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
Tom Murphy,
Thanx for your clarification of the Nobel laureate attacks. Unlike Lord Monckton, I actually do claim Nobel Laureate status, albeit somewhat sheepishly, based upon my participation in the AR4 WG1 draft review and citation as a contributer. I have people question it and ask where my check was if I got the prize. In one case, the person had actually observed my fellow Nobel laureates receiving their checks. The IPCC actually used the money for third world scholarships. I showed him documentation of that and pointed out that many labs give ceremonies and monetary rewards for to their employees that win recognition and bring distinction to the organization.
Lord Monckton’s talks would be much less informative and entertaining if he focused strictly on the chief area of scientific dispute, whether the net feedbacks to CO2 forcing are negative or significantly positive. He could point out that we don’t know, but that there is some evidence and argument that it might be negative. I am thankful for the contribution he makes pointing out the misuse of statistics, the incredible fear mongering and the underlying agenda of those that feel unconstrained by evidence and proper use of statistics. For someone who is allegedly a non-expert (it ain’t rocket science, BTW), Lord Monckton does a good job retreating to defensible ground when he has made a mistake. I’ve noticed several improvements and increases in rigorous content over the years. Lord Monckton is no Al Gore.
Tom Murphy says:
February 10, 2012 at 3:21 pm
[blah blah blah]…”Lord Bourgeoisie rightly urges the reader that, “It would be advisable to take [Lord Monckton’s] presentations with regard to climate change, a field in which he has no formal qualifications, with extreme caution.” I agree, but we must also apply the same level of caution to Mr. Hadfield’s presentations, as well – he also has no formal qualifications. And just because Mr. Hadfield may entreat his readers of having candor on climate change, that does not mean he actually exhibits it. And yet, Lord Bourgeoisie does not advise the reader on adopting such caution with Mr. Hadfield. Why? ”
——
Because such a warning is unnecessary.. Have you not SEEN Hadfield’s videos? I’ll assume you haven’t. Hadfield actually substantiates EVERYTHING he says.. Not some. Not most. EVERYTHING. Hadfield isn’t promoting any ideas of his own. Instead, he very simply puts dishonest or idiotic people on the spot and shows the errors in their assertions.
Martin Lewitt says:
[blah blah blah]
Are you being facetious?
James Sexton says:
February 10, 2012 at 6:15 pm
“…you entirely incapable of context? You guys blather about a 30 year period and think a decade is an insignificant part of it?”
Pax says: The context is Moncktons usage of words. His words are what we are measuring and compare it to available, preferable peer-reviewed, data. You keep trying to derail the focus, I know it’s embarrassing to admit one is wrong but it has to be done so one doesn’t do it again.
I’m not here in this thread to debate the entire issue of AGW or CAGW, so I’ll remind you here and now again, this thread is about Moncktons useage of words and statistical/scientific data, they do not add up.
The figure of 30 years is about as low as you can go with when making a trend analysis of the temperature data since the SPREAD of the data is large. M’kay?
Your attention span seems very low, so I’ll restart again: Monckton said “statistical significant cooling” about a trend line that was rather flat with temperature data all over the place -that’s plain wrong to say. That’s ONE of many points to come -regarding Moncktons speeches and writings.
Again, I’m not attacking your(James Sexton) general (or special) knowledge or stance of/on GW AGW or CAGW LIA CIA ICE ghosts, chriatianity, whatever. However I will call you on evading the subject of Monckton and you defending Moncktons careless usage of words. Because when Monckton uses words alot of things get hell bent. For him huffing and puffing about his Viscount status and at the same time being so careless with words it boggles the mind. When he try to inflate his status to include him in the house of lords or as a representative of the parliament it becomes outright dishonest.
James said: “Do you think time started in 1973?…about why BEST shouldn’t be used… I’ll let you know that SkS’ graph was derived from the BEST data”
Yes, the escalator graph is made from BEST data, but the exact same case and point can be made with HadCrut datasets or traffic accidents -you can cherrypick and compile timespans with small cooling trends -but the issue is still Moncktons poor usage of words with regards to the scientific data.
James Sexton said: “Here’s 50 consecutive years temps didn’t respond to increasing CO2 [graph link removed -Pax]”
Pax says: During the Cambrian there was several hundreds of million years where the temps didn’t respond to CO2, Woho! I win! =o)
No, not really, for many reasons but (IMHO) primarily because you and I are straying offtopic regarding Monckton in 2009 and “Statistically significant cooling”.
NEXT
Subject: Monckton extrapolates and conveys the sentiment “no long term loss of actic sea ice” by showing a minute part of our understanding of arctic sea ice.
James Sexton first defence was basically crying FOUL!: “What was the arctic ice area prior to the 70s?”
Pax showed grah ice being better off even extending to 1953
James Sexton basically cried “FOUL!” again…
Pax *sighes* but says: Look, Monckton said “we are not looking at a long term systematic loss of ice in the arctic” but all scientific verifieable data indicates just the opposite. Potholer didn’t pick exactly 1979-2009 it was ALL data from the satellite readings.
James Sexton said: “Monckton showed a recent graph showing the icecap bottomed out in 2007”
Pax says: …and we unfortunately nearly reached the record low in 2011, with the solar maximum approaching I fully expect a new low within 2-3 years, but I digress.
