UPDATE: Below is Peter Hadfield’s response in entirety, submitted Feb 7th, 2012. I’ve made only some slight edits for formatting to fit. Comments are open. – Anthony
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Various You-Tube videos by a former “science writer” who uses a speleological pseudonym “potholer54” sneeringly deliver a series of petty smears about artfully-distorted and often inconsequential aspects of my talks on climate change. Here, briefly, I shall answer some of his silly allegations. I noted them down rather hastily, since I am disinclined to waste much time on him, so the sentences in quote-marks may not be word for word what he said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.
For fuller answers to these allegations, many of which he has ineptly and confusedly recycled from a serially mendacious video by some no-account non-climatologist at a fourth-rank bible college in Nowheresville, Minnesota, please see my comprehensive written reply to that video at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org. The guy couldn’t even get his elementary arithmetic right – not that the caveman mentions that fact, of course.
The allegations, with my answers, are as follows:
“Monckton says he advised Margaret Thatcher on climate change. He didn’t.” I did.
“Monckton says he wrote a peer-reviewed paper. He didn’t.” The editors of Physics and Society asked me to write a paper on climate sensitivity in 2008. The review editor reviewed it in the usual way and it was published in the July 2008 edition, which, like most previous editions, carried a headnote to the effect that Physics and Society published “reviewed articles”. Peer-review takes various forms. From the fact that the paper was invited, written, reviewed and then published, one supposes the journal had followed its own customary procedures. If it hadn’t, don’t blame me. Subsequent editions changed the wording of the headnote to say the journal published “non-peer-reviewed” articles, and the editors got the push. No mention of any of this by the caveman, of course.
“Monckton says the Earth is cooling. It isn’t.” At the time when I said the Earth was cooling, it had indeed been cooling since late 2001. The strong El Niño of 2010 canceled the cooling, and my recent talks and graphs have of course reflected that fact by stating instead that there has been no statistically-significant warming this millennium. The caveman made his video after the cooling had ended, but – without saying so – showed a slide from a presentation given by me while the cooling was still in effect. Was that honest of him?
“Monckton says Greenland is not melting. It is.” Well, it is now, but for 12 years from 1992-2003 inclusive, according to Johannessen et al. (2005), the mean spatially-averaged thickness of Greenland’s ice sheet increased by 5 cm (2 inches) per year, or 2 feet in total over the period. The high-altitude ice mass in central northern Greenland thickened fastest, more than matching a decline in ice thickness along the coastline. Since 2005, according to Johannessen et al. (2009), an ice mass that I calculate is equivalent to some six inches of the 2 feet of increase in Greenland’s ice thickness over the previous decade or so has gone back into the ocean, raising global sea levels by a not very terrifying 0.7 millimeters. According to the Aviso Envisat satellite, in the past eight years sea level has been rising at a rate equivalent to just 2 inches per century. Not per decade: per century. If so, where has all the additional ice that the usual suspects seem to imagine has melted from Greenland gone? Two possibilities: not as much ice has melted as we are being told, or its melting has had far less impact on sea level than we are being invited to believe.
“Monckton says there’s no systematic loss of sea-ice in the Arctic. There is.” No, I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009. The caveman, if he were capable of checking these or any data, would find this to be so. In fact, he knew this to be so, because the slide I was showing at that point in his video, taken from the University of Illinois’ Cryosphere monitoring program, shows it. Of course, the slide was only in the background of his video and was shown only for a few seconds. Since that particular talk of mine the Arctic sea ice has declined again and came close to its 2007 low in 2011. But it is arguable from the descriptions of melting Arctic ice in 1922 that there may have been less sea ice in the Arctic then than now.
“Monckton says there has been no correlation between temperature and CO2 for the past 500 million years. There has.” Well, there has in the past few thousand years, but the correlation since the Cambrian era has been spectacularly poor, as the slide (from a peer-reviewed paper) that the caveman fleetingly shows me using at that point demonstrates very clearly. For most of that long period, global temperatures were about 7 Celsius degrees warmer than the present: yet CO2 concentration has inexorably declined throughout the period.
“Monckton says a pre-Cambrian ice-planet shows CO2 has no effect on climate. It doesn’t.” No, I cited Professor Ian Plimer, a leading geologist, as having said that the formation of dolomitic rock 750 million years ago could not have taken place unless there had been 300,000 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere: yet glaciers a mile high had come and gone twice at sea-level and at the Equator at that time. Professor Plimer had concluded that, even allowing for the fainter Sun and higher ice-albedo in those days, the equatorial glaciers could not have formed twice if the warming effect of CO2 were as great as the IPCC wants us to believe. At no point have I ever said CO2 has no effect on climate, for its effect was demonstrated by a simple but robust experiment as long ago as 1859. However, I have said, over and over again, that CO2 probably has a much smaller warming effect than the IPCC’s range of estimates. The caveman must have known that, because he says he has watched “hours and hours” of my videos. So why did he misrepresent me?
“Monckton said there had been no change in the Himalayan glaciers for 200 years. There has.” No, I cited Professor M.I. Bhat of the Indian Geological Survey, who had told me on several occasions that the pattern of advance and retreat of these glaciers was much as it had been in the 200 years since the British Raj had been keeping records. That is very far from the same thing as saying there had been “no change”: indeed, it is the opposite, for advance and retreat are both changes. Why did the caveman misrepresent me?
“Monckton says only one Himalayan glacier has been retreating. Many have.” No, I mentioned the Gangotri and Ronggbuk glaciers as being notable examples of glacial retreat in the Himalayas caused by geological instability in the region. To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating. Why did the caveman misrepresent me? It is this kind of intellectual dishonesty that permeates the caveman’s cheesy videos. He has not the slightest intention of being accurate or fair. If he had, he would surely have mentioned that the IPCC tried for months to pretend that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035. The IPCC’s own “peer-reviewers” had said the figure should be “2350”, not “2035”, but the lead author of the chapter in question had left in the wrong figure, knowing it to be unverified, because, as he later publicly admitted, he wanted to influence governments.
