This is a response by Christopher Monckton to the comment on the Nurse anti-science thread yesterday by anonymous commenter “The other Brian” who in typical troll style, tries to distract away from the post and point being made with noise.- Anthony
==============================================================
By Christopher Monckton
I seem to get more than my fair share of ad-hominem attacks from trolls. One such has recently posted up a lifetime list of my supposed “errors”, and has made some nasty allegations. May I for once reply? The troll’s allegations are in bold face: my replies are in [italics].
Monckton said he advised Margret Hatcher on climate change – HE DIDN’T.
I have never met anyone called “Margret Hatcher”. However, like it or not, I did advise Margaret Thatcher on many scientific and other matters, including climate change. However, it was my successor, George Guise, who helped her to write the speech that announced the funding for what became the Hadley Centre for Forecasting. At that time (1988) she predicted that the world would warm at 1 C/decade. I certainly wouldn’t have gone that far.
He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – HE DIDN’T.
In the summer of 2008 Jeffrey Marque, the then commissioning editor of Physics and Society, which at that time advertised itself as publishing “reviewed” papers, asked me to write a paper about climate sensitivity. As was usual for Physics and Society at the time, the journal’s review editor, Professor Alvin Saperstein, reviewed the paper. After my revisions (chiefly to explain the derivations of several new equations) both editors strongly endorsed the paper. It was published and Dr. Marque wrote a supporting editorial. Within days, the usual suspects Remote-Sensinged me. Both editors resigned, and a mendacious disclaimer was added to the online version of my paper, saying it had not been peer-reviewed. Besides, has Al Gore written any peer-reviewed papers?
He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.
In 2008, I said the Earth had been cooling since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001. So it had, at that time: do the linear regression for yourself and see. Recent warming, however, means there has been little change in temperature since 2001.
He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.
Johannessen et al. (2005), whom I cited, reported a substantial net accumulation of snow, firn, and ice on Greenland from 1992-2003. In 2009 Johannessen published a further paper saying that since 2003 some 273 bn tonnes of ice had melted in Greenland. A simple calculation shows this represented one-quarter of the ice that had accumulated over the previous 12 years, and it raised global sea level by 0.7 mm, restoring a quarter of the 2.8 mm drop caused by the previous ice accumulation on Greenland.
He said there has been no systematic ice loss in the artic – THERE HAS.
One assumes the troll means the Arctic. In 2009 I reported that the summer sea-ice minima in 2008 and 2009 had both shown greater ice extents than in 2007. The same also now applies to 2010 and (on most datasets, and subject to final confirmation that the summer sea-ice minimum has passed) to 2011 as well. Arctic ice has certainly declined ever since the satellites have been watching, but there is some evidence that there was less Arctic ice from the 1920s to the 1940s (and even into the late 1950s in Northern Greenland) than there is today.
He says there has been no correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – YES, THERE IS.
There has indeed been a remarkable correlation between CO2 and temperatures over the past 500 million years – but repeated reanalyses of the data have shown that it was temperatures that changed first and CO2 concentration change that followed. Though it is possible that the additional CO2 concentration reinforced the original warming in each of the past four interglacial warm periods (all of which were warmer than the present), it plainly did not trigger the warming, because the warming occurred first.
He says a pre-Cambrian ice planet shows that CO2 has no effect on the climate – SHOWS THE OPPOSITE.
In the Neoproterozoic era, some 750 million years ago, sea-level glaciers a mile high came and went – twice – at the Equator. There are no sea-level glaciers anywhere near the Equator today. At that time, CO2 was 30% of the atmosphere: today it is 0.04%. The reasonable point that I made, quoting Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist who has made a particular study of the period, was that even allowing for the fact that the Sun was 5% fainter in the Neoproterozoic than today, and for the fact that the planet’s albedo was much greater then than now, equatorial sea-level glaciers could not have come and gone twice if CO2 had the very large warming effect that is now imagined. Of course CO2 has some warming effect. The central question, however, remains how much warming CO2 will cause. My best estimate is 1 Celsius per doubling of CO2 concentration.
