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 Both editors resigned, and a mendacious disclaimer was added to the online version of my paper, saying it had not been peer-reviewed.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.
@- Russ says:
September 20, 2011 at 1:25 am
“Yeah and that’s why you warmist are now throwing Gore under the bus lately, because he is doing such a bang up job, Good one.”
Gore is only really effective with educated liberals, he preaches to the choir with little effect on the conservative unconversant with physics. This website just spent a good deal of time and bandwidth pouring scorn on anything he said and did, for many on the rejectionist side of the AGW argument, the involvement of Al Gore is seen as sufficient justification to reject ANYTHING he is linked with.
But then those who undersdtand AGW theory and accept its implications find Monckton is equally repellent as a source of information. In fact his record of errors and exaggeration makes the WHOLE of the rejectionist case look much weaker so while his contribution is seen as worthless in itself, he does serve to illustrate how crass and unscientific the rejectionist position can be.
He brings skepticism into disrepute for all but his devotees….
suyts says:
September 19, 2011 at 1:46 pm
@ur momisugly Drew says:
September 19, 2011 at 7:08 am
———————————————-
Did you bother to read Monckton’s replies?
I read all of Monckton’s replies and thoughtfully gave him credit that he is doing what he believes is right, rather than being cynical about his motivations. The only time I talk about his motivations, is when I’m finished writing about his replies to what he says in lectures and move into a personal judgement (which barely matters). My belief in why he does things is of minimal importance, but I believe very strongly that he does require very harsh scientific rebuttal because Monckton either alters the context of other authors or he creates an alternate criticism made against him so he can reply to that instead. If you are a skeptical mind you would ask yourself several questions before even getting started on researching Monckton’s claims.
The first thing to note, is that Monckton alters quotes significantly as to alter their context, as he places his own view of what was said in quotation marks and claims it as the words of somebody else. You can’t do this. If Monckton says something I will not be rewriting it and putting quotes around it unless it is verbatim. If Monckton is changing something which is essentially the same meaning as the actual quote, then he should just leave the first quote in there to begin with and explain his interpretation rather than giving the audience his view to begin with. This misquotation is serious, as it defies any standard because if you alter quotes, your work can’t be trusted.
Second, Monckton writes up work which he says for everyone he either has a source or a journal article or an equation to verify the data he presents. The problem is, information has been shown in instances to be tampered with to get the result he wants rather than accounting for other known sources, even those directly in the information he uses as a source. Such an instance is when he is taking two different time series and then mixing them together to show there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. There is a fantastic problem here which is so simple that for him to act so oblivious to it is to set off warning bells. The gathered scientific evidence using paleomagnetism of ancient glacial sediment show the earth was actually covered in ice around the equator. The sun has also shown to be strengthening over time so was much weaker 800 million years ago during the first instance of this deep freeze. The correlation requires taking into account solar irradiation was weaker by about 4%, geographic distribution was altered, ocean heat transport systems were different and Monckton does not account for any of this, completely decoupling his ‘model’ from reality. To believe this is a meaningful result is pretty hilarious. Where’s the skepticism?
“2.He said he wrote a peer-reviewed paper – He wrote a paper which received what he believes was peer review, to be staunchly reprimanded by the same journal and it’s reviewers”
It was reviewed and published. What happens afterward, in respect to the claim, is immaterial.
That’s pretty much exactly what I said, that I don’t care about whether it was published. You can view his scientific works, which are completely verifiable.
“3.He said the earth has been cooling – IT HASN’T.”
In the time frame in which Monckton was speaking, using HadCrut, it absolutely did cool. Models don’t measure heat transfer. Models don’t measure anything. All the rest of your writings are rationalizations to explain how this, ( http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2008/trend ) isn’t cooling. Sorry, I can look at my thermometer one day, then look at it the next to determine if that day was warmer or cooler than the other day. I don’t need a model nor the scientific method to make that determination. Try again Drew. What you just wrote is the silly.