The caveman says I misquoted the lead author who had left in the erroneous date for the extinction of the Himalayan glaciers, but here is what that author actually said in an interview with the Daily Mail: “We thought that if we can highlight it [the erroneous date], it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” For good measure, he said I had misquoted Sir John Houghton, the IPCC’s first science chairman, who had said that unless we announced disasters no one would listen.
Sir John, too, tried to maintain that I had misquoted him, and even menaced me with a libel suit, until I told him I had a copy of the cutting from the London Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995, in which he had said, “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster”, and that I also had a copy of an article in the Manchester Guardian of July 28, 2003, in which Sir John had luridly ascribed numerous specific natural disasters to “global warming”, which he described as “a weapon of mass destruction” that was “at least as dangerous as nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, or indeed international terrorism”. Perhaps the caveman didn’t know any of this, but here’s the thing: I do not recall that he has ever bothered to check any of his “facts” with me (though, if he had, I wouldn’t have known because he lurks behind a pseudonym and, even though I am told he has revealed his identity I have no time to keep track of the pseudonyms of people who lack the courage and decency to publish under their own names).
“Monckton says Dr. Pinker found that a loss of cloud cover had caused recent warming. She disagreed.” No, I drew the conclusion from Dr. Pinker’s paper, and from several others, that cloud cover does not remain constant, but waxes and wanes broadly in step with the cooling and warming phases respectively of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I did not misrepresent Dr. Pinker’s paper in any way: I merely used it as a source for my own calculations, which I presented at the annual seminar on planetary emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists in 2010, where they were well received. Less cloud cover, particularly in the tropics, naturally warms the Earth: the point is surely uncontroversial. If one removes the influence of this natural warming phase from the record since 1976, it is reasonable to deduce that climate sensitivity based on that period is much lower than the IPCC thinks. Strictly speaking, one should study temperature trends in multiples of 60 years, so as to ensure that the warming and cooling phases of the PDO cancel one another out.
Frankly, that’s quite enough of these dull allegations. There are others, but they are all as half-baked and dishonest as these and it would be tedious to deal with each one. You get the drift: the caveman is a zealot and we need not ask who paid him to watch “hours and hours” of my YouTube videos to realize from these examples that his videos are unreliable. More importantly, it would interfere with my research: I hope shortly to be in a position to demonstrate formally that climate sensitivity is unarguably little more than one-third of the IPCC’s central estimate. My objective is to reach the truth, not to distort it or misrepresent it as the caveman has done.
He concludes by challenging his small band of followers to check the scientific literature for themselves to establish that the Earth has been warming and that CO2 is “largely responsible”. Of course the Earth has been warming since 1750: I have at no point denied it, though that is the implication of the caveman’s statement.
And of course there are scientists who say CO2 is “largely responsible” for the warming: that is the principal conclusion of the IPCC’s 2007 report, reached on the basis of a fraudulent statistical abuse: comparison of the slopes of multiple arbitrarily-chosen trend-lines on the global-temperature dataset falsely to suggest that “global warming” is accelerating and that it is our fault. Not that one has ever heard the caveman utter a word of condemnation of the IPCC’s too-often fictional “science”. But it is also reasonable to mention the growing band of scientists who say CO2 may not be “largely responsible” but only partly responsible for the warming since 1950. Would it not have been fairer if the caveman had pointed that out?
Climate skeptics have come under intensive attack from various quarters, and the attacks have too often been as unpleasantly dishonest as those of the caveman. Also, there is evidence that someone has been spending a lot of money on trying malevolently to discredit those who dare to ask any questions at all about the party line on climate.
For instance, after a speech by me in in the US in October 2009 went viral and received a million YouTube hits in a week (possibly the fastest YouTube platinum ever for a speech), a Texan professor who monitors the seamier side of the internet got in touch to tell me that someone had paid the operators of various search engines a sum that he estimated at not less than $250,000 to enhance the page rankings of some two dozen specially-created web-pages containing meaningless jumbles of symbols among which the word “Monckton video” appeared.
These nonsense pages would not normally have attracted any hits at all, and the search engines would normally have ranked them well below the video that had gone platinum. The intention of this elaborate and expensive artifice, as the professor explained, was to ensure that anyone looking for the real video would instead find page after page of junk and simply give up. The viral chain was duly broken, but so many websites carried the video that more than 5 million people ended up seeing it, so the dishonestly-spent $250,000 was wasted.
At one level, of course, all of this attention is an unintended compliment. But no amount of sneering or smearing will alter two salient facts: the Earth has not been warming at anything like the predicted rate and is not now at all likely to do so; and, in any event, even if the climate-extremists’ predictions were right, it would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective to wait and adapt in a focused way to any adverse consequences of manmade “global warming” than it would be to tax, trade, regulate, reduce, or replace CO2 today.
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
==========================================================
Note: for anyone who wishes to see what this is about, you can see “potholer54” aka Peter Hadfield on Monckton at YouTube here – Anthony
UPDATE: Here is Peter Hadfield’s response in entirety, submitted Feb 7th, 2012. I’ve made only some slight edits for formatting to fit. – Anthony
Response from Peter Hadfield:
In January, Christopher Monckton criticized me on WUWT after I made a series of videos exposing errors in most of his claims. I have asked Anthony Watts for the opportunity to respond in kind, so that we can put Mr. Monckton’s verbatim assertions up against the documentary evidence he cites.
At first I was puzzled as to what Mr. Monckton was responding to in his WUWT guest-post, because he failed to address any of the rebuttals or the evidence I showed in my five videos. Then I realized he must have watched only the last video in the series, including a light-hearted 30-second ‘mistake count’. So in this response I am going to deal with what Mr. Monckton actually said, as shown and rebutted in my videos, rather than what he thinks I think he said, and what he thinks I rebutted.
