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 Both editors resigned, and a mendacious disclaimer was added to the online version of my paper, saying it had not been peer-reviewed.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.
@REP (Sep 18th 11.37am),
I definitely think you did the right thing. When somebody passionately disagrees with something that seems “obvious” to me, they can SEEM irrational, stubborn, pigheaded and “trollish”. But, I always try to remember that if somebody seems like a troll to me, I probably seem like a troll to them. 😉
So, I try to assume that the other person is as genuinely passionate about their view as I am about mine.
P.S. Doug Proctor’s comment (Sep 18th 10.43am) is quite insightful, and I agree wholeheartedly with Richard Verney’s (Sep 18th 1.01pm).
P.P.S. …But then again, maybe The other Brian is just in “Lord Monckton denial”? 😉
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lord_Christopher_Monckton_denial
@Lord Monckton: Kudos on your response. 🙂 I don’t always agree with your approach, and I think you tend to be too prepared to treat almost any “skeptical” analysis as fact, just because it’s sceptical (there’s a lot of rubbish on both sides of the debate – it pays to be discerning in what analysis you promote). But, there are far more people doing the same on the “believer” side, e.g., Al Gore’s 24 hour campaign from last week. So, the intense hatred and villification you seem to recieve seems unjustified.
All in all, I’m glad you’re out there letting people know that there are other viewpoints than Al Gore’s out there, even if sometimes you get some things wrong.
So, keep at it :), and remember Oscar Wilde’s advice:
“Always forgive your enemies – nothing annoys them so much.”
Richard Telford says:
September 18, 2011 at 11:05 am
Since one should never trust a man who purports to be a member of the House of Lords,
end quote
The good lord has replied and refuted this calumny many times viz :
His Passport is issued to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley – by the British Government’s Passport Agency.
So he is recognized by the UK government as being entitled to the courtesies and dignity of the title. Further he is explicitly the 3rd Viscount; his Grandfarther having been made an hereditary peer; which makes his title hereditary.
Is he a member of the House of Lords ?
Well since Blair and Brown failed to change the constitutional basis for membership of the House of Lords when they gerrymandered the still incomplete trashing of our constitution; being an hereditary peer automatically makes him a member of the House of Lords. One whose voting privileges have been (possibly illegally) removed. Note that this is true of all hereditary titles that were eligible to sit in the House of Lords; they remain explicitly members of the House of Lords. It will take primary and specific legislation to remove that membership; even then such a bill may prove invalid under the 1689 Bill of Rights (the UK’s written constitution; on which the US constitution is based)
So I am afraid there is nothing ‘purports’ about his membership of the House of Lords.
Score:
“the other Brian”: 1
Monckton : 0
Mark S. how does any of the claims your clinging to invalidate the Science of Monckton? You seem to think that if you can draw any question about minor irrelevant things you don’t have to address the real questions. Because then you have just brushed them off and can ignore any science they may have brought up.
Oh and under what ever title if Monckton gave any advice on climate from a scientific perspective then he gave science advice. Completely blowing Hadfield out of the water.
I agree Jeff and anonymity is pointless to quibble about. I put my name out there and my professional designation and a link to by web site. I someone and that means anyone can not or will not stand behind his or her comments I simply ignore them, even the ones I agree with.
Monckton is a big boy and he has demonstrated that. Anthony is correct, censorship is wrong headed and anti-science. That said, politeness and civility may have little to do with science but a lot with communications.
Roger Knight has touched on this, but it should be repeated clearly for everyone to understand. It is a logical fallacy to say “since person A is wrong about X then anything they say about Y is also wrong”. Arguments on a subject must be taken on their merits and not dismissed by unrelated statements just because they came from the same source. I believe Lord Monkton does his best work when he talks about government policy, bureaucracies and their decision processes as he was deeply involved in that area. For the hard science stuff, I tend to go elsewhere as Lord Monkton falls for the same “greenhouse gas” fallacy that most people in this area do (on both sides of the argument).