He says there has been no change in Himalayan glaciers for 200 years – THERE HAS.
Professor M.I. Bhat, of the Indian Geological Survey, whom I consult regularly and cite on the state of the glaciers, has consistently said that except in areas of local geological deformation the pattern of advance and retreat of the glaciers is much as it has been over the past 200 years since the Raj first kept records.
He says only one Himalayan glacier is retreating – NO, LOTS OF THEM ARE.
The Ronggbuk glacier has disappeared altogether; the Gangotri glacier has been receding for 200 years; and many other glaciers are receding. Merely because I mentioned one glacier as receding, it is not legitimate to infer that I said or implied that only one glacier was receding.
He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.
A finding of low climate sensitivity in Lindzen (2007) suggests that the warming exercised by CO2 is equivalent to assuming a forcing of 1.135 W m–2. In saying that, I explicitly referred to the forcing of 3.7 W m–2 at CO2 doubling that is the IPCC’s current estimate (interestingly, down from 4.4 W m–2 in its first two assessment reports).
He confuses forcing with sensitivity.
A radiative forcing is a change in the net (down minus up) flux of radiation at the tropopause resulting from some perturbation of a presumed pre-existing equilibrium in the climate object, such as a doubling of CO2 concentration in the air. The resultant warming, or “climate sensitivity”, is the product of three parameters: the radiative forcing, the Planck or no-feedbacks sensitivity parameter; and the overall temperature-feedback gain factor (Monckton of Brenchley, 2008). Dividing any one of the three factors by, say, 3 to take account of an important discrepancy between models and observations, such as that which Lindzen identified, has precisely the same effect as dividing any of the others by 3.
He says a leading climate researcher found a loss of cloud cover is responsible for recent warming – SHE SAYS IT SHOWS NO SUCH THING.
The researcher in question had demonstrated that the loss of cloud cover between 1983 and 2001 had caused a very substantial radiative forcing, which, I hypothesized, was the main reason for the rapid warming between 1976 and late 2001, since when there has been no warming. Many papers (e.g. Tsonis et al., 2006) note the links between the Pacific and other oceanic oscillation indices, variations in cloud cover, and variations in global temperature, on a timescale of approximately 60 years. This cyclicity – which long predates our influence on the climate – is startlingly visible in the global instrumental temperature record. In an invited presentation to the World Federation of Scientists’ annual seminar on planetary emergencies in 2011, I drew some legitimate conclusions about climate sensitivity from the researcher’s observations. I did not, of course, ascribe these conclusions to her: I merely used her result as an input to a determination of climate sensitivity. My paper has now been published in the Proceedings of the seminar, and separately in a book of scientific papers about climate sensitivity.
He misquotes scientists to mislead his audience.
No instances are given to support this libel, so I cannot comment. This unpleasant allegation was originally made by an associate professor in a non-climate-related field at a Bible college in Minnesota: however, he had repeatedly misquoted my words and had put then his misquotations to third-party scientists, using their understandably furious responses against me. He will be dealt with firmly in due course. Serious academic dishonesty of this kind, wilfully persisted in, is not something to be encouraged.
He says planets with a high albedo are cooler than planets with a low albedo – WRONG.
If all other parameters be held constant, increasing a planet’s albedo (for instance, by covering it with ice) will act as a mirror reflecting more of the Sun’s radiation back into space, rather than allowing the radiation that reaches the ground to be displaced from the visible spectrum to the near-infrared, where – on its way out – it can interact with greenhouse gases. Or has the troll decided that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect? Since there is, ceteris paribus a more reflective surface makes for a cooler world.
He gets information in peer-reviewed science papers wrong.
Not a single instance is cited. This is pure yah-boo.
He says some planets are warming because of the Sun – NO THEY’RE NOT.
There has indeed been evidence of simultaneous warming in many planets of the Solar system, and I have mentioned this. However, given the difficulties of reliable measurement and imaging, I have not sought to draw definitive conclusions about the role of the Sun in “global warming” from such observations.
He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.