Mr. Monckton doesn’t claim to be an expert, and neither do I. All I can do is to check and verify his claims. So the question is whether Mr. Monckton has reported the sources he cites accurately in order to reach his conclusions. I have made it very easy for you to check by playing clips of Mr. Monckton making these assertions in my videos, then showing images of the documentary evidence he cites. Since this response is text I will write out Mr. Monckton’s assertions verbatim and quote the documentary sources verbatim (with references in the body of the text.) References to the relevant video (linked at the bottom) and the time on the video where they are shown, will be shown in square brackets.
ON THE COOLING EARTH:
Since Mr. Monckton failed to address the evidence, but implies I was duplicitous in my timing, let’s see what my video actually showed. In a speech given in Melbourne in February 2009, Mr. Monckton said: “We’ve had nine years of a global cooling trend since the first of January 2001” [Ref 1 – 4:06] — and St. Paul in October 2009: “There has been global cooling for the last eight or nine years” [ibid.].
So in my video, the period Mr. Monckton was talking about was clearly identified in his own words, as well as in the graphs he showed, and I showed the dates the speeches were made, and the studies I cited covered the same period.
[“Waiting for Global Cooling” – R. Fawcett and D. Jones, National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, April 2008]
[“Statisticians reject global cooling” — Associated Press 10/26/2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment/]
ON THE MELTING OF GREENLAND:
Again, let’s deal with what Mr. Monckton actually said, which is what I rebutted. In a speech in St. Paul in 2009, Mr. Monckton cited a paper by Ola Johannessen, and told the audience: “What he found was that between 1992 and 2003, the average thickness of the vast Greenland ice sheet increased by two inches a year.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM 11:40)
No, he found no such thing. Johannessen said he only measured the interior of Greenland above 1,500 metres [1 – 11:59] In fact, he specifically warns that the very conclusion Mr Monckton reaches cannot be made: “We cannot make an integrated assessment of elevation changes… for the whole Greenland Ice Sheet, including its outlet glaciers, from these observations alone, because the marginal areas are not measured completely…. ” [“Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland” Ola M. Johannessen et al, Science November 2005]
ON THE LOSS OF ARCTIC ICE:
Mr. Monckton claimed there is no long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic, and I rebutted this with studies showing a decline in Arctic summer sea-ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1979. [1 – 8:20 onwards]
Mr. Monckton’s response: “I said that the 30-year record low ice extent of 2007 had been largely reversed in 2008 and 2009.”
So, as I said, he did not tell his audience there had been a 30-year decline. Quite the opposite – he said there was no long-term decline. Mr. Monckton showed his audience a slide covering just three years, referring to the 2007 low as a “temporary loss of sea ice” which had recovered by 2009. Then he told them: “So we’re not looking at a sort of long-term systematic loss of ice in the Arctic.” [1 – 8:27]
ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES SINCE THE CAMBRIAN:
Mr. Monckton’s conclusion about a lack of correlation rests entirely on a graph showing CO2 concentration and temperature over the last 500 million years [3 – 0:04]. The graph uses temperature data from Scotese and CO2 data from Berner. Neither researcher supports Mr. Monckton’s ‘no correlation’ conclusion. On the contrary, Berner writes: “Over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the greenhouse effect.” [“Geocarb III: A revised model of atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic time” — R. Berner and Z. Kothavala, American Journal of Science, Feb 2001]
How so? Because paleoclimatologists have to factor in solar output, which has been getting stronger over time [3 – 4:45]. If the rising curve of solar output is compared to global temperatures over the phanerozoic (500 million years) there is a similar lack of correlation. But it would be absurd to draw the conclusion that the sun therefore has no effect on climate.
So when gradually rising solar output is taken into account there is a very clear correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, and the source of Mr. Monckton’s data points that out. So does another senior researcher in the field [“CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate” — D. Royer et al, GSA Today, March 2004].
ON THE PRE-CAMBRIAN ICE PLANET:
Again, let’s look at what I showed in my video, which was a clip of Mr. Monckton himself, speaking in a debate:
“750 million years ago, a mile of ice at the equator, ice planet all round, therefore at the surface 300,000 ppm of CO2. Will you tell me how that much CO2 could have been in the atmosphere and yet allowed that amount of ice at the equator?” [3 – 5:17]
Since Mr. Monckton thinks this is a puzzle for climatologists, let’s go through the well-understood explanation step by step.
Mr. Monckton agrees with the experts that the frozen planet was due to very weak solar output (about 8% less than today.) And he agrees that the high albedo (reflectivity) of this white surface would have reflected most of what little solar warmth the Earth did receive.
But he doesn’t seem to accept that volcanoes would have continued releasing CO2 into the atmosphere of this frozen planet over millions of years, and that this eventually warmed the planet enough to unfreeze it [“CO2 levels required for deglaciation of a ‘near-snowball’ Earth” T. Crowley et al, Geophysical Research Letters, 2001]. He cites no peer-reviewed research showing why paleoclimatologists are wrong. (No, the opinion of “a leading geologist” is not the same thing.)
ON HIMALAYAN GLACIERS:
Mr. Monckton writes in his WUWT response: “the pattern of advance and retreat of these glaciers was much as it had been in the 200 years since the British Raj had been keeping records. That is very far from the same thing as saying there had been “no change””
Then let’s look at what Mr. Monckton actually said to his audience in St. Paul:
“The glaciers are showing no particular change in 200 years. The only glacier that’s declined a little is Gangoltri.” [3 – 10:20]
So is it a pattern of advance and retreat? Or no particular change? Or only one glacier retreating? Which?
In his WUWT resp onse, Mr. Monckton went on to say: “To discuss one or two retreating glaciers is not the same thing as to say or imply that only one or two glaciers have been retreating.”
But you DID say it, Mr. Monckton. Here it is again: “Only one of them [Himalayan glaciers] is retreating a little and that’s Gangoltri.”
ON MISQUOTING MURARI LAL:
Speaking about Murari Lal, the man behind the IPCC’s 2035 disappearing glaciers fiasco, Mr. Monckton told his audience there was: “….an admission that he [Lal] knew that figure was wrong but had left it in anyway because he knew that the IPCC wanted to influence governments and politicians.”[4 – 3:50]
This is not even borne out by Monckton’s own source, cited in his response, which is a quote from Lal in the Daily Mail about the 2035 date: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.” Nowhere does Lal say he knew the figure was erroneous.