I don’t think what you wrote is silly, because people have different ways to understand and that makes them uniquely valuable. Models do not produce evidence — what they produce is a statistical likelihood that they are representing what is being seen given some dependent variable(s). If evidence through measurements conflicts with the hypotheses of how the system works this negates any value of a statistical relationship. Monckton gives his speech saying something along the lines of… statistics can be used to prove anything. This isn’t true, as I explained above, if you find measure data such as in the troposphere and find it does not warm more given CO2 is the forcing, then your model is invalid because it is part of the hypotheses. Monckton then draws a line from different random points as if this makes clear that it can mean anything, but this doesn’t give either an r squared value, or a CI, p-value etc. What Monckton is saying, as I have shown above, is absolutely untrue because observational evidence is supporting the theory of CO2, which gives credence to the models.
“4.He said a leading Danish expert found that overall Greenland ice has not been melting – HE DIDN’T.. the Danish expert clearly rejects Monkton’s misrepresentation of his work.”
Read Monckton”s reasonable explanation. If a scientist offers information, is it under the caveat that one must agree with the conclusions to use the data? That’s the dumbest argument I’ve seen against Monckton and there have been several irrational arguments against him.
That’s not the argument against Monckton. What Monckton says is that this is the work of the authors and then formulates something completely controverting what the authors write in their own research. Monckton can’t just say “this is science” and then ignore the the context in which he got his information. It’s like I measure the heat content of the ocean and say, oh the earth is getting hotter when in fact it was the ocean I measured, not the entire earth which has no context. If Monckton uses something from one paper then he has to explain why he ignored the authors explanations of what the information means. In saying this, Monckton did not explain or ever concede he was incorrect in the calculations he performed.
What Monckton says is, “Here is a paper by Yohannessen et al., very dilligent danish researcher using laser altimetry and what he found was that between 1992 and 2003, the average thickness of the vast greenland ice sheet increased by inches a year.” That was not what was found by the researcher because the researcher reported in the journal article Monckton quotes, “First, we cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes–let alone ice volume and its equivalent sea-level change–for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely using ERS-1/ERS-2 altimetry (see Fig.1).
That’s pretty cut and dry that Monckton is totally wrong on the science, and secondly, he tries to represent this as the views of the author.
5.He claim that CO2 forcing is 1.135 watts per square meter when it is three times higher.He confuses forcing with sensitivity.
There has been no provable estimation of CO2 forcing. You don’t know its 3 times higher any more than he knows it. Again, read the explanations at the top (Monckton’s own words) He’s clearly demonstrated he understands what a forcing is. If you read right above his understanding of a forcing you’ll see where he derived his numbers from.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html#sec10
The equations Monckton uses are spurious. E46 from the link provided above details the errors in his final sensitivity calculation. This is scientific error that skeptics should keep in mind when Monckton rattles off equations. You need to verify the math yourself or find a mathematician who can explain it to you.
“6.He said the International Astronomical Union has declared that the Sun is responsible for the recent warming – IT DIDN’T.”
Now, I know you didn’t bother to read his explanation. He admitted and explained his mistake. What more do you want from the guy? Some form of self-immolation?
What’s wrong with you people? Argue his science, argue his numbers. Quit trying to make him out to be a person that intentionally deceives. My goodness, if our climatologists were 1/2 as candid as Monckton we wouldn’t have near the discussions we are having today.Monkton says, “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.”
Monckton replies to something nobody is interested in for a start. I don’t care if he cites a paper incorrectly or makes a mistake because he can clarify mistakes. The problem is he made the claim that it was the position of the IAU, he said this quite clearly in his speech to the auddience. Watch the videos of his in full so you are aware of his claims.
———–
izen,
I appreciate your reply. Thank you.
From the very first use of fire by primitive mankind the Earth’s environment was influenced. What the influence has been till now is a significant scientific goal worth achieving and I add that there are many other things in the universe that are much more important to study.