I cited a paper given by Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov at the 2004 symposium of the IAU in St. Petersburg, Fla, but put “IAU” at the foot of the slide rather than Dr.
Abdussamatov’s name. Dr. Abdussamatov, like other researchers in the field (e.g. Solanki, 2005; Shaviv, 2008, 2011; Svensmark, 2011; Kirkby, 2011), offers evidence to the effect that the role of the Sun may be rather greater than is found congenial by those who would like to blame nearly all recent warming on CO2.
###
The moderators should perhaps be more vigilant in banning contributions from trolls who state in terms, as this one does, that I “misquote scientists to mislead [my] audience”. One understands the trolls’ increasing desperation as their scientific and economic case collapses: but lying about those of us who have long seen through the nonsense is not going to help them now.
The science is in, the truth is out, the game is up, and the scare is over. Get used to it, get real, get a job, and get a life.
==========================================================
And now a response from Anthony to the second to last paragraph about moderation.
As Mr. Monckton knows, I don’t always agree with him.
That said, it is an unfortunate truth that people that haven’t the courage to use their own full names when publicly criticizing others (“The other Brian”) spend so much time trying to beat down others while not having to worry about consequences. Unfortunately, that is the reality of the Internet today. The best choice is dealing with such individuals is to take their claims head on, which you’ve done.
WUWT does not approve a few comments that fall outside of our commenting policy, but as a recent analysis by Ian Rons Further Down the “Bore Hole” shows, we do in fact publish the vast majority of comments compared to other blogs, even some that are not necessarily fair. This is by design, because having a debate with opponents is something other blogs refuse to have. Otherwise, we’d be no better than RealClimate, “Tamino” aka Open Mind, or Joe Romm, all sites which heavily censor opposing viewpoints. [Update: Another example is Skeptical Science, which invoked a grade school level tactic (strikeout) in attempting to refute Dr. Roger Pielke Senior – see here]
While there’s always something in an endeavor that can be criticized, the fact is that our moderation policy is one of our best strengths, and why WUWT consistently outperforms these other blogs in traffic, reach, and total number of comments. Therefore I think we’ll keep the policy that has worked so well. Besides, if those comments had been deleted, we’d not be having this entertaining discussion now.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.
++++++++++++++++++++++++=
IMO……..From it’s inception, AGW has been more about policy than science.
At 11:34 AM on 18 September, G. Karst had written:
Nope. Anonymity has always had benefits in public discourse. In 1993, New Yorker cartoonist Peter Steiner observed that “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” G. Karst and others who insist on the obliteration of online anonymity miss the point of that observation.
That point is simply this: On the Internet (in a forum such as this one) the only quality brought to a dispute by a commenter is the intrinsic validity of his assertions.
People with well-established academic and scientific credentials – like Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. Jeff Glassman, the Doctors Pielke, Junior and Senior, and Mr. Monckton – scrupulously avoid even the appearance of speaking ex cathedra on the basis of nothing more than their own education and experience. They either explicitly support their statements with references that can be pursued and confirmed, or they are prepared to provide (as Mr. Monckton above has done) detailed information on the sources from which they derive their observations and conclusions.
What kind of bloody idiot expects any lesser standard of validation from those who post online without similarly identifying themselves?
G. Karst contends that the destruction of anonymity in fora such as this one:
This is purest crap. We are all witnessing efforts being openly made by the criminal regime of “Harrison J. Bounel” (or whatever in hell that Kenyan Keynesian’s name really is) to identify and punish any American who would dare to oppose our TelePrompTer-fixated Fraudulence-in-Chief’s program of political tyranny and economic devastation through the online articulation of such observations and opinions as have been conducing to lawful resistance against his coterie’s program of unlawful misgovernment.
The ability to participate in “OPEN, HONEST discussion” with the protection of anonymity – no matter how tenuous that protection might be in the surveillance state imposed upon us especially since the establishment of the federal Heimatsicherheitsdienst – is one of the greatest values imparted by the Internet.
Indeed, it is one of the qualities of this medium most thoroughly hated by the megalomaniacs who have always rammed tyranny down the throats of their neighbors under the guise of “government.”