MISQUOTING SIR JOHN HOUGHTON:
Mr. Monckton claims Houghton wrote this in the Sunday Telegraph of September 10, 1995: “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.” [4 – 5:50]
And I maintain Houghton wrote: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.”
Who is right? Well, both Mr. Monckton and I have exactly the same source [Sunday Telegraph, September 10, 1995], but I actually show an image of it in my video [4 – 7:24]. Take a look. Even though it turns out my quote is correct and Mr. Monckton’s is clearly a gross misquote, he still insists in his WUWT response that he got the quote right.
ON HIS CLAIMS ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE SUN…
Mr. Monckton showed and quoted an extract from a paper by Sami Solanki: “The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago. We find that during the past 11,400 years the sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episodoes on to come.” [5 – 1:21 onwards]
That could suggest the sun is a likely culprit for recent warming. But why didn’t Mr. Monckton tell or show his audience what Solanki wrote in the very next line?
“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.” [“Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the last 11,000 years” — S.K. Solanki et al, Nature Sep 2004]
ON THE ROLE OF THE SUN IN RECENT WARMING:
Mr. Monckton said: “The solar physicists – you might take Scafetta and West, say, in 2008, they attribute 69% of all the recent global warming to the sun.” [5 – 3:48]
No, they don’t. In my video [5 – 4:32] I showed the actual document Mr. Monckton refers to (an opinion piece) where Scafetta and West wrote: “We estimate that the sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in the Earth’s average temperature.” [“Is climate sensitive to solar variability?” Nicola Scafetta and Bruce J. West, Physics Today March 2008]
I hope we all understand the difference between “69%” and “as much as 69%.” But what about all those other “solar physicists” who purportedly support Monckton’s position? Well, they don’t. Solanki’s figure is up to just 30%, Erlykin less than 14%, Bernstad 7%, Lean ‘negligable’and Lockwood –1.3% [5 — 4:40]
[4:41 “Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?”– S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova, Journal of Geophysical Research, May 2003]
[“Solar Activity and the Mean Global Temperature”
A.D. Erlykin et al, Physics Geo 2009]
[“Solar trends and global warming” — R. Benestad and G. Schmidt, Journal of Geophysical Research” July 2009]
[“How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006” J. Lean and D. Rind, Geophysical Research Letters, Sep 2008]
[“Recent changes in solar outputs and the global mean surface temperature. III. Analysis of contributions to global mean air surface temperature rise” — M. Lockwood, June 2008]
Mr. Monckton then asserts that the International Astronomical Union (IAU) agrees with this conclusion (that the sun is largely responsible for recent warming.) After he had been confronted during a TV interview with the plain fact that it didn’t [5 – 5:49 “Meet the Climate Sceptics” BBC TV Feb 2011], Monckton gave a reason for the error in his WUWT response:
“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.”
Maybe so. But that doesn’t explain why Mr. Monckton continued to make exactly the same claim elsewhere. At St. Paul he said:
“Most solar physicists agree [that the sun is largely responsible for recent warming]. The International Astronomical Union in 2004 had a symposium on it, they concluded that that was the case.” [Monckton rebuttal – WUWT 16:27]
And in his film ‘Apocalypse No!’ a slide headed ‘International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004’ was shown to an audience, along with its main conclusions. Third on the list, Monckton read: “The sun caused today’s global warming.”
Monckton told the audience: “This is not my conclusion, this is the conclusion of the International Astronomical Union Symposium in 2004. This is what they said, this is not me talking here.” [Monckton rebuttal – WUWT 16:34]
Mr. Monckton has to accept that this claim is completely spurious. This is why he dislikes detailed examinations of his sources. While he takes every opportunity to debate on stage, where his speaking skills are essential and his assertions can’t be checked, an online debate is far tougher, because every paper and fact CAN be checked. So come on, Mr. Monckton, let’s debate this on WUWT to see which of us has correctly read your sources.
The rebuttals I made are not “inconsequential aspects of my talks” as Mr. Monckton claims; they include almost every major topic he covers, from the melting of Arctic and glacial ice, to the role of the sun and the correlation between CO2 and temperature. His only recourse in his WUWT response was therefore to call me names, attack my character and my competence, and question my financing and my motivation… anything but answer the documentary evidence I presented. And then he adds one more error — a ridiculous claim that I asked my “small band of followers” to “check the scientific literature for themselves to establish that the Earth has been warming and that CO2 is “largely responsible.”
Since I can’t establish that myself, I certainly wouldn’t advise other amateurs to have a go. So I ask Mr. Monckton to cite the source for this claim, sure in the knowledge that once again we will see a yawning gap between what the source actually says (in this case, me) and what Mr. Monckton claims it says.
References: (Hadfield’s own videos)
1 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
2 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
3 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
4 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
5 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
It’s best to do your best to suggest findings and tests that could falsify your own hypothesis. Do your damnedest to imagine the toughest challenges or possible data findings you can. Then follow up and/or invite others to do so. That’s the pure quill “scientific method”.
@ur momisugly Smokey
I replied that your hypothesis – ‘At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.’ – was unscientific because it was so vague as to be untestable. In your response you say ‘I deliberately word my hypothesis in as few words as possible, in order to avoid confusion.’
You then go on to offer a new hypothesis:
‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’
This rather begs the question; if the original hypothesis was worded to avoid confusion, why do you need to make adjustments to it to make it testable?
Anyway, we now have a new hypothesis that I think is testable. The hypothesis is:
‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’
Now, in order to falsify this hypothesis, I would need to show an instance of more CO2 being in someway harmful to something in the biosphere. Because the biosphere is simply a sum of its parts, CO2 causing harm to any of the organisms making up the biosphere would render your hypothesis refuted.
Please read this:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/adis/txr/2005/00000024/00000004/art00003
‘At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death.’