Anthony, the man with experience proven by results, runs his site formidably well without gratuitous advice from vanity wounded sorts who beseech him to censor the playground fellows being mean.
Dayam, Mr. Monckton – crying to daddy is not for grownups. After all, if you have a serious issue with libel – you can sue and win! Perhaps you can explain why you did not do that when you had a clear win and were whining about it publically? Instead, you importune a third party whose job it is not to protect your tender sentiments?
We needed a head on a post, sir – you had the scimitar and the head on the block – and chickened out. Are you interested in winning or sponging sympathy? they are very different goals.
I’ll charitably leave out any discussion of who helped maggie start the co2 scare in the first place if you can manage a reply to why you failed to sue last time.
I love His Holy Lordship. I wish he could be the president of every country in the world. We would all be so happy. Thank God for his presence. In fact, I suspect he is the new Messias who has come back to Earth to save us from the antichrist Al Gore. He has cured people from AIDS! Thanks to His Holy Lordship, we now know conclusively and without ant doubt that the Earth is cooling, Arctic sea ice is rapidly increasing, sea level is stable and many other truths. God bless you, Lord Monckton! I pray for you every day.
At 1:27 PM on 18 September, Frederick Michael had written:
The use of the slang term “troll” in the context of contumely is hardly “new.” I can personally recall its use in 1970s science fiction fan publications (particularly in amateur publishing association [APA] distributions), almost always with an element of duplicity and ambush. The Wiki-bloody-pedia article on Internet trolling currently alludes to a practice employed by U.S. Navy combat aviators in strikes over North Vietnam which was characterized by the tailhook types as “trolling for MiGs,” employing fighters to simulate bomb-laden strike aircraft formations in order to sucker enemy interceptors into coming aloft and attacking. USMC fighter ace Gregory “Pappy” Boyington had employed this same kind of deception (flying his deadly Corsairs in bomber “vees” rather than fighter “finger four” formations) to entice the reluctant Japanese into air combat with his squadron over Rabaul during World War II.
To this kind of purpose, the practice of the modern online troll is more specifically that of a commenter masquerading as the advocate of a position which he wishes to deceitfully degrade by voicing weak and/or odious simulacra of argument on that position’s nominal behalf. Such is now commonly being attempted, for example, in the desperate efforts against the TEA Party movement by “Liberal” fascists of the MoveOn.org persuasion.
Thus it is inappropriate to call someone a “troll” if his practices, in fact, consist of nothing more than confrontational address of other disputants, even if his posts are filled with expressions of contempt and hatred.
To return to the usages of stefnal fanspeak, that’s “flaming,” not “trolling.”
Frederick Michael concludes:
Nope. Once the purposes of posters are discerned with reasonable reliability, if they are determined to be averse to the preservation of intellectual integrity and/or individual human rights – again, we’ll use the MoveOn.org mamzerein as our example of malignant bastiches who must always be treated with napalm whenever they spew – hammer them!
Think of it as a public health measure.
Mark S says:
September 18, 2011 at 1:14 pm
James Sexton wrote: “[W]hy does this matter to you? There’s plenty of evidence that he served as an advisory to Thatcher and the he advised on many largely varying subjects. Why would you think he didn’t advise her on global warming?”
A ‘science advisor’ and ‘policy advisor’ are two completely different things. You cannot use them interchangeably.
Why would Margaret Thatcher seek guidance on the science of climate change from somebody with zero expertise?
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.
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.
===============================================================
You didn’t answer my question. Why does it matter to you if M. Thatcher sought council C. Monckton about climate change or not? As to your assertion about “zero” expertise, recall, if your old enough, there wasn’t a large body of people wailing about climate change. We’d just got through with the looming ice age idiocy. So, there wasn’t a lot of people then that you would consider today as an expert in the matter. Hope that helps towards your why, also. Regardless of your views of the man, C. Monckton has demonstrated that he’s a very intelligent person. Were I do have his benefit of his advice at my leisure, I’d seek it out often and in many different areas. I suspect that may have been M. Thatcher’s perspective as well. In the meantime, its been asked and answered. Again, why does it matter to you?