I would admonish G. Karst and his ilk to bear in mind that philosopher Dr. John Locke would not have published his Two Treatises of Government in 1689 without the protection of anonymity in spite of the fact that the Stuart monarchy (against which the Rye House plot – in which Dr. Locke had been implicated – had been concerted) was overthrown. England was still a monarchy, and both of the Treatises (from the second of which our own Declaration of Independence was in large part cribbed) were beyond doubt attacks upon the ethical and political foundations of such a form of government.
Hell, Thomas Paine didn’t publish Common Sense in 1776 until after he’d filed off the serial numbers. That incredibly important incendiary pamphlet went forth anonymously, too.
With it understood that even if identified an online disputant in a forum such as this one must always be received with skepticism – and obliged to support his claims in matters of alleged fact – there is nothing to be gained by any requirement to post over one’s own IRL name, G. Karst is blatantly blowing it out his butt in his desire to breach the protections of anonymity in venues such as this one.
What the hell does G. Karst conceive to be beneficial in opening anyone to the practices of Nixonian “ratf-cking” and character assassination so viciously perpetrated by los warmistas (and confirmed in the Climategate e-mails) over the past two decades and more?
I’ve been trying to figure out a precise definition of “troll.” As a new slang term without an exact historical origin (such as “dowdification” or “jumped the shark”) it’s not likely to be precise. Still, based on the top Google results, I’d guess that an on-topic reply that is refutable, is not trolling.
I’d recommend that we avoid the term unless it is flagrantly justified. One of the sad aspects of the global warming debate (and lot’s of other topics) is the over-the-top rhetoric used. This incivility stimulates deviation from pure academic debate.
I greatly treasure the comments here by those who disagree with the point of view of the host. Without them, this site would lack something essential.
We should pride ourselves on a high level of civility — even hospitality for those visitors who are not like minded.
Mark S:
Since you remain anonymous, why should Lord Monckton respond to your anonymous accusations. You question was asked and answered! Either provide evidence to the contrary or take a hike! Put up or shut up. GK
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.
But either might discuss or “advise” someone in an official capacity on either general topic. Fairly easy to understand.
Why would Margaret Thatcher seek guidance on the science of climate change from somebody with zero expertise?
“Zero expertise” knowledge level is not a fact in evidence. Also, she may very easily have discussed many different matters with her trusted advisors.
Unfortunately, Christopher Monckton occasionally leaves his audience with the impression that he offered Thatcher science advice (not policy advice) hence why some people introduce him as a former scientific advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Nor does he seem interested in correcting the record.
Perhaps he doesn’t “correct the record” because he knows that the record is correct. Unless, as has been pointed out, you can prove otherwise?
There exists a lingering suspicion (real or imagined) that he likes to inflate his credentials. I am inviting Christopher to resolve the matter. That’s all I’m doing.
And he has resolved the matter. Accept it and troll on about something else.
At 12:50 PM on 18 September, Bob Diaz embedded a YouTube video recording of Christopher Monckton’s National Press Club (Australia) debate with Dr. Richard Denniss (19 July 2011) over the subject of the “man-made global climate change ” fraud.
What I particularly enjoyed about this exchange was the fact that Mr. Monckton was careful to keep focus on the economics of climate change, offering, for example, decisively effective information on the relative cost-effectiveness of adjustment to the putative adverse effects of anthropogenic global warming compared against the far higher costs and undeniable cost-inefficiency of the extortionately punitive measures proposed by the Gillard government in Australia aimed at impoverishing her constituents and destroying industrialized civilization in her country.
I hadn’t realized until viewing that debate a few months ago that Mr. Monckton (who is also not credentialed as an economist) had such an impressive grasp of “the dismal science” as well as the understanding of mathematics and the “hard” sciences he had already so eloquently demonstrated.
Tucci78:
You need to read my comment, NOT just quote it. I have nothing against anonymous postings. They ARE essential for certain individual commenter(s) ability to comment.