James Sexton said: “I wasn’t making a statement as to whether or not we’re gaining or losing ice”
Pax says: That may be, but you rush to defend Monckton against people attacking his illfounded use of words with a barrage of strawmen that instantly catches fire in these times of obvious global warming… but Monckton claimed we had no long term loss of arctic ice, but he was call upon that, and Monckton himself actually agreed that indeed we’ve actually had a loss of ice, so hopefully he will not continue to make shit up about that. So you can drop your tirade about “you think time started in xxxx?” and cries about hypocrisy, we have data, I advise we use it all.
James Sexton “graphs and data presented on one side or the other is cherry picked”
Pax says: Totally incredible, after all I’ve tried. I try to present and view the whole graph but it just will not cut it for you James, you keep doing the same thing over and over again, picking your special 8-15-50-70 year trends depending on situation. Just fricken look at the entire HadCrut dataset, period. Monckton cherrypicked a part of the satellite records, potholer showed the entire dataset. Simple, if there is data, the data is good, use all, no cherry picking!
(Please *ugh* don’t drag Mann et. al into this, switching data source midways without telling or giving reasons for upfront is wrong, I fricken agree, m’kay?)
James Sexton said: “…you refuse to understand simple language… you’ve wasted a huge amount of my time… you will still not understand…the SkS cherry picked graph…Base on an incomplete, land-only, unupdated data base….You don’t know WTF you’re talking about…apparently reading is a difficulty for you… if you would have bothered to attempt to learn something…saved yourself from this embarrassment”
Pax says: blah blah blah, for the most part DITTO. I explained this earlier though, but, I could have used economic growth rates to demonstrate the principle -using the BEST animated escalator felt easy, it was made specifically to make the point about the problems with cherrypicking principle, I understand you confused it with me using the BEST dataset to validate some temperatures -to which I didn’t. Please understand that you make me laugh when you keep linking them 2001-2009 series over and over and also over again while saying “Look at things in their entirety”.
To be able to get anywhere we can’t crack open every can of worms there is and say “would you just look at that!” and point an accusing finger.
Please stick to the main topic of Moncktons poor usage of words which he is not trying to defend but rather deflect. I think you are guilty of the exact same tactic, deflection, try to stay on topic, atleast with me. You can cry “just semantics” but (I hope) you know and I know it goes a bit deeper than that when it happens over and over again and far over the line of decency.
@James Baldwin Sexton: Sorry for a horrible typo, in my text body there says “chriatianity” it was suppose to say “christianity”. So sorry if it made you very very puzzled and confused -my bad.
Gary Bennett,
“Hadfield actually substantiates EVERYTHING he says.”
No, he cites things and makes an argument, but that is substantiation in science only if it is relevant and reflects the latest understanding. The peer review literature is not something you proof text like some biblical inerrantist. Hadfield was out of date and missing points all over the place. Hadfield hasn’t demonstrated understanding of the science or how to address the points Monckton is actually making. Apparently Hadfield impressed you however.
This proposed law should apply directly to pothole, scaremongering pretend climatologists, and the IPCC. It might help their cause.
[snip too much uppercase ranting ~ policy]
Gary Bennett says:
“Because such a warning is unnecessary.. Have you not SEEN Hadfield’s videos? I’ll assume you haven’t. Hadfield actually substantiates EVERYTHING he says.. Not some. Not most. EVERYTHING. Hadfield isn’t promoting any ideas of his own. Instead, he very simply puts dishonest or idiotic people on the spot and shows the errors in their assertions.“
Note: please ease down on the caps and absolutes – your passion is noted.
I have watched every one of Mr. Hadfield’s videos, and I read his response above. I’ve also read other articles and comments he’s mad elsewhere as available on the Internet – http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin//profiler?key=peter_hadfield&pt=2 . And like most people with “no formal qualifications” (I put that non-sequitor in because critics of Lord Monckton think it important) who follow the AGW debate, Mr. Hadfield is presenting the viewer his opinion on the matter – his bias, which is the same thing Lord Monckton does but far more openly about his biases.
I think it grossly naïve of the viewer to accept that Mr. Hadfield is focused on objectivity in this debate and only reports the “science.” He isn’t focused on the objectivity, and usually, that’s okay because everyone is entitled to their opinion. Where Mr. Hadfield errs is when he professors a candor in the debate yet feigns he has no bias – he’s only reporting the facts and displaying the evidence.
Don’t believe me? I’ll let Mr. Hadfield’s comments below illustrate, which are referenced from an online article by him at the “Guardian” and entitled, “How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism :
“[I] …rebut urban myths that spin round the internet and end up on the opinion pages of the Daily Express and the Wall Street Journal.” This has a Don Quixote like feel to it with Mr. Hadfield compelled to fight the dragon (urban myth) that is really a windmill (legitimate evidence). Labeling evidence used to counter a pro-AGW hypothesis an “urban myth” displays a bias, and the bias has an almost ideological component to it. Evidence by itself is neutral. That’s a red flag for an objective discussion.
“[My] …videos have been mirrored by others all over the internet, and several university lecturers have asked if they can use it in their environmental science classes.” This is argumentum ad populum – one of the many forms of fallacious reasoning employed by Mr. Hadfield. Given the videos’ appeal, Mr. Hadfield can claim success on their distribution but it doesn’t makes the assertions contained in them any more real or truthful. Again, this is a red flag for an objective discussion.