But, Mark, going beyond that, of the 17 criticisms listed by the mad video guy using you and Brain as proxy, I count 16 as ludicrous and the 17th as long been since addressed. But, I’d like to linger on some.
As to his advisory capacity, we’ve already discussed.
It turns out he did have a paper reviewed and published. This could have been confirmed by a cursory check.
The earth cooling and warming. Any person that has spent any time considering this knows that cooling and warming can be shown of the earth in many different time periods. That imbecile making the video knew or should have known the time frame in which Monckton was referring to. And, so should you and so should have Brian. If you still don’t believe and are unwilling or unable to investigate this for yourself, just ask and I’ll show you definitive cooling.
Greenland ice loss, again, you need to have the proper reference of time and context the statements before calling them falsehoods. For instance, I can state Greenland in total has an increased its total ice.
Total ice loss—— see the two prior points. Check since Sep 2007.
CO2 correlation a gadzillion years ago……http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif Draw whatever conclusions you wish from this. I don’t put much stock in much of anything stated about that far back, but again, a 10 min excursion would show that most opinions agree with C. Monckton.
The Himalayas——– at some point the warmistas will understand that they need to quit speaking about stuff they obviously know nothing about. Haven’t they embarrassed themselves enough over those glaciers? And the assertion of only one is absurd. And the accusation demonstrates the accuser’s lack of understanding of the nature of glaciers. But, that’s all too common with the warmista.
CO2 forcing——— Mark, in case you Brian and the moronic movie maker hasn’t noticed, there is no definitive number to it. It is what much of the climate debate is about. I’ve seen all sorts of figures assigned to CO2 forcing, but no one has proved it yet. So, to say CO2 forcing is 3 times this or that is simply an opinion. Again, anyone that has bothered to look would know this.
He clearly demonstrates a working knowledge and understanding of forcing vs sensitivity. I’m wondering, now, if the hating Hadfield can distinguish the difference?
But, speaking of distinguishing a difference, I’m wondering if petulant Peter understands that one can use the observations of others and come to different conclusions?
Misquoting scientists —– and you ask people watch a video? Present the facts. I’m not watching any more that nonsense. If the source did come from Abraham, then it is clearly an fabrication.
Albedo ——- are you kidding me? Did we find a rogue warmista group that argues against the importance of albedo? That’s fantastic. Just like I’ve stated for years, it doesn’t matter if the arctic melts or not. Turns out its even less important than I thought! And now I’ve got climate expert Peter picture taker to back me up on this!
The radical concept of the sun causing warming. —– K, prove that it isn’t. (Please quote Dessler) Understand, that if there is heat unaccounted for in the proof, then nothing has been proved. Again, this is a major subject in the climate debate.
Last criticism again, has been addressed. And addressed here……again.
After all of this. You still persist in wanting proof of his advisory capacity? You should be banging on your malicious movie maker’s door asking him about his assertions that were so obviously stated in a manner to skew the audiences perception.
Mark, stick around you may learn something about absolutes and opinions and data and conclusions and context.
James
[snip tone – down and resubmit – Anthony]
We should all know by now that when a troll posts “Christopher Monckton said X but he is wrong”, that 99 times out of 100, it is a misstatement of the facts and Christopher Monckton can back up what he actually has said or written.
If we try countering the trolls and the informed-but-still-wrong posters like R. Gates over and over again, the threads just turn into monster he said she said posts.
In studying for an economics degree I often had essay questions starting “Compare and contrast…..” If in the answer anyone did not consider views that were contrary to their own, or dismissed them out of hand, then they would be marked down. The reason is simple. People learn best by being challenged and debating their ideas. Science progresses by the same method. Wherever ideas get blocked, or deliberately misinterpreted, then there is weak or degenerate science. When the boundaries of science/non-science are decided subjectively by the stronger side, then there is dogma.