I specifically and exclusively referred to “ad hominen” attacks which cowardly hides behind anonymity. If you are going to attack someone personally… then have the balls to do it personally. If that means you should shut up, then by all means… please do! GK
We have collected a lot of Lord Monckton’s speeches and lectures,and radio & TV appearances at the Fraudulent Climate of Hokum Science website. Check it out now by clicking the name “Axel” at the top of this posting. Lord Monckton has had these climate crooks pegged from the start.
These shills use all the tricks of false logic and ad hominem, & etc. Even some of these comments, seem more concerned about who did what, and when (or if they didn’t),and so on. Nobody in the Global Church of Goreism even wants to acknowldge the empirical facts and evidence, let alone discuss them. This was a tactic dreamt up, by the Club of Rome, when they originally started Global Cooling/Warming/Climate/Change/Disruption (score out at random).
Visit The Fraudulent Climate soon to see hundreds of arcane videos, on this and related subjects.
Thank You 🙂
Moderator: I skipped a slash in a blockquote tag and it prevents clear reading of the post…
One of the most effective means of debate is to mock. Another is sarcasm. These can backfire, but done well they are generally effective. Frankly I grow tired of people so polite that they will not mock someone who is goading them, or who politely responds too often to falsehoods. I might not agree with everything Monckton says, but he is an effective debater. And as regards correctness of views, I believe he is dead right about not trying to correct the problems of Global Warming, or whatever label one uses these days, if the correction is more expensive than the problem, itself. Good point not emphasized often enough.
This business of peer review has become a red herring. I have published work that was reviewed by an editor alone. It still qualifies as peer reviewed. Some of my best work, in my opinion, was never reviewed at all, and will likely never be published except in informal ways–it is still worthwhile. In a few instances I could not get reasonable work through the peer review process because a reviewer, or an editor, was willing to jump on a grenade to stop it if possible. It turns out these works were always regarding observational data about “global warming” or processing of such data. I have never experienced similar behavior in any other field–obviously there is something special about global warming.
On the other hand, works are published by special persons that get reviews by mates, or expedited one-day reviews and so forth, and these are considered peer reviewed. I simply cannot abide by the double standards here. If someone with passing acquaintance to the topics involved gave an objective look at a paper–then, by god it is peer reviewed, and science in the future will sort out its value. I’ll be willing to bet that A. Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity would have had a terrible time getting through the sort of peer review process we have today.
@Anthony & others …. a tip
About the scored out text on blogs like pielkeclimatescience. When you simply highlight the text, then (although negative) the score lines become almost invisible and the text is easily read. Furthermore, if you copy & paste the text into a simple application like Windows Notepad, which has no style attibutes, then the text appears as normal.
😛
🙂
Mark S says: September 18, 2011 at 10:52 am
Mark, your comments reveal you as a nit-picker. In my books that is a species of troll. You miss the generosity of the overall justification of Monckton. Details are important, but not when they are used out of context to derail.
I would guess that many here, Mark, DO listen to “the other side of the argument”, not once, but regularly, until they want to heave up. Perceived distortion of truth can make people feel physically sick.
Monkton’s genius is to turn such moments into fencing matches which abide reasonably by rules of good sportsmanship – another Scarlet Pimpernel.
I wonder if anyone other than Watts and Monckton remember this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%e2%80%99s-first-climate-realist/
I’m betting Mark S hasn’t read it.
🙂
It seems to me that most of the points Brian made are a determined effort by many amateurs and perhaps a few scientists to denigrate Monckton as if that proved AGW. It is a group effort of some sort. The misspellings are somewhat indicative of the author’s lack of in depth knowledge, yet his intensity of his misbeliefs are telling.
I find interesting that Pielke Senior is now on the hate list radar. If anyone was providing measured responses and analyzing scientific content it is Pielke Senior. This move by the green lobby suggests that science and scientific discourse worry them. Good as it suggests desperation from them. Keep it up Roger Pielke sr!