“Of course, the evidence clearly shows that the climate is changing, largely because of man-made gases. And the consequences are likely to be dire.” This is an appeal to belief – yet one more form of fallacious reasoning. This is a hypothesis (it’s not even a working, scientific theory at this point) put forth by pro-AGW researchers, which have advantageously received significant funding and ample media exposure over the years. Other researchers , though, have been unable to duplicate some of the claims of the some pro-AGW researchers, using the same “evidence.” The researchers then present a different set of consequences (which Mr. Hadfield calls “urban myths” – by the way). Once more, this is a red flag for an objective discussion.
“The result of [my] candour is that a lot of sceptics trust [my] channel, and appreciate that they are not being talked down to, or badgered or lectured. I do not call them climate ‘deniers’, which presupposes there is some irrefutable truth they are denying. But neither are they truly sceptics. They learn climate science the same way many schoolchildren learn about sex – from other kids.” Extending his analogy, I wouldn’t want to now relearn climate science from another kid, right? An from this comment I could presume that Mr. Hadfield is a career climatologist or something similar, right? Unfortunately, Mr. Hadfield is just another kid talking about sex. He is a journalist by trade – a person who writes with an audience in mind. Mr. Hadfield’s disingenuous approach here is (for me anyway) a red flag for an objective discussion – I’m certain others will overlook it.
“Spend just a few days in this bizarre world [watching FoxNews, reading the Daily Mail, visiting ‘amateur’ blogs] of disinformation and it is hard to understand how the audience could not come to the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax.” This is a bit of poisoning the well coupled with the classic straw man argument – both are forms of fallacious reasoning, which are effective at swaying opinions. Regardless of your impression on the reporting conducted by these outlets, Mr. Hadfield’s videos (and writings) represent yet one more outlet which are equally prone to “disinformation.” In fact, I highlighted three points in this thread where Mr. Hadfield’s response is essentially offering disinformation regarding Lord Monckton’s assertion. And other posters have offered up legitimate highlights, as well.
Again, this is a red flag for an objective discussion – which Mr. Hadfield asserts he offers by displaying the appropriate candor to opponents of AGW. The difference between Mr. Hadfield and Lord Monckton is that Lord Monckton readily admits his bias and then defends it. Mr. Hadfield’s candor purportedly grants him a higher moral ground from which to inform, but it certainly fails to remove the bias (and dare I say = disinformation) inherent in his videos.
All things being equal, I tend to prefer a forthright “disinformer” over a sneaky disinformer.
Mod: [snip. Different mod here. Post your comments without excessive all caps, and your post will pass moderation. As you can see in your comment here. ~dbs, mod.]
Martin Lewitt says:
February 11, 2012 at 4:20 am
[etc and so forth]
So no. You haven’t seen his videos, or you’d realize how absurd everything you just said is.
Frankly, I don’t need to watch a one of Hadfield’s videos or know the first thing about anything to come to the same conclusions about Monckton. All I’d need to do is read his statement above. When he doesn’t outright contradict something he has just said, he obfuscates something else. Unfortunately(for my sense of “faith” in humanity) and fortunately(for humor sake), I have also seen some partials and some entire “speeches” from Monckton. I’ve seen him say the complete opposite of what he claims in his response here and responses elsewhere. There is no misconstruing context, he’s clearly dishonest and on an agenda.
Hadfield brings to light things that NEED to be brought to light.. Obviously Monckton has a lot of mindless sycophants eagerly drinking his swill and using propaganda to position himself in roles(on occasion) that speak on behalf of a community(science) that in the LEAST doesn’t agree with anything he says and much more commonly KNOWS quite the opposite. Why would you listen to someone that openly campaigned to have everyone with HIV quarantined away from general pop? Even that I can kind of see a cold logic behind(although defying the US constitution), but how about when he openly claims that an Earth with NO(that would be Zero) atmosphere would only have a temp difference of 18-20 C? A person that claims to be a “Lord” and is not? A person that usurps Scientists’ conclusions and completely changes them when representing them? Even after being flat out called a liar by the scientist they are claiming to quote? . . A person that claims to have found a cure for HIV along with everything else… etc n so forth.. LOL
Sigh.. talk about emulating a biblical … inerrantist? haha.
[snip. You are a guest here. Please act like it. ~dbs, mod.]
Gary Bennett,
Of course I’ve watched Hadfield’s videos. I’ve seen him misrepresent Knutti and Hegerl. I’ve seen him present a biased list of positive and negative feedbacks and give the impression that the science has come down on the side of having clouds on the positive feedback side of the ledger. I’ve seen him misrepresent Pinker’s disagreement with Monckton’s portrayal of her results, and I’ve seen him misunderstand its implications. I’ve seen him dismiss Lindzen’s work as only covering the tropics when that is the very area where the models are correlated in having net positive feedback from the clouds. I’ve not seen him be similarly careful in assessing the sources he uses, such as Lacis and Schmidt.
Mod: by all means, show me how I acted .like.. I wasn’t a guest?
Tom Murphy says:
February 11, 2012 at 6:07 am
“Note: please ease down on the caps and absolutes – your passion is noted.”
etc
o.O Ok, let me make sure I understand you.