The current IPCC process is fatally flawed and for me cannot yield trust in their products.
The only situation that could convince of the AR4 IPCC CAGW position is for there to be an equally funded competitive effort that (as opposed to the IPCC) has an open/transparent/independent structure led by an international association of private universities and private research institutes. Unlike the IPCC, AGW by CO2 focus would not be built in as the biased premise. Let me call my idea of a competing association APT (Assessment by Private Team)
After say 10 to 12 years there would be a long series of public debates lasting for ~5 years as to which approach best benefits the understanding of interactions of climate and the result of mankind’s economic/technical/industrial progress. Is it the biased/closed IPCC or the APT’s open/independent venue?
That would start to convince me that science in climate is objective.
John
Friends:
This is the funniest thread on WUWT for some time.
Izen and Drew, please keep contributing. Your attempts at character assassination of Lord Monckton demonstrate the paucity of your arguments supporting the AGW hypothesis: you would not bother to make such points if you had any cogent scientific arguments.
(A cogent scientific argument would be,
“The fact (X) demonstrates that emissions from human activity are causing AGW of a potentially catastrophic magnitude and, therefore, people – including Monckton – who point out facts that disprove the existence of such potentially catastrophic AGW must be wrong.”)
So, in addition to the laughs your contributions provide, your contributions demonstrate to the undecided the inadequacy of the so-called ‘science’ used to promote the AGW-hypothesis. I for one am very grateful for this, and I thank you for it. More of the same, please.
Richard
Can any warmist apologist provide Lord Monckton’s equivalent statement which equates to Al Gore’s adamant statement that the Earth’s core is millions of degrees in temperature. This clearly demonstrates the differential gap in Gore’s base knowledge (he doesn’t have any).
Obviously, warmists have a spokesman, who is embarrassing inadequate, when compared to the ambassadorial Lord Monckton. GK
Richard S Courtney says:
“Izen and Drew, please keep contributing. Your attempts at character assassination of Lord Monckton demonstrate the paucity of your arguments supporting the AGW hypothesis: you would not bother to make such points if you had any cogent scientific arguments.”
1. I never once supported the AGW hypotheses
2. I never attacked Monckton’s character because I believe his scientific prowess demonstrates everything I need to know
3. I defend Monckton’s right to freedom and to say what he believes without my inferring malicious intention.
4. Seeing as nearly everything I wrote made clear I was only concerned with Monckton’s scientific endeavor I wonder if you meant something entirely different other than what you wrote.
5. I don’t think I can clarify any better that I don’t care what Monckton’s intentions or personal beliefs are and that only his scientific errors are my concern.
Isn’t it obvious to the most casual observer that if we had Monckton and Gore in direct discourse in public that Gore would be quickly reduced to sputtering and swearing while turning red?
Replace Gore with Abraham and you would have the same result. Replace Gore with Black or Monbiat or Romm or Cook. . . ditto. Monckton’s world class efforts would prevail.
I do appreciate it when Monckton enters the fray with IPCC CAGWists. When he does the IPCC CAGWist commenters here (and elsewhere) entertainingly go terminally ballistic and display levels of irrational argument seldom achieved in polite venues like WUWT.
Anthony and Mods, thanks for showtime!
John
I thoroughly agree with Richard and John about the paucity of the arguments against Monckton. Isn’t it characteristic of the debate much more widely that the people concerned hide their sorry arses behind pseudonymity? (Dunno know why I’ve gone into street American all of a sudden, it must be a reaction to all this talk of Viscounts!) I would like to return to that subject just a little. I appreciate all the feedback. In order of decreasing disagreement then:
Septic Matthew: “They are marks of pride and embodiments of the first amendment.” I know you’re talking about the George Eliots of this world but even so, I can’t agree. Pseudonymity is never a mark of pride or the embodiment of the first amendment. At best it’s a necessary evil. The ideal is that we are able to speak our conscience or present our art publicly in our own name in a free society, without fear. I find it disturbing that so many say that they feel unable to do so. What signals does this give to those who may count themselves our enemies?