I have now produced peer reviewed evidence that in fact more CO2 is not necessarily beneficial to the biosphere. This means your hypothesis is falsified. If you think I have missed the point, and that what you were getting at was something different, then that just proves my point that your original hypothesis was too vague (and this new one is too).
In light of this evidence, I take it you will now accept your hypothesis refuted and you will stop pestering people to try and falsify it.
Anthony, sorry, but you are incorrect on most points:
1) Monckton does indeed have an online forum – not only his own page on the SPPI website, where he publishes regularly, but also a YouTube channel, where his rebuttal of Abraham was posted. When Monckton was criticised in a comment on your website, you did not tell him he could respond to the criticism in his own section of the SPPI website, you gave him space on your website for a complete rebuttal. Yet when I am criticized, not in a comment but in a headlined piece, I am not given a similar opportunity to respond.
2) I have indeed invited Monckton to respond, and that offer has been in the ‘updates’ section of my channel for a while now. But Monckton needs no invitation anyway. Anyone, Monckton included, can post response videos to any of my videos. If Monckton ever did make a video response on my channel, I would even mirror his video to ensure that none of my 50,000 subscribers missed it. Monckton’s response on WUWT has been the subject of discussion on my channel page and I have posted a link to it.
3) =There’s no benefit for me or WUWT readers to give you guest post status.=
On this point I entirely agree, from a short-term perspective. My response would give details of how Monckton’s piece on your website was factually distorted, and supply evidence that supports my assertions and contradicts his. Since you seem to side rather heavily with Mr. Monckton, an open debate might bring some uncomfortable information to the attention of your readers. However, the right of reply is not meant to ‘benefit’ you, it is a courtesy granted in the interests of fairness and free debate. If my response is factually flawed, then you or Mr. Monckton are welcome to point out my errors and show that I am wrong. If, on the other hand, it turns out that my evidence is solid and that Mr. Monckton was wrong, this would also surely be of great benefit to both you and your readers. Let’s have an online debate to see who is right and who is wrong, and let your readers judge the outcome. So far Mr. Monckton seems unwilling to answer my points (as I would like to show, given the opportunity) or debate me, and you are not encouraging such an examination of the facts by giving him all the prominent space he wants and none at all to me.
4) Your question about Al Gore is clearly based on the fact that you have not watched my videos, for reasons that I understand and sympathise with. However, it is interesting that you make the automatic assumption that I have not criticized Gore in my videos or pointed out his errors – which I have. You then go on to criticize me for something you imagine I have not done! I have also criticized various media reports that exaggerate or invent the effects of climate change. My channel is dedicated to busting anti-science claptrap on both sides of this issue – as well as on subjects such as evolution, the age of the Earth, the Big Bang and even an expanding Earth.
Peter
REPLY: What I meant was that Monckton has no website exclusively his own, he relies on others, as you point out, SPPI, and WUWT.
I note you provide no links to videos on Al Gore, so it would seem you have not dedicated one to his many issues of distortion.
You are welcome to post any comments you want on this thread provided they are within site policy. There is no space limitation, you ca link to graphs (use tinypic) and videos (Use YouTube). I will then link that rebuttal into the main post where it is highly visible. There’s no possibility of a reply in your video channel, since none of us work in that like medium as you do, and your channel gets a mere fraction of the traffic that WUWT does. So, it is an inequitable trade for exposure anyway.
That’s my final offer, which I think is more than equitable, since I’m under no obligation of any kind. As they say in business when the negotiation is down to the last, take it or leave it.
Anthony
Confined as I am to the bottom of the comments section, I would still like Mr. Monckton to properly debate me point by point. I have taken just one question to start with, that of Ola Johannessen’s paper, which Mr. Monckton misrepresented in his talks. My re-iteration of the evidence which he did not discuss in his ‘response’ is a few comments above. Mr. Monckton, if you can expend the time and effort insulting me and thinking up perjoratives like ‘caveman’ surely you can expend a little effort explaining why Johannessen’s paper says something very different to what you claim it says.
REPLY: see my note in your comment above – Anthony
Brian H says:
“It’s best to do your best to suggest findings and tests that could falsify your own hypothesis. Do your damnedest to imagine the toughest challenges or possible data findings you can. Then follow up and/or invite others to do so. That’s the pure quill ‘scientific method’.”
Believe me, I’ve tried. I can find no evidence of global harm from CO2. None. The evidence just doesn’t exist.
• • •
FaceFirst,
Sorry. Fail. Your link does not refer to anything global. It is a link to physiological effects of CO2 in concentrations over 10%. My hypothesis specifically states ‘current and projected’ CO2 concentrations. Currently, CO2 comprises only a minuscule 0.00039 of the atmosphere. Projected concentrations are less than double that: a still minuscule 0.00078. That is nothing compared with 10%. Maybe on you planet my hypothesis is “refuted”, but not on Planet Earth.
The hypothesis that at current and projected concentrations CO2 is globally harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere remains unfalsified, despite attempts by folks with weak reading comprehension.
@ur momisugly Smokey
You are, as I anticipated, shifting the goal posts, which rather demonstrates my point that your hypothesis as stated lacked clarity. To recap, you stated:
‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’
I have shown that more is in fact NOT better. Taken too far, it kills humans. You have now stated a third iteration of your hypothesis:
‘The hypothesis that at current and projected concentrations CO2 is globally harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere’
This still lacks clarity if you ask me. Do you mean NET benefit? Or do you literally mean that in no instance is an increase in CO2 harmful to anything? I can only take this new hypothesis as stated, and it is easily refuted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19782832
‘When CO(2) levels reached approximately 340 ppm, sporadic but highly destructive mass bleaching occurred in most reefs world-wide, often associated with El Niño events. Recovery was dependent on the vulnerability of individual reef areas and on the reef’s previous history and resilience. At today’s level of approximately 387 ppm, allowing a lag-time of 10 years for sea temperatures to respond, most reefs world-wide are committed to an irreversible decline…/
/…If CO(2) levels are allowed to reach 450 ppm (due to occur by 2030-2040 at the current rates), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from multiple synergies arising from mass bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts. Damage to shallow reef communities will become extensive with consequent reduction of biodiversity followed by extinctions. Reefs will cease to be large-scale nursery grounds for fish and will cease to have most of their current value to humanity. There will be knock-on effects to ecosystems associated with reefs, and to other pelagic and benthic ecosystems. Should CO(2) levels reach 600 ppm reefs will be eroding geological structures with populations of surviving biota restricted to refuges.’