Let’s say I have a one of a kind, 3 ft, blue, 2″ diamater stick. Only one in the world. Someone is going around saying it is 2’11”, aqua, 4″ diameter rod. I pull up his videos making such declarations showing exactly what he says and holding it in comparison to the actual measurements… I am being “biased”? LOL I think you need to better acquaint yourself with the term. Of course, considering you refer to the other as “Lord” Monckton, I’m sure you’ve no inhibitions for the misapplication of terms.
Forget AGW for a moment. What you are doing is the same strawman fallacy as a christian in response to an atheist trying to promote the education of evolution. Just because the atheist knows your god doesn’t exist doesn’t have anything to do with correcting the fallacious arguments of creationism. Heck, I wouldn’t care if Hadfield thought the temp was going to quadruple every day for the next year and that the earth was simply going to burst into a new sun by next christmas… It wouldn’t change the fact that Monckton has evidentially DISinformed(forget misinformed when he says the complete opposite one moment to the next) his audience.
So, now that we’ve established how irrelevant “bias”(which is an inhibition to impartiality and as such doesn’t pertain to the videos portrayed since the information purveyed is not of a subjective nature) is, let’s get on to the actual substantiation of credibility you’ve offered in regards to Monckton’s assertions… Oh right.. you didn’t provide any.
Pax—–“However I will call you on evading the subject of Monckton and you defending Moncktons careless usage of words. …..-but the issue is still Moncktons poor usage of words ……… Moncktons poor usage of words.”
Yes, and one of my criticisms is that this is largely a discussion on semantics.
Pax say, “I understand you confused it with me using the BEST dataset to validate some temperatures ….”
This is exactly the language barrier we see so prevalent in this discusssion. I stated, “If you’re going to continue, you may as well just from time to time continue to link to the SkS cherry picked graph used to illustrate how its wrong to cherry pick.”
Clearly, I wasn’t talking about validating some temps….. What should have been obvious is that I was directly referring to the hypocrisy I had mentioned earlier.
Pax say, “Please understand that you make me laugh when you keep linking them 2001-2009 series over and over and also over again while saying “Look at things in their entirety”.”
I said, “Look at things in their entirety and not some video clip taken out of context.“
So, you see, we all see, you took me out of context. Now, I know this is a very hard concept, but when I stated, “Look at things in their entirety and not some video clip taken out of context” I was referring to Monckton’s presentation, not the global temp data set. I used the short temp series because that was the time frame that was referenced in both Monckton’s and Hadfield’s presentations. But, you’ve conflated that over and over again. In other words, you are attempting to do to me, exactly what many do to Monckton.
This inevitably leads me to an infernal question, are most alarmist this challenged in terms of language usage, or are they being intentionally evil and misleading?
You worry about Monckton’s word usage, but you entirely scramble mine, and then attempt to call me on your scrambled interpretations of my words. Do we all say things and then think “I could have expressed that better”? Yes, we do. Especially those of us who use the English language, because it’s common usage is limited in its expressiveness. So, when listening to a presentation or watching a video clip, its imperative that the audience not extract a snippet here or there and think that’s representative of the whole presentation. Rather, it is better to listen and try to understand the thoughts that the presenter is trying to convey.
Pax, given your garbling of what I say, be it intentional on your part or reflective of my inability to communicate to you, I’m really not interested in carrying this conversation any further. You continue to misrepresent what I say. And you’ve given no compelling reason to believe you and Hadfield and many others haven’t done exactly the same to Monckton or anyone else who may disagree with a particular perspective you hold.
Pax, if you don’t understand all or part of what I’ve just stated, please copy and paste this and email it to someone who has a better command of the requisite communication skills so that they may interpret it for you. I am of no help to you in that regard.
Gary Bennett says:
“I am being ‘biased’? LOL I think you need to better acquaint yourself with the term.”
Yes, biased as in “to show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly.” As in Mr. Hadfield shoes prejudice against Lord Monckton unfairly. How? Mr. Hadfield presents the viewer with examples in which Lord Monckton is “wrong” without noting those examples in which Lord Monckton is “right” (select whatever criteria you determine there). Mr. Hadfield is violating his self-professed commitment to candor (i.e., being open and honest in expression) as it relates to debate in that he is only showing you the side he wants you to see.
But even if I’m willing to overlook this as just his opinion (which he’s fully entitled to), Mr. Hadfield examples employ logical fallacies to support a number of his assertions that Lord Monckton is lying. I pointed out several examples of this fallacious reasoning within this thread – specifically with regard to Mr. Hadfield’s responses on Lord Monckton’s assertions on the Himalayan glaciers melting, Sir John Houghton’s quote, and Dr. Murari Lal’s knowingly including bogus “data” in FAR with regard to the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035. In each instance, Mr. Hadfield relied on false logic to demonstrate to the reader that Lord Monckton was lying.
Remember, Mr. Hadfield’ believes that environmental activists exaggerate the truth, while climate skeptics lie, “[My success at changing skeptics’ minds] …means acknowledging that while sceptics like Christopher Monckton and Martin Durkin fabricate a lot of their facts, many environmental activists tend to exaggerate theirs ,” – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/youtube-climate-change-scepticism . With this thinking (and obvious bias – by the way), Mr. Hadfield arrives at his conclusion first and then looks for the data to support it. And he finds the data to support his conclusion – just watch his videos. Unfortunately, his conclusion lacks the candor he claims it possesses because he neglects (I believe intentionally) to inform the viewer of his agenda, and that’s just sneaky and disingenuous.
