you are over the target because that is when you get the most flack”.
    Richard”

    I would have been proved worong by a Popperian ‘black swan’: i.e. your citing one, single, solitary example of Monckton having made a statement that is wrong.

    But your series of responses to me have failed to state – and failed to proclaim – any error by Monckton. The nearest you have gone towards making such a statement is your citing a dubious and disputed argument by an AGW propoganda blog, and you are so unsure of that argument that you have not dared to explicitly state what Monckton said that is wrong (despite my challenging you to do that).

    Now, in your latest reponse (at August 13, 2010 at 8:18 pm) you accuse me of using poor logic when I say that you have not yet stated any clear statement of an error by Monckton!

    Please keep providing your responses to me: there is far, far too little to laugh at in this world and your posts are giving me much laughter.

    Richard

  252. The Old Maid card dealer is not up to speed. The APS’ running of Lord Monckton’s paper was not done willingly; Monckton forced the APS to run his article.

    You could look it up. It’s in the WUWT archives. That issue has been discussed here previously in detail.

    The issue was over climate sensitivity, as her very first link shows. The links I posted in response were provided to help educate margie the subject of the climate sensitivity number — not to provide targets for nitpicking quibbles.

    Everything I wrote was accurate. If anyone disputes this, tell us exactly what the climate sensitivity number is. [And don’t quote Arrhenius, unless his 1906 corrigendum is included.]

    The fact — verified by planet Earth — is that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low. It could be negative; that has not yet been established nor falsified.

    Changing the subject earns no points. Neither does linking to a textbook chapter that tries but fails to falsify the null hypothesis. As clearly stated by Dr Spencer, natural variability fully explains the current climate, without the need for an extraneous variable:

    “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.”

    On the other hand, the CO2=CAGW conjecture has been repeatedly falsified — not least by planet Earth.

    Occam’s Razor precludes the use of extraneous variables such as CO2 when providing a hypothesis explained by a simpler mechanism. While CO2 probably has a small effect on temperature, the planet is not responding as predicted by the always-inacurate computer climate models.

    Human activity has certainly contributed to atmospheric CO2. But due to the low climate sensitivity number, the effect on temperature is negligible, and can de disregarded for all practical purposes. Climate alarmists have an urgent need to believe in a looming catastrophe. The question is, who do we believe? Planet Earth? Or their GCMs and our lying eyes?

    The correct answer is: we believe planet Earth. The one-third increase in an extremely tin trace gas has had beneficial effects on the biosphere, while there is no empirical evidence to believe in the alarmist predictions of doom based entirely on a high climate sensitivity to CO2.

  253. Mikael Pihlström :- it is arrogant and foolish to think that anyone, except in a Bond film (they are also fiction) can affect the climate an any serious way, mankind is as yet not that powerfull (OK set off all the nukes in the world would do it but CO2?? you are having a laugh.

  254. Monckton has scored an own goal by writing ( 13-8-2:56) that he is “intrigued that so many of the bed-wetters, hand-wringers, and wolf-criers who populate the Church of Canutism are so mesmerized by my status as a member (albeit non-sitting and non-voting) of the House of Lords.”

    There is a certain symmetry between Canute’s demonstrating to his sycophants that nature is indifferent to lordly words, and scientific indifference to Monckton’s rontonomade. As surely as a rising tide lifts all thrones, rising levels of CO2 raise all temperatures, leaving him increasingly hot under the coronet, and sounding ever less like a Science Lord (Ashby and Zuckerman come to mind) and ever more like a wannabe Jack Cade , with the added disadvantage of sounding very like a lawyer.

    As to his parliamentary status, the Palace has just troubled to admonish Monckton that being a lord no more makes him a member of the upper house than being a white man makes him a member of White’s. The viscount’s failure to gather a single vote in four successive attempts to get sitting members to raise him up to their estate is a testament to the good sense of the mother of parliaments.

  255. Wattsamatta U, Russell? Your Hahvahd cronies giving you grief because you haven’t jumped on the bash Monckton with ad-homs bandwagon? Got a paper you need to get thru pal review?

    I understand. You’ve gotta be a part of the hive mind to get along. Otherwise you might stop getting invites to the cocktail parties.

    Don’t fret, I’ve got the cure: a couple doses of these will solve your problem.☺

  256. Russell Seitz: August 14, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    As surely as a rising tide lifts all thrones, rising levels of CO2 raise all temperatures…

    So, you’re saying that, because CO2 levels were rising 20,000 years ago, there couldn’t possibly have been an ice age 20,000 ears ago.

    Got it.

  257. Dear Mikael Pihlström,

    “3/ There is no intergovernmental AGW industry; that is pure fantasy.”

    Please look up E.ON and GE but at the very least try to comprehend why their love for legislated “green tech” exists. Fortunes ride on policy decisions in every single country on earth and right now legislating “green tech” which can’t possible stand on its own merits is BIG business. Anyone having sat through a high school level economics class should be able to grasp this.

    Oh also, I’ve sat in classes (owned)sponsored by Monsanto and Dupont/Merc so try peddling academia being kept pure by tenure to tweens at strip malls and the 3:00AM barfly crowd.