This paper shows that both current and projected CO2 levels does in fact impact negatively on certain parts of the biosphere, ergo you cannot say that it is ‘globally harmless’. I have now once again refuted your newest hypothesis, but I suspect from past performance you will adjust your hypothesis and hand wave this evidence…
FaceFirst,
I am enjoying this, because it is so easy to refute your belief system. You claim: “I have shown that more [CO2] is in fact NOT better. Taken too far, it kills humans.” A complete non sequitur. It is in fact you who are shifting the goal posts, not I. My hypothesis clearly states: “at current and projected levels.” You have shifted the goal posts, from 0.039% to >10%, twenty five times more than that stated in the hypothesis.
My boy served in the Navy on the USS Helena for six years. Continuous CO2 levels up to 5,000 ppmv were permitted for 4 months’ duration. A level of 2,000 ppmv was permitted indefinitely. I think the Navy knows more than you about the safety of CO2 levels.
Next, you ask: “Do you mean NET benefit?” Of course I mean on balance, as I have stated numerous times on WUWT. It is splitting hairs to say otherwise. I suppose someone could find some farfetched example and say, “Gotcha!” But I prefer to be rational. That said, I am unaware of any detrimental effects from the current rise in CO2.
Here are a few examples of the benefits of increased CO2:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
click6
click7
[More examples on request. Just ask.]
It is obvious that enhanced CO2 increases agricultural productivity. In a world where one-third of the population subsists on less than $2 a day, the rise in CO2 is saving lives. Therefore, it is a net benefit.
Finally, the 2009 paper you linked to has been debunked. The WUWT archives confirm that coral bleaching is a function of water temperature, not CO2. That paper is based on computer models and makes outlandish predictions. As I have repeatedly stated, to falsify my hypothesis requires empirical, testable evidence per the scientific method, and models are not evidence. And bear in mind the fact that “coral bleaching” has been moved to the back burner for one reason only: corals have since rebounded, recovering almost completely – while CO2 levels have steadily increased. Therefore, my hypothesis remains unfalsified.
@ur momisugly Smokey
It seems that we are going to have to start version tracking your various hypothesis so that we can keep an eye on how you are adjusting them to deflect evidence.
Hypothesis V1 was – verbatim:
‘At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.’
When I asked you to restate this as a testable hypothesis you came up with this:
Hypothesis V2:
‘CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere. More is better. Period, full stop.’
Which I refuted by showing that more wasn’t in fact better. You didn’t like this, so shifted the goal posts.
Hypothesis V3 changed again:
‘The hypothesis that at current and projected concentrations CO2 is globally harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere’
Which I refuted by showing that CO2 wasn’t, in fact globally harmless and that in some instances both current and projected levels do indeed cause harm.
We are now on to hypothesis V4:
‘Of course I mean on balance, as I have stated numerous times on WUWT’
Well, you may have stated this hypothesis before, but not to me and I can only deal with what I see here. I specifically made the point that your hypothesis needed clarification and you refuted that but clarified your position anyway…one wonders why.
If you had actually read the paper that I linked to, you would see that it doesn’t only focus on coral bleaching, but also covers the retardation in growth of coralline algae. Unless you want to argue that algae isn’t part of the biosphere, then your hypothesis is refuted. And in case you want to argue that coralline algae isn’t affected by CO2, here is another paper studying IN THE LAB the effects:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w32h6064805l67k8/
Your original challenge to me was to produce empirical evidence to refute your claim CO2 is harmless. I have done so. Your hypothesis is refuted.
Faceplant sez:
How are you going to increase CO2 in the oceans if they’re getting warmer. Warmer oceans means less dissolved CO2, does it not?
Jeff Alberts,
Thank you for saving me some typing.
• • •
Faceplant:
There is only one hypothesis, with the key words “harmless” and “beneficial”. All the rest was provided in response to your complaints that you were confused, and unclear about the original statement. Most people who have responded have had no problem understanding it.
FaceFirst – I read the abstract of the last paper you cited. It was a laboratory experiment on the effect of increased CO2 “(air+1250 ppm)” on coral. But, according to SkepticalScience.com http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm not even a modest fraction of this will happen inside the next 500-1000 years:
“ … It is true that an individual molecule of CO2 has a short residence time in the atmosphere. However, in most cases when a molecule of CO2 leaves the atmosphere it is simply swapping places with one in the ocean. … Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over (*3). This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10).“.
However, your attempts to falsify Smokey’s hypothesis do achieve one thing: they demonstrate that you do think that the hypothesis is falsifiable. I would be interested in knowing in what ways you think that AGW is falsifiable.
Mike Jonas,
As we know, at this point the AGW conjecture is not falsifiable. It may eventually turn out to have some validity. Maybe. But as of now it remains a conjecture; an opinion.
Personally, I tend toward the view that CO2 adds a minuscule amount of [beneficial] warming to the atmosphere. But that is simply my evidence-free opinion, since there is no testable, empirical evidence supporting that view.
Thank you for pointing out that FaceFirst is now [impotently] trying to falsify the hypothesis that CO2 is harmless and beneficial. FaceFirst is only trying to support a failed conjecture that he has been told is reality. But it requires more than being spoon-fed a belief system to overcome the rigour of the scientific method.
1) AGW is not falsifiable, therefore probably not true.
2) AGW might be falsifiable, therefore likely false.
Does that adequately sum up the falsifiability “conjecture”
@ur momisugly Monckton of Brenchly and REP,
Was Ola Johannessen talking only about the interior of Greenland or the whole ice sheet when talking about the 2inch/ year increase in thickness?