“Of course, considering you refer to the other as ‘Lord’ Monckton, I’m sure you’ve no inhibitions for the misapplication of terms.”
I refer to him as “Lord” because that is what he is. A peerage attorney in the UK issued an 11-page Opinion on the matter last fall, which details the legal rights possessed by Lord Monckton as a peer – http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/lord-christopher-monckton-and-that-waste-of-time-lord-debate/ . Although it was submitted for consideration, I believe Lord Monckton has yet to receive a response on the Opinion from the Lord Speaker and chairman of the Privileges Committee.
Regardless of his titles, your highlighting the matter (along with Mr. Hadfield’s dismissal of Lord Monckton’s peerage) is yet another example of fallacious reasoning via argumentum ad hominem – discredit the messenger and you discredit the message. This being the case, I’m content to let you accept what you chose to believe, and I will do the same.
Tom Murphy says:
“With this thinking (and obvious bias – by the way), Mr. Hadfield arrives at his conclusion first and then looks for the data to support it.”
Isn’t that the absolute truth. The planet is not doing anything like what the alarmist contingent incessantly predicted for many years, so now their climbdown position is character assassination. And being possessed by psychological projection, they lie to support their character assassination. Bearing false witness used to be considered reprehensible. Now it’s just a common alarmist tactic.
And they are totally silent regarding the deceptive and mendacious Michael Mann, who makes Lord Monckton appear as honest as Mother Theresa by comparison. Hypocrites.
Smokey says:
February 11, 2012 at 11:25 am
Bearing false witness used to be considered reprehensible. Now it’s just a common alarmist tactic.
======================================================================
Yeh, but they don’t stop there. They engage in gobsmacking hypocrisy and duplicity. And when that runs afoul for them they simply remove context and conflate issues. I couldn’t help but notice that while there were several separate discussions going on all of these tactics were employed by the alarmists.
Is there some book out that instructs them in this sort of behavior?
Excellent work, potholer54. A rational and well-researched response, indeed.
Smokey and James Sexton are exactly what I was talking about earlier, in a nutshell. They will argue until they’re blue in the face that they are right and everyone else is wrong, when all they’ve offered is bloviating clap-trap, which contradicts the scientific consensus at large, with nothing but their own unsupported hypotheses to back it up. They are essentially just academic nobodies SPECULATING about a topic they’ve seemingly picked up a little information about here and there (in their free time) as thought that somehow trumps decades of research by people who’ve actually devoted their lives to it.
Of course, weighing up the likelihood of this notion and coming to the conclusion that it’s patently absurd just means you’re appealing to authority and can’t think for yourself…because apparently they, in all their glory, being the prodigious armchair scholars that they are, somehow are capable of comprehending the studies better than the people actually doing the studies. I realize now that it takes an internet expert to point out and understand things that the peer-reviewed scientists maybe just skimmed over and didn’t think of.
“humility”
Look it up.
@Smokey
click1: What does this have to do with CO2 warming in the atmosphere? Is there a published paper that follows the scientific method that goes along with those pictures or is that person just holding up a sign? What was the point of the paper? AND, to give you the benefit of the doubt that someone actually performed a legitimate experiment on plants (and I am sure many have), it’s one thing to say that we can use CO2 in a little house to grow more fruitful beneficial plants. It’s another thing to say that our entire planet and each and every important species within should have to deal with all the consequences of widespread inescapable global warming. Have you done a study on the consequences of global warming?
One question is the AGW theory, and I assume you accepted that for the sake of argument. The next question, of whether accelerated and unchecked global warming is good or not for people is something to which I have given less thought. Of course, it would be nice if we (meaning, people at large) could at least first agree that AGW is real (or not).
Click2: I don’t know what that picture is supposed to prove. For starters, what temperature measurements are those? They don’t seem like any of the standard global averages I have seen. Is there a related source study?
Click3: This is more interesting but doesn’t come close to proving global warming is beneficial. If we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, everyone has to deal with all the consequences.
**Let me (Jose_X) make clear that I am not convinced that global warming is damaging if we plan for it carefully and if it stays within certain bounds.**
However, don’t interpret this comment I just made to mean that I think you are coming close to proving (even using a weak meaning of “proving”) that CO2 overload in the atmosphere is beneficial. Note for example that the authors of the study mentioned in that news article stated as much:
> What’s more, according to the study’s authors, the accelerated growth rates of aspen could have widespread unknown ecological consequences… “We can’t forecast ecological change. It’s a complicated business,” explains Waller, a UW-Madison professor of botany. “For all we know, this could have very serious effects on slower growing plants and their ability to persist.”
Click4,5: OK. I am getting the picture you really don’t know what global warming and high CO2 in the atmosphere will bring. But thanks for letting me know that with enough money I can grow bigger vegetables in a greenhouse. Hopefully the potentially bigger and more widespread bugs, weeds, and germs will not pose a problem.
Click6: Another chart without a study! What about all the locations in this country or world not mentioned there? What were the costs? What were the reasons for the growth cited in the study? Was it greater food demand, greater government subsidies for certain crops, …. oops, there is no study attached to the picture.