Mark S;
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.>>>
Correct. His title was “Policy AND Science Advisor”. Two roles. Count ’em. Two.
davidmhoffer says:
September 18, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Mark S;
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.>>>
Correct. His title was “Policy AND Science Advisor”. Two roles. Count ‘em. Two.>>>
And I’m still waiting for an answer to my earlier challenge. Put aside your griping about his credentials, let’s see if you can pick out some actual SCIENCE he presents and show that it is wrong….
Countdown to additional silence following my first challenge…. three… two… one…
Max Hugoson says:
September 18, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I’m with you on the whole video thing. While not coming near your speed of reading, I am quite fast, and even a decent reader can absorb much more information at a far faster rate by reading it in print than sitting there waiting while a single idea in a video slouches its way to be born. The same is true, only more so, with documentaries. An hour documentary generally provides about five minutes of actual information, none of which can be skimmed. This is why I have resisted my colleagues effusive praise of video use in the classroom (other than using them to show the astounding number of Video News Releases that are pawned off as news items).
Give me text any day. You can pack in more information into it, and I can go through it much faster. Videos may be high-tech, but in effect they’re a throw-back to the stone-age storyteller.
Mark S wanted to destroy Lord Monckton but has now been reduced to quibbling over what the meaning of ‘advise’ is. How pathetic. Take Lord Moncktons advice – get a life Mark.
davidmhoffer wrote: “His title was “Policy AND Science Advisor”. Two roles. Count ‘em. Two.”
Who told you this? Let me guess: Christopher Monckton.
Are you aware that he also claims to be a member of The House of Lords when in fact he is not?
davidmhoffer wrote: “I’m still waiting for an answer to my earlier challenge. Put aside your griping about his credentials, let’s see if you can pick out some actual SCIENCE he presents and show that it is wrong”
Peter Hadfield has already done this. Please see the information I provided earlier.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/18/monckton-answers-a-troll/#comment-746234
Tucci78:
If you are going to quote my comment then have the courtesy to read it!
I specifically and exclusively referred to anonymous ad hominen attack comments NOT any or all other kind of comment. Anonymity is essential to enable some commenters to participate in these conversations. However, they forfeit the right to attack anyone personally.
If you want to attack someone personally, then have the balls to do so, personally. To do otherwise, is just a cowardly, back-shooting, run to your mama and hide behind her anonymous dress, kind of attack.
If that describes you, then perhaps you should also remain silent (STFU).
Again, anonymity IS important and IS essential. Next time read the comment! GK
I applaud Christopher Monckton for facing these attacks head on…it is the correct and honorable thing to do. I do disagree with some of his perspectives on some things, and actually agree with him on several issues (mainly policies) as well.
But I also applaud Anthony for his continued rather broad censorship policy. More than once I’ve come back to see that one of my so-called “warmist rantings” has passed the mods, and have been both surprised and pleased. And yes, I’ve been put in “time out” more than once– and probably deserved it. Having been labelled more than once as a “troll” here in WUWT (much to my dismay by the way) I can appreciate that my viewpoints don’t see eye to eye with the majority of those who frequent here. But I try very hard not to deal in ad hominems (despite myself being frequently attacked), unless pushed the the edge. I’m glad to say WUWT has prompted many hours of fruitful research and education on my part and has, over the several years I’ve been coming here, given me pause and reason to change my perspective on a good many things. Yes, I’m still a “warmist”, but I think a good deal more open-minded and educated one for being a regular participant of WUWT.
“there is some evidence that there was less Arctic ice from the 1920s to the 1940s (and even into the late 1950s in Northern Greenland) than there is today.”
Since there is considerable evidence that there was more ice in the 1920s to 1940s (see Walsh & Chapman 2001), it would be interesting to know what Monckton believes to be evidence that there was less.
No, I wait to see how the person accused of making an error responds to reasonable criticism.
Let’s put you aside. What’s going on is an effort by other warmists to discredit Monckton’s good thrusts (90%, or something similar, of his content) on the basis of the 10% that is (or seems to be) overstated or weak, and to marginalize or banish him entirely on that basis. It’s an over-reaction.
Anonymity is a pretty pointless thing to quibble about. How does anyone know the name attached to my post is my real name?