Central to the CAGW is not whether CO2 can cause warming. Lord Monckton, Profs Lindzen and Spencer, and most “sceptics” agree that a doubling of CO2 will, ceteris paribus, cause about 1 degree celsius of warming. It is the issue of feedbacks that they disagree with the consensus. So that is why the editors of journals that published peer-reviewed papers that questioned this assumption stepped down (Lord Monckton’s Paper on climate sensitivity and the recent Spencer & Bracewell Paper on cloud feedbacks).
If you wish to compare and contrast – to be challenged and be sceptical, then
1) Compare the comments on wattsupwiththat.com with those at http://tamino.wordpress.com/. Which has the more sycophants? (For instance about a recent paper on Australian Sea Levels at http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2011/08/01/tamino-on-australian-sea-levels/) or who has the most one-sided comments.
2) You may reject any attempt to redefine the language in support of as Orwellian Newspeak. For instance compare John Cook’s (of skepticalscience.com) definition of sceptic with any English dictionary. (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html) You may want to consider that; firstly his examples refer to past data and not to the rapid acceleration in warming predicted by climate models; secondly, that most of the conclusions are extremely controversial. For the latter search the internet for any subject area he cites with “wattsupwiththat”. One is example is to compare http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm with http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/27/antarctic-ice-%E2%80%93-more-accurate-estimates/ to see which peer-reviewed paper uses the longest data period; or best considers alternative method of measurement; or states in the abstract the uncertainties involved.
3) If your core argument is weak but popular, a secondary line of attack you will resort the opinion polls. (see http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract) Yet in a criminal court, if the prosecution’s evidence relied on the opinion of some experienced police officers that the accused is guilty because he “looks the type” and associates with “known characters of ill repute”, then most liberal-minded folks would agree the case should be thrown out.
I’m now wondering if Monckton is going to prepare an answer to Hadfield, now that “the other Brian” has kindly flagged him up for attention. A floor-wiping response like he did with Abrahams’ ignorant, slanted, libellous material. Monckton always does things thoroughly, once he engages. But he doesn’t engage with nitpickers unless they have done a nitpicking job big enough for heavyweigh warmists to flock to them. I started to look at the videos, as much as I could tolerate, ie enough to see strong evidence that it’s all garbage, and the usual garbage at that. For starters, Hadfield gives Monckton no space to respond… like Tamino, unlike WUWT… that’s always a giveaway. Hadfield equated no science degree with no scientific knowledge/ability – the usual ignorant fallacy about Monckton – yet Monckton’s APS paper was reviewed by two highly competent scientists in relevant disciplines – better “peer review” than Dessler, for starters. And MarkS thinks we haven’t seen all this before…
What does one do when, knowing Abrahams has been dealt with, the Medusa’s heads keep growing lots of Abrahams-clones? What libel laws extend that far – as they should?
[b]MarkS[/b], shouldn’t you be at school or something? Your arguments sound just like a high school debater. Lord, give me strength.
This is falling into the cult of personality.
Who cares about Monkton, Mann, Watts, Jones or any other politician or climate scientist…..These are people, not facts. Showing Mann had an ugly prom date in highschool doesn’t discredit his work, pointing out errors in it does. Attacking M & M and refusing to say their names didn’t make a single error they pointed out go away.
What has soured me on climate science, and I used to believe it was real, was when I started to read news stories quoting scientists that were saying things that clearly disagreed with the data.
Remember in the 2003-2009 period where everyone claimed it was still warming, despite temp graphs not rising? All the people who called us stupid for not believing them, are now starting to admit it hasn’t warmed since 1998, and trying new theories as to why it hasn’t…….but you still called us idiots and claimed it was still warming when it wasn’t and after that what credibilty do you have left today when you admit it wasn’t warming now?
Large snows and cold winters…….Now you claim you predicted that, but sorry you didn’t and history shows you didn’t. You can’t find the quotes from 10 years ago predicting it, just recent quotes from you saying you predicted it. We are not stupid and we do not forget what you said 5, 10 and 15 years ago. Pretending you said it destroys your credibility.