Click7: Yawn. Another indecipherable piece of evidence that at most just agrees with Clicks 1, 3, 4, and 5.
Thanks for the intro to winning at the county vegetable fair, but please no more such links.
If you have proof, please provide links so we can end this debate quickly. If you simply have a good gut feeling or want to share your garden growth secrets, please classify those links as such.
>> Increased CO2 is absolutely a net benefit to the biosphere. More is better. There is no downside at current and projected concentrations.
No studies provided, just lots of faith. Good for you. I was not planning on spending much time trying to get you to switch religions, but I think you should try to see that your religion doesn’t constitute facts.
Science is not about unquestionable proofs, because no such thing exists; however, if you want to invoke “science”, at least try to formally acknowledge the scientific method in studies that address the actual question of whether widespread increases in CO2 at very fast rates by evolutionary standards is good for humans or not. Outright statements of faith are not science.
>> The BEST data set has been artificially “adjusted” to give a scary hockey stick shape. But that false adjustment has been debunked [link given].
Again, I saw no scientific study. For all I know you made up those numbers. At least if you had used a Wikipedia graph, we know it is a graph that was out in the public and where many people have had a chance to comment on it. Wikipedia also usually provides references to formal studies.
Having a gut feeling doesn’t lead to convincing arguments because usually the gut has not considered a great bunch of details.
Consider turning that picture into a formal paper and letting the public criticize it.
I will tell you that a lot of people who have studied mathematics and measurement a lot more than you likely have (rebuttal here if you think this statement is wrong) came to different conclusions than I think you are making with that picture. The BEST study was financed by a wide range of people, including some (like the “Kock Brothers” and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) with significant interests in industries that stand to see their profits harmed should more politicians take AGW seriously.
Anyway, feel free to write up a paper where you mathematically analyze the data. This way, if you do a good job, it won’t just be you and other faithful who might come to accept your conclusions.
BTW, I have noted that your tone seems to be on the argumentative side. For this reason, I figure you appreciate me also getting a little bit more so. A little spice in the right amount can work, and I know it can be very hard to keep the adrenaline in check.
@Smokey
>> “…a real-time debate would have the contestants speaking past each other.” Just as I predicted: Excuses. A debate isn’t about the debaters, it is about convincing the public. The alarmist contingent lacks verifiable facts, thus they cannot convince the public of their impending doom scenarios.
You should know that science is not a sermon. Good science takes time (not emotion) because people have to fact check.
Yes, I am giving excuses. I want good science not good sparks that prove little about the science and more about the skill of the combatants. I really don’t care about the skill of the combatants. I try not to follow skillful combatants over the cliff.
Anyway, I thought it was clear that we were talking about debating good science. For this to be done properly we need time to fact check. I don’t think any human has memorized all the papers and words that have been written on the subject, especially since either debater can just make stuff up on the spot.
Once again, I was not asking for a debate producing good sparks and bad science. I am interested in debates that help advance understanding of good science.
675 posts and counting and there’s still a forthcoming reply from Monckton.
This WordPress format makes following a long thread very difficult.
Any plans to switch to a nested or collapsible layout?
TGB says:
“…the scientific consensus at large…”
Thanx for that silliness. If Albert Einstein was starting out today he couldn’t get published in the peer reviewed litrutchur, because the “scientific consensus at large” were almost completely against his ideas. Now, onto a more rational post from Jose_X:
First off, Jose, AGW is not a “theory”. It is not even a hypothesis, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It is a conjecture [one I agree with to some degree].
Next, you ask: click1: “What does this have to do with CO2 warming in the atmosphere?”
May I remind you that it was you who asked: “Smokey, what evidence do you present that CO2 in increasing amounts in the atmosphere is good for people?” You were not asking about warming the atmosphere, or I would have provided a different response. The links I provided show conclusively that the increase in CO2 has increased agricultural productivity, so I can understand why you now want to change the question.
Next, you say: “If we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, everyone has to deal with all the consequences.” What consequences, exactly? You cannot show verifiable, falsifiable proof, per the scientific method, of global harm as a direct result of increased CO2. Therefore, more CO2 is ipso facto “harmless”.
Next, you comment that I am not “proving” something. One common thread that runs through all believers in CAGW is their dismissal of the scientific method. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove : Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit. – The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. As to the conjecture that CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is causing “unprecedented” global warming: the onus lies on those who say so. As to the proposition that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures due directly to human carbon dioxide emissions: the onus lies on those who make that claim. They have failed to make a credible case.
It is the purveyors of the AGW conjecture who have made assertions and predictions. Their predictions have failed, and AGW is not testable or falsifiable, so it is a conjecture; an opinion; an assertion. It is the job of skeptics [and honest scientists who accept the AGW conjecture] to try to shoot holes in it. That is the scientific method in action. But as we repeatedly see, the beleivers in CAGW and AGW universally ignore the scientific method. That’s not science, that is anti-science.
You keep saying things like “If you have proof, please provide links so we can end this debate quickly.” The onus, my friend, is entirely on you to provide proof.
I’m skipping the rest of your post because you are a true believer. There is nothing I could cite that would convince you that CO2 is harmless and beneficial – as is a warmer planet. Your mind is made up and closed tight. Sorry for that. I used to be a CAGW believer too. But there is no verifiable evidence of any global harm being caused by CO2, but there is plenty of evidence showing major benefits. So I gradually changed my mind.