Jeff Alberts, re Jan 18 3.57pm
Are you not neglecting that the amount of gas dissolved into a liquid also depends its partial pressure, ie the concentration of the gas?
You are welcome to post any comments you want on this thread provided they are within site policy. There is no space limitation, you ca link to graphs (use tinypic) and videos (Use YouTube). I will then link that rebuttal into the main post where it is highly visible. There’s no possibility of a reply in your video channel, since none of us work in that like medium as you do, and your channel gets a mere fraction of the traffic that WUWT does. So, it is an inequitable trade for exposure anyway.
That’s my final offer, which I think is more than equitable, since I’m under no obligation of any kind. As they say in business when the negotiation is down to the last, take it or leave it.
Anthony
—
This suggests to me that you know that Monckton’s arguments wouldn’t stand up to a debate and so are not willing to allow this to happen on your blog. It’s fair enough, this is your blog afterall, but it does seem like you are shying away from any open debate on the issues that Monckton raises.
Peter has been quite reasonable in asking for a reply article, and surely if it’s just the traffic you want I’m sure an open debate between him and Monckton on here would be a very popular article.
I suspect a more likely reason is simply you don’t want this debate to take place because you know what the outcome will be, Monckton is good at public speeches as long as he doesn’t have any chance of people pointing out his errors, that wouldn’t be so easy on here.
Hide behind the “inequitable trade for exposure” arguement if you want, it’s about as convincing as Monckton’s arguements anway!
SteveE,
I would pay a good admission price to see you debate Lord Monckton, who routinely spanks alarmists in moderated debates. AFAIK, Monckton has never lost a debate. But who knows, maybe your super intellect is upto the job.
@ur momisugly Jeff Alberts
The hypothesis stated by smokey has nothing to do with temperature and I advise you to re-read what he has written carefully, and then look again at my replies in that context.
@ur momisugly Smokey
I have repeatedly demonstrated that your hypothesis is false. More CO2 is not necessarily harmless. You have yet to address my evidence, nor have you admitted that you needed to clarify your hypothesis, which is what I originally suggested needed doing. Of course I do actually understand what you are driving at, but you rather arrogantly suggested that your hypothesis was fine as stated and that I was somehow inept. When I addressed your hypothesis AS STATED you needed to adjust it, thus proving my point for me.
Before moving on, I think it is only fair that I point out that you have yet again retreated to an untestable position. Your standards-of-evidence demands for your hypothesis (V3 + V4 IIRC) are:
‘Please provide testable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, showing global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2. Please, no models or speculation’
Yet your hypothesis asked for ‘current and PROJECTED concentrations CO2’. So please tell me how we are going to provide empirical evidence for a projected CO2 level without modelling or, as you put it, ‘speculation’? Unless you want to test in the lab EVERY facet of the biosphere in controlled conditions (i.e. somehow come up with a ‘control’ Earth), then the hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. If you want to adjust your standards of evidence to be more reasonable and realistic then it might be possible for it to be tested, but as it stands it isn’t.
@ur momisugly Mike Jones
You too need to re-read the evidence that I presented in the context of the hypothesis as stated by Smokey. What you are saying is correct, but that isn’t relevant to the question that I was asked to provide evidence for at that time.
On to AGW. Of course AGW is falsifiable. All we would need is reliable and properly analyzed data that contradict the theory. This would take time, as the odd paper or observation here or there is unlikely to bring the whole theory down. It may be that parts of the theory are false or need refining; that would be entirely expected and not at all unusual for any type of explanatory framework, especially one dealing with such a complex issue.
————————————————-
As a general note to everyone, I notice that you have started calling me names. Yet these same people complain of ad hominem attacks against Monckton. The mind, it boggles.
Also, I notice that this comments section has been derailed from the original article; I will not be answering on subjects other that Monckton from here in as I regard it as off-topic and that doesn’t seem fair to others. Only a few of comments on this article have checked Monckton’s claims for themselves and what has been revealed is pretty alarming. I suggest that others continue to check the claims of Monckton and Hadfield so that WUWT can say that it is a skeptics website with a straight face.
=Monckton has no website exclusively his own=
I suggest you look at Mr. Monckton’s section of the SPPI website here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/. This is exclusively his own. To argue that it is part of a website rather than an entire website might be splitting hairs. He has an outlet on the Internet, just as I have – except that he is allowed a guest post to respond to criticism on your channel and I am not.
=I note you provide no links to videos on Al Gore, so it would seem you have not dedicated one to his many issues of distortion.=
You didn’t ask me for a link to my videos about Al Gore; you didn’t even ask if I had criticized Al Gore, you simply assumed that I hadn’t. The links to all my videos have been posted several times on your channel. There is one called ‘Gore vs. Durkin’ which highlights Gore’s disingenuous claims about a 20-foot sea level rise and his unsubstantiated linking of heat waves in Europe to ‘global warming.’ In the first video of the series I highlighted his misleading claims about the link between CO2 and temperature over the quaternary.
=There’s no possibility of a reply in your video channel, since none of us work in that like medium as you do=
On the contrary, Anthony, if you feel I have misled people about your channel or your moderator’s apology or non-apology to Viscount Monckton, I would welcome a response from you in your usual format — written form — that I can post on the front page of my channel or, if you wish, show in a video which I will post without comment. I also have a policy of correcting factual errors, and have done so many times, so you are welcome to point out any errors you find.
However, the bone of contention over my comments about WUWT should not impede a free and fair debate about the issue of a rebuttal to Monckton, which is a matter of science. This shouldn’t be a pissing contest about who has the biggest site, because I freely admit that you’ve got a bigger one than me. This is about free and fair debate on a science issue. I have never seen a newspaper refuse a right of reply on the grounds that it is too big. If it is big enough to criticize an individual, then it should be big enough to publish a response.
= I’m under no obligation of any kind. =
Of course, not. My request for an equal response to Mr Monckton and a fair debate with him on your website is just that, a request.