This “battle” is not going to be won by trolling WUWT, or by trying to slip comments into Realclimate without going to the bore hole. It is going to be won by long term data and prediction testing. Trying to discredit Monkton isn’t gonna make the “missing heat” reappear. Calling Anthony names isn’t gonna improve the quality of the surface stations. The people that read WUWT are not morons and we are not gonna change our minds based on if you can copy and paste personal attacks into the comments. You will not change a single mind without real proofs. One small fact at a time. We didn’t arrive at our positions based off of Monktons slide show and I would surely hope you didn’t arrive at yours from a slide show. So don’t insult our intelligence.
Brilliant move! Just, as I was giving up (on your sincerity), you say something sincerely redeeming! Now I have to give you the “benefit of doubt” again. Please don’t use it up on your next comment! :=) GK
popular climate science, like much of theoretical cosmology relating to the size of an (infinite) universe is full of erroneous assumptions. Cosmology tries to understand the other perspective. Climatology is an infantile science so far, even more basic than the earliest theories of aristotle. Naturally, the response to curiosity and scepticism is the one of galling rectitude, just like the papacy in the face of Galileo
In respectful defense of those who write under assumed names (though not trolls): There is a great deal of great literature which the world would never have seen if people were always forced to write under their true names. All the works of Jonathan Swift, for instance; or “Common Sense”, the pamphlet that clarified the reasons for the founding of our country. The fact is that many people, of whatever political stripe, have concerns that their ability to engage in free speech is constrained by their circumstances. Such sites as yours graciously provide an avenue where one might not otherwise exist. Thank you.
I think that WUWT is a fantastic website, it allows debate about a subject that has the potential to destroy the world as we know it, or the economy of the world as we know it, or both.
When I post comments here I do so using my real name, I do not have a problem with people who post comments with a “pen name” until they attack comments made by others and
those attacks are vindictive, I regard such attacks as cowardly. Lord Monckton has at least had the good grace (no pun intended) to put a name, voice and face to his opinions, which many of his opponents here have not. I think that WUWT should post comments that have been passed by a moderator, anonymous or not, but on the really contentious issues, personally I give much more credibility to the comments of those who provide a real name, especially if that name can be cross referenced on the Internet, Facebook or similar!
Back in the 60s, Dr. Cyrus Gordon came to Fuller Seminary in Pasadena to give a series of lectures on ancient Hebrew literature. His presentation was highly divergent from widely accepted views in his own religious tradition. During a Q and A session toward the end of the series he was asked about his own children–What does he tell them to do when presented with conventional views in Sabbath School? I regret missing that session, but as reported to me, his answer went something like this: “I tell them to listen respectfully and make sure they understand, because it is important to know what is current, as well as what is true.”
WUWT is to be commended for allowing free expression to those who honestly try to distinguish what is true from what is merely current.
To Rhys Jaggar
Hello, my name is Jordan Daniel Potoski (Spelled with an i; never a y). You made a list in which you say trolling is prevalent, and I was a bit curios as to your opinion regarding these matters. If I’m out of line for asking these questions, let me know and I’ll stop. First thing being first, I’ll ask about number one on your list of trolls’ favorite topics. If anyone would like to contribute, by all means, do.
To Monckton(Is it really “lord”?),
Bravo on your rebuttal to the troll. Very enjoyable to read, and I hope he reads it as well. It’s one thing to attack someone’s ideas with vigor and venom, it is another to make outright lies. That is classless. Can I read any of your works regarding global warming? If so, where do I go?
[REPLY: Yes, the correct title is “Lord” as he is a hereditary English peer. You might consider doing a Google search on “Christopher Monckton” – you’ll know you have the correct one if it mentions “Viscount of Brenchley”. You will also want to be aware that the Viscount is an exceedingly controversial figure, so you’ll want to check several sources and watch some of his videos before drawing any hard and fast conclusions of your own. -REP, mod]
That is too cool! Think for the information and the advice. I’ll do just that.
I meant “thanks”…