But I will answer your last comment regarding debates: “You should know that science is not a sermon.” I never claimed it was. But you should ask yourself why all the debates are won by the skeptic side. And they are; that’s why climate alarmists will no longer agree to a fair debate, with rules and a moderator chosen by mutual agreement, held in a neutral venue in front of a randomly selected audience. Debates in that setting expose charlatans, and separate verifiable facts from opinion. After losing his debate, Gavin Schmidt blamed his loss on the fact that he was shorter than his opponent! As if. He lost because he couldn’t produce verifiable facts. And that is why the public is starting to question the incessant doomsday predictions by the self-serving climate alarmist crowd.
[James Sexton] >> While I enjoy a rancorous dialogue at times, there is a point when it becomes too tedious to maintain.
Tell me about it. This is why I decided to take a break and will continue to take breaks.
There is frustration by lots of people on all sides of this global discussion.
>> But, I thought I could help you in your quest for a good link to data.
>> Most of the graphs I’ve offered are of not my making… sort of, but the come from this site. http://www.woodfortrees.org …. There is a donate button ….
I thought about asking since I did play with it a tiny bit before. Thanks for pointing out the features and the background story.
>> When I was speaking of the logarithmic effect of CO2, I was discussing the decline of its effect.
The math I showed (if I understand what I did) does show that the logarithmic effect of CO2 is increasing over time. If you want to glance back, look for the “Version 2” section. The equations at the beginning of that short section mostly just come from the Version 1 section.
>> Where the thought is each doubling would be equal to the effect of the prior doubling of CO2. Diminishing returns, if you will
There is diminishing returns effect, yes, but the amount of extra CO2 increasing in the atmosphere makes up for it.
I’ll try to explain the math..
Version 3:
An analogy would be the Stefan Boltzmann formula. There is diminishing returns on adding new power flux from the point of view of the increases in temperature; however, if we were to add enough power at each step, that would make up for the diminishing returns effect.
To quantify this a bit, let’s consider a simpler polynomial formula, y=x^2.
When y=16 and x=4, we need to add 9 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
When y=25 and x=5, we need to add 11 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
When y=36 and x=6, we need to add 13 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
…
When y=400 and x=20, we need to add 41 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
This is a diminishing returns effect because to get x to go up by 1 we have to keep adding a little bit more each time (9, 11, 13, …).
Now, let’s look at a function that is exponential, like y=2^x.
When y=16 and x=4, we need to add 16 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
When y=32 and x=5, we need to add 32 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
When y=64 and x=6, we need to add 64 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
…
When y=1048576 and x=20, we need to add 1048576 more units to y for x to go up by 1.
We see two cases of diminishing returns but where one clearly is much more diminishing in return than is the other.
Now, I expressed the second case as an exponential, but by simply reversing the perspective we have a logarithm.
For example:
x=log(base2)y
When y=16, to see x go up by 1, we need to increase y by 16. etc.
It’s the same thing as above because I was always focused on seeing the “x” go up by 1. Simple algebra converts between the exponential form and the logarithmic form.
OK, now how do we get from this “doubling” consideration to something like 3.5%, 5%, 19.5%, etc?
The first part of the answer is that x goes up by the same amount every time y increases by 3.5%. I’ll use “lg” to designate log(base2) and use the logarithm form.
Ex. 1:
x=10=lg(1024)
Adding 3.5% to y gives:
x=10.05=lg(1060)
so we see that x went up by .05
Let’s repeat, adding 3.5% more to y:
x=10.10=lg(1097)
we see that x went up by another .05.
The next part of the answer is what we just saw. Every time we multiply y by a given fraction (eg, 1.035, aka, 3.5% gain), x goes up by the same amount (eg, 0.05).
The final part of the answer is that the larger the fraction that y goes up, the larger the amount x goes up. We can verify that each 5% gain by y adds .07 to x and every 19.5% gain by y adds .257 to x.
From this mathematical result we see that over the years the increasing rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere (eg, 3.5%, 5%, 19.5%) has been adding an increasing amount to the temperature. [at least according to Arrhenius log relationship]
FWIW, I’ll quote wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
> if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
And we observe in nature today that the quantity of “carbonic acid” has been increasing faster than in geometric progression, allegedly then leading to temperature increases faster than in arithmetic progression.
More clearly, the above predicts that the warming effect by CO2 would have been more pronounced in more recent years not in earlier years. This predicted relationship is consistent with the link I provided showing temperatures more noticeably deviating upwards relative to the solar irradiance in the second half of the 20th century.
In other words, this logarithmic claim, which clearly is an important part of the climate physics models used widely, is consistent with the temperature effects we have witnessed… at least to the extent that solar radiation is the most important “forcing” and so should largely dominate the movement of temperatures.
Smokey, I just started reading your response.
If we accept AGW for argument’s sake, then increasing CO2 will be followed with increases in temperature. So to address one is to address both and every other possible result that comes from that.
My point is that extra CO2 may help a plant grow, but CO2 everywhere will have many effects, and I was asking if the net effect would be beneficial or not.
It should be clear that this question won’t be answered definitively and the answer won’t be the same for all humans, so really I was interested in having you agree that such a claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial is a rather ambitious and ambiguous statement.