Smokey says:
January 19, 2012 at 3:53 am
I would pay a good admission price to see you debate Lord Monckton, who routinely spanks alarmists in moderated debates. AFAIK, Monckton has never lost a debate. But who knows, maybe your super intellect is upto the job.
—
I’m not a great public debate person, so it probably wouldn’t be worth the money. The problem with Monckton’s debates are that you can say whatever you like and don’t have to back it up with any hard data. An online debate you do and can link to all your references. An online debate between Peter and Monckton would be interesting don’t you think. Or at least an article on here from Peter where he responds to Monckton’s claims?
Why the reluctance to allow Peter Hadfield to engage in free and open debate with Monckton Anthony? You’ve given Monckton a prominent platform to throw insults such as ‘Caveman’ at Hadfield – yet you refuse to give Hadfield, who has been impeccably polite even if you don’t agree with him, an equivalent opportunity to respond.
Of course you don’t have to do any such thing, but on this side of the pond it would be considered good manners to do so. Despite his noble title ‘Lord’ Monckton seems to have forgotten his, there’s no need for you to follow his example…
REPLY: I’ve offered him unlimited length, graphics, video, and an offer to put his response next to Monckton’s here in the body. Seems plenty polite enough to me, especially since I’ll never be able to respond on his channel as I don’t do that sort of stuff. Note that Hadfield never offered any opportunity for us to respond at the outset, he only offers it a s trade for getting what he wants, and I don’t consider the trade equitable. As a result of Moncktons response here he’s already gotten a huge amount of notice, but some folks always want more.
My offer as above stands, he can take it or leave it. The smart choice would be to take it rather than whine about it. – Anthony
@ur momisugly Anthony,
I would be interested to hear the fruits of your own investigations into the claims of both Monckton and Hadfield. I assume that since serious doubt has been cast on the veracity of Monckton’s claims, you must be looking into the things he has said and checking to see if Hadfield is presenting the truth.
As owner of this site surely it is absolutely critical that the utmost care is taken to present the truth. If it turns out that Monckton has indeed been untruthful as Hadfield claims (and indeed he has if the instances that I have looked at are representative), one has to wonder what other untruths have been allowed on here elsewhere.
[Reply: This site allows all points of view. You are not the arbiter of truth. Present your opinion if you like, and others will present theirs. Readers will make up their own minds. ~dbs, mod.]
I don’t understand you Anthony – what Hadfield is asking for is quite simple – a blogpost on the same basis that you gave Monckton.
What’s so difficult about that?
As for Hadfield ‘not offering you any opportunity to respond at the outset’ – since you have in fact responded I don’t understand your point.
It would be much more convenient for us watchers to follow the debate if we could see it happening in one place, instead of flipping through different sites, and pages of comments.
Since you have ‘home advantage’ and Lord Monckton seems very confident of his position, then why the reticence to host a fair and open debate? Why do you feel the need to attach strings to your offer? Surely you’re confident your man can wipe the floor with the caveman Hadfield?
REPLY: Fair and open would include an equal opportunity on his venue. He works in some psuedo video documentary world that I don’t so there’ really no opportunity for me to respond. Since he gets a fraction of the traffic WUWT does, he’s just gunning for the traffic here. There’s no advantage to me nor any fairness of balance. Sorry, if you don’t like it, that’s my offer: he can write up anything he wants (within site policy) using words, videos, graphs, and I’ll put it right next to Monckton’s post here. If you and Mr. Hadfield thinks that when his content is placed right next to Monckton’s in the same post that somehow it “not fair” well then his position must be very weak indeed. Or, I could just be a prick like RealClimate, Tamino, Deltoid, Joe Romm, and a host of others and tell both you and him (if you were skeptics) to go to take a flying leap as they do to me regularly. I think my offer is more than fair, especially since I don’t have to offer anything at all.
Of course now the whining will begin anew. So, I’m not going to drag it out any further, If he doesn’t take me up on the offer within the next 24 hours, I’m simply going to close it and move on. – Anthony
@ur momisugly dbs
I am deeply shocked at your response. I thought this site was about trying to get to the truth? How can anyone have any confidence in what is presented here if even the editors and owner are not checking the content for accuracy?
In this instance, what is being stated by both Hadfield and Monckton is not a point of view; either Hadfield is right or Monckton is right. I think that this site in particular has a duty to present as accurate information as possible, especially considering the numerous articles published here casting aspersions on other people’s work and accusing people of shoddy scholarship.
Anthony, I think that you missed Peter’s point previously about Monckton having his own YouTube channel. Contrary to the point you were trying to make as well about Monckton having to work through third party outlets, so does Peter – he’s in fact requesting that you allow him yours in the same fashion you have allowed Monckton. If you are upset that Peter did not go out of his way to ask you or Monckton to post a video on his own channel in response, before either of you asked yourselves (remember too, again, that Monckton has his own channel), why would that mean that Peter deserves no equal share when he does go out of his way to ask? If I am mistaken in that you had requested of Peter to be able to respond on his YouTube channel, prior to it being offered to you – which I must express personal doubt toward, as your ulterior excuse is apparently that you “don’t do that sort of stuff” – then please let me know.
REPLY: Then let him ask Monckton to respond on Monckton’s channel.
I’ve offered Hadfield the ability to write anything he wants (within site policy), including words, graphs, video, and offered to place it in the post right next to Monckton’s. Essentially in a point counterpoint style. The whining now is that somehow this isn’t “fair”.
Nobody offers me any counterpoint on their blogs (or newspapers, or magazines) when they slime me, WUWT, or WUWT guest posters, I’ve never had a single offer of “right of reply”. Mr. Hadfield’s belief in this as some sort of protocol is just that, a belief, not reality. I’m not even allowed to comment on many sites. Yet somehow, I’m being made out to be the bad guy here when I’m not obligated to offer anything. My offer is more than fair, and more than any of the angry alarmist blogs would offer me or any other skeptic. I’m getting rather tired of the whining, so I’m putting a time limit on it 24 hours from now or the offer closes. A smart person would take it.
– Anthony