  258. No, Bill, you haven’t got it-

    If the delta T from orbital forcing exceeds the GHG radiative forcing , the next ice age is still on

  259. No, Smokey old bean, if, I’m in a snit about his acting the twit it’s because his recent actions demean a great British rhetorical institution.

    One watches Question Time in the House Of Commons not in the expectation of hearing questions answered , but to applaud the Prime Minister’s magisterial evasion of the inconvenient truths flung against him.

    Monckton isn’t the first Old Harrovian to make this mode of rhetoric his metier, but while it may properly ornament the goings on in Westminister or the Oxford Union, it becomes an affront to the honor of the scientific profession when practiced out of bounds. It’s like watching Carl Sagan trying to segue from amusing Johnny Carson’s audience into the SALT talks.

  260. And furthermore, Smokey, you most certainly have not got it- if the orbital forcing exceeds the GHG forcing next time round, expect another ice age as usual.

  261. Chris Edwards says:
    August 14, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    ” it is arrogant and foolish to think that anyone, except in a Bond film (they are also fiction) can affect the climate an any serious way, mankind is as yet not that powerfull (OK set off all the nukes in the world would do it but CO2?? you are having a laugh.”

    Setting off all the nukes wouldn’t change the climate. Doing it so as to maximise the amount of smoke and vaporised rock in the upper atmosphere could make the weather cooler for a year or two. After that it would be business as usual.

    However, changing the climate by means of solettas in space (mirrors made from thin aluminised film) would be easy, and with present technology would cost a few percent of one year’s GWP. Unless of course it were done by today’s politicised NASA, in which case it would probably cost a few thousand times as much!

  262. Still waiting for the AIDS/HIV cure though. He claims to be responsible for the “invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Graves’ disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, food poisoning, and HIV.”

    And also a Nobel Laureate (though I suppose if he accomplished the former he’d deserve the latter). It’s true that pointing out some of his insane, self-aggrandizing claims doesn’t mean that all his claims are false. But it’s a safe assumption until proven otherwise.

    As to his “civilized” response to Abraham, it seems pretty clear that his initial name calling screed (initially profanity filled and later moderated on the site that still has the “overcooked prawn” quote) backfired and he’s realized that it’s reduced his credibility to the masses and thus produced the “flower garden show.”

    Similar happened with his backing away from the Hitler Youth quote, denied by Monckton and easily found on Youtube.

  263. Monckton of Brenchley wrote : “I’m intrigued that so many of the bed-wetters, hand-wringers, and wolf-criers who populate the Church of Canutism are so mesmerized by my status as a member (albeit non-sitting and non-voting) of the House of Lords.”

    Thank you ! You make it so easy to point out your hyperbolic extremism, which should be an embarrassment to anyone who claims you to be an ally in any way. The rest of your comment is a wonderful example of your strangej, self-regarding world-view, too. Thank you indeed and carry on…please !!

  264. Rob:

    Thankyou for your post at August 15, 2010 at 6:24 pm.

    It is the most clear and succinct example of ‘playing the man and not the ball’ I have seen to date. So, I have copied it and intend to use it for purposes of illustration.

    If ‘warmers’ had anything that would disprove any of Monckton’s arguments then they would use them. The fact that you choose to ‘play the man’ demonstrates that you cannot fault anything Monckton has said concerning the AGW scare.

    And, in the unlikely event that there are any impartial observers still reading this thread, I ask them to note that – after all the above posts – you feel constrained to ‘play the man and not the ball’.

    Richard

  265. Russell Seitz: August 14, 2010 at 5:59 pm
    No, Bill, you haven’t got it-
    If the delta T from orbital forcing exceeds the GHG radiative forcing , the next ice age is still on

    Your quote was “As surely as a rising tide lifts all thrones, rising levels of CO2 raise all temperatures…” which is an unconditional assertion.

    There’s plenty of evidence that CO2 *trails* temperature change, there’s none that it *causes* it.

  266. Richard S Courtney:

    Since you have been so interested in knowing about the errors in Monckton’s work, I thought I would let you in on a big one that Brad Beeson has pointed out in the newer thread on Monckton here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/14/monckton-why-current-trends-are-not-alarming/#comment-459975

    It seems that Monckton’s claim that a simple exponential growth model shows that CO2 levels are running behind the expectations of the A2 scenario is wrong. If you do the exponential growth model correctly (i.e., assume that it is only the level of Co2 above the pre-industrial baseline the increases exponentially) then you find that in fact measured CO2 levels are tracking, if anything, a little bit high of what the A2 scenario would predict.

    Of course, Monckton could redeem himself by admitting his error (which is certainly subtle enough that I can believe it was unintentional) and noting that his claims regarding CO2 not keeping up with the IPCC forecasts are completely incorrect. Let’s both hope that this is what he chooses to do.

  267. Well golly Richard, I must have misread the post title and post content. I thought they were about Monckton (i.e., the man) who, in this case, IS the ball. But I’ll play the man in your case and recommend a reading comprehension course.

Comments are closed.