Mark Wilson: “I am fortunate enough that my name is common enough, that even with it, you would have trouble finding me in most middle to large sized cities. Assuming I were to tell you what city I live in.” This is a key practical point. I don’t believe that everyone should make themselves available to the most unstable reader of their opinions to be able to arrive at their doorstep within hours of reading. How unusual one’s name clearly affects this. Point taken.
peter_dtm: “What would you do; if you worked at the UEA?” Paul Dennis is a very interesting case in point. Last month I was the first climate blogger he had ever met (that wasn’t already an academic colleague). It was a real priviledge on my side. The next day Paul was back at East Anglia and got the strong impression that the powers that be were keen to have him onside. He doesn’t think he has anything to fear. I very much respect him for that quality.
John Whitman: “Anonymous behavior is interesting and discussions about it bring out a lot of energy and personal emotion on the topic.” I have some theories about this which are not as negative as you parting shot: “in dealing with the topic of anonymity we are dealing with some aspect of avoidance behavior.” But you also have a point. Thanks.
I’m not going to try to systematise my response. I’ve come to realise, over twelve years now, that it’s a really deep issue. All I will say is that it’s never good to be governed by fear. I see Anthony Watts as a superb example of someone who is fearless. (He probably feels different to that at time but that’s the advantage sometimes of not having met.) This quality – which one also sees in Christopher Monckton, in his different way – is much to be desired. With it comes victory over more than the plots of the AGW insiders but something much deeper. I speak as a beginner.
———————
Richard Drake,
Your comment appreciated.
By mentioning that anonymity is in some aspect avoidance behavior, avoidance of identity, there is no pejorative intent. I am sorry you took my observation as negative.
I think anonymous commenters know they are hiding their identity. They are not hiding the fact of hiding their identity. Their reasons for anonymity, often stated by themselves here at WUWT, are manifold. I have no comment on their reasons, but I am interested in their logic for reaching their decision on anonymity. So I would like to continue the discussion in that regard.
The only commonality I can see in all the anonymous commenters is the avoidance behavior aspect. Do you see any other commonalities?
Looking at the consequences on open and transparent discourse which identity avoidance behavior creates might yield better dynamics in the open and transparent venues.
John
izen says:
Gore is only really effective with educated liberals, he preaches to the choir with little effect on the conservative unconversant with physics. This website just spent a good deal of time and bandwidth pouring scorn on anything he said and did, for many on the rejectionist side of the AGW argument, the involvement of Al Gore is seen as sufficient justification to reject ANYTHING he is linked with.
But then those who undersdtand AGW theory and accept its implications find Monckton is equally repellent as a source of information. In fact his record of errors and exaggeration makes the WHOLE of the rejectionist case look much weaker so while his contribution is seen as worthless in itself, he does serve to illustrate how crass and unscientific the rejectionist position can be.
He brings skepticism into disrepute for all but his devotees….
HAHAHAHA. Only in eyes of you, and your warmist kind. And let me rephrase this for you, Gore is only really effective with warmist in general, I wouldn’t use liberals because I wouldn’t be surprised that there are liberals out there that are also skeptics on AGW.
So, tell me, how long will it be before you flip flop on Gore again? You praise him, you then throw him under the bus by comparing him to Monckton, (because you warmist despise Monckton), and now here you are praising Gore again. HAHAHA.
So again, I say comparing Gore to Monckton is an insult to Monckton.
The Ronggbuk glacier has disappeared altogether. … -Monckton
It may have receded a bit lately, but it is definitely still there. 🙂 It’s but one of the 46,000 odd glaciers covering about 40,000 square kilometres of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Google images has plenty of recent photos of this behemoth.