True, I agree that many AGW supporters will say things like the opposite (predicting that CO2 will necessarily hurt), so I guess I was just asking for us here to focus on various evidences (and relax) instead of sticking to the respective war cry. 🙂
>> But you should ask yourself why all the debates are won by the skeptic side.
As per what I said, and assuming you are correct, I would say that the skeptic side then has the better debaters. If the forum doesn’t test the quality of the science (as I tried to explain.. and contrasted with a forum such as non-real time online debate), then the results of the debate won’t really demonstrate which science is better.. it will demonstrate who can get more votes from that particular audience voting at that point in time.
>> He lost because he couldn’t produce verifiable facts.
You mean he couldn’t produce them on the spot? Bud did Monckton? How do we know then and there that whatever Monckton said is legit? How do we know that the papers he cites are reasonable and not loaded with mathematical or other errors or draw unsupported conclusions?
Most people can’t determine that on the spot.. which is why climate scientists much prefer non-realtime debates. Claimed facts need to be researched (and possibly experiments conducted) in order to form a good opinion. At least that is how science works.
>> But there is no verifiable evidence of any global harm being caused by CO2, but there is plenty of evidence showing major benefits.
Statistics cited by some AGW proponents do show that the weather has seen more out of normal patterns recently. Some would call this evidence.
What would you consider to be the “major benefits” from widespread CO2 increases and what evidence are you putting forth? .. Wait, don’t answer if you are going to present another garden. I am talking about global CO2 increases, not increases in a greenhouse or lab.
>> The onus, my friend, is entirely on you to provide proof.
A debate can end quickly if *either* side can provide decent evidence.
>> It is the purveyors of the AGW conjecture who have made assertions and predictions.
When you say more CO2 is necessarily beneficial (within certain bounds you didn’t exactly quantify), then you too are making an assertion that requires evidence.
As for predictions, if this article http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-ipcc-far.html is correct, the model used in 1990 was a rather decent one across a span of 100 years, once we fill in the correct values for events that were not claimed to be forseeable (eg, the rate at which fossil fuel is burned in the future). Specifically, see this graphics http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCC_FAR_Since_1880.png from that page. [I don’t know the confidence level of the area within the light blue boundary lines.]
Now, as a model shows itself to be decent (and the more current models should be more accurate), that is a trail of evidence it is leaving behind and that is the sort of evidence that tends to convince people that the issue is likely real and the further out predictions might actually be realized.
I agree that we really can’t tell in the near term. It’s a judgement call to be made by people who write laws and by private citizens who take individual actions and who vote.
What model do you have that concludes that the future is rosy? Is your model simply qualitative? What does it offer that I can test?
>> Their predictions have failed
See prior point, and, if you disagree, please show me the details of how that model, when we add the correct values for unpredictable variables (like rise in CO2), fails. [Don’t ask me for too much help here because I have not verified what that article claims since I don’t really know what the 1990 model was.]
>> AGW is not testable or falsifiable
No comment on this technical question since I don’t know exactly what “AGW” comprises formally.
>> The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies
The temperature predictions are a claim, and they can be verified to a fair degree of confidence. How much CO2 man releases is something that can be quantified to a decent approximation. Ditto for how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, etc. [What evidence is believable is in the eye of the beholder.. although I am assuming you or at least many who read this are here in good faith.]
As for benefits or not is a more complex question and is one I know less about. I am not interested in debating that question here. I already stated I think it is a tough question and want to focus first on what the temp and some other climate measurements might be like in the future.
Anyway, when you say CO2 is good, that is a claim, and all claims require some amount of evidence in order to be convincing to a large number of people.
>> As to the conjecture that CO2 produced by human combustion of fossil fuels is causing “unprecedented” global warming…
I agree that the “unprecedented” part requires extra evidence.
I am not convinced Mann’s approach is sound. I think, mathematically, his approach works if the proxy series that pass the statistically significant test he used have errors in them in a relatively homongenous fashion.
McIntyre I think pointed out that red noise causes false positives and, not having tested that out with computer program or full mathematical development, I am still inclined to agree with him. But I don’t think anyone has considered just how reasonable were the proxy series that passed Mann’s test. They certainly weren’t red noise.
Conclusion (in my mind from what little I have read), Mann did not make his case, but his results likely aren’t too far off. In my mind, this means the question of MWP being warmer or not (“unprecedented” question) was not answered.
>> As to the proposition that there has been an alarming late 20th century spike in global temperatures due directly to human carbon dioxide emissions …
Much of the physics surrounding the CO2 greenhouse effect contribution is likely sound (my opinion, of course.. and we can dive into that bit by bit if you want).
The “alarming” part is a subjective call and is affected by context (eg, if the rise in temp would be hazardous.. aka, the difficult question from above).
>> What consequences, exactly? You cannot show verifiable, falsifiable proof, per the scientific method, of global harm as a direct result of increased CO2. Therefore, more CO2 is ipso facto “harmless”.
I disagree that not proving harm implies harm doesn’t exist. Quoting dead folks from antiquity doesn’t convince me. I am surprised you would believe this.
BTW, science and policies move without anything near 100% agreement being in place. Businesses and households make decisions without 100% understanding of risks and benefits. People enter relationships and walk out into the street without knowing all the risks and benefits. That is how reality works. No human can quantify those values.. at least I don’t expect to be convinced ever that anyone ever can know that much.