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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rational Db8:
>> I’m sorry, Jose, you cannot just loosely redefine the meaning of terms that are being used scientifically or mathematically.
What is the definition? You haven’t given a definition. I pointed you to a wikipedia page so that we have at least something. I am and have been all ears. Ball in your court.
>> I believe it is easy enough for you to find plenty of exponential curve fits to the CO2 changes over time
So you think it is easy for me to do it, but you won’t do it yourself after I ask you. I’ll ask again. Why don’t you show me how to do it?
>> It is therefore up to you to show that an exponential curve cannot be fit to the existing data.
Up to me? You can’t do it apparently. I said I can’t. You really have a weird idea about burden of proof and logic. You don’t just snap your fingers and claim something can be done. I am asking for one exponential curve that fits the CO2 rise data. I would like to see (a) a reasoned mathematical proof that shows it can’t be or that it can be OR (b) else a sample point to prove it can be. The burden of proof is with the person who says something can be done when we currently have 0 samples of it having been done.
>> There is no need for your ‘error bars’ or anything else
Good. Don’t use any error bars. I hope you realize you have made your task impossible now, but I am interested in seeing what you come up with because it’s becoming clearer that we are not communicating clearly. Once I know what your idea is of an exponential curve that fits the data, I have a better idea of why we are disagreeing.
I’ll repeat. I really want you to teach me. Don’t turn me down again, please.
Also, please link or quote a definition of exponential, so we can finally get onto the same page.
>> You’re never acidifying a solution, [nor are you making it more acidic], until or unless you are adding sufficient acid .. But you’re never acidifying a solution so long as it will remain [at, or] above, a pH of 7.0.
Thanks for the discussion. I wholeheartedly agree that precise definitions can become important depending on the discourse. My goal is to improve my level of communication without first going out and memorizing the dictionary and reading 1000s of books, so I am more than willing to be given a preferred definition and then work off that.
I was addressing the idea that making something less basic (less alkaline) towards neutral 7 pH does not imply a good thing is happening, even though the term “neutralizing” is used. We don’t want blood level at 7.0 pH.
I did look up “acidifying”. It appears this word and variations of it can be used within context to signifying something moving downwards in the pH scale (or upward in the pOH scale).
Eg1, http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/acidity.htm . “Acidity is a somewhat loose term indicating that the blood, or one or more of the secretions, is less alkaline than it should be.”
Eg2, as this page makes clear http://www.womentowomen.com/digestionandgihealth/acidalkalinefoodchart.aspx , the term acidifying and alkalizing is being used to describe a property of what amounts to an acid or base being delivered rather than necessarily to describe a property of the final solution state.
So, adding an acid to the ocean is the reasoning behind using the term acidification. This usage wasn’t invented today on this forum and appears to be widely used within context (eg, “ocean acidification”)
To get back, if you really don’t like the use of that word this way, then let me know so and what you propose as an alternative. I know that it can be very annoying to have people misuse words that form a part of your regular vocabulary or is a word you have known for a long time and hate its awkward usage. ..annoying at least until you get used to it. [For the time being, I’ll continue to use the word under similar contexts.]
Rational Db8:
It still seems you are hung up on the “faster than exponential” phrase. Look up that phrase in quotes and you will see many entries.
OK, I’ll help, using http://www.biology.arizona.edu/biomath/tutorials/Log/Logscale.html
> However, if you plot the data on the log-linear scale, your eye can detect if the data falls in a straight line. A visual inspection of the graph will tell you the following
> If the population is growing exponentially, you will see a straight line.
> If the growth is slower than exponential, the curve will be concave down.
> if the growth is faster than exponential, the curve will be concave up.
I hope this makes it clearer what I mean by “faster than exponential”.
If you want to ignore error bars and find a curve to fit the CO2 data, be my guest, but I’ll warn you again that without error bars I think you are more likely to climb Mt Everest and send us a postcard than you are to find a description of a continuous curve to fit the path CO2 has taken (at least to the degree that all known measured points would pass through your curve).
Again good luck.
Smoky writes:
>> Jose_X is either trolling or insane. My view is that he is insane. He opines:
>> “wait wait, it seems Dyson has never been awarded a Nobel Prize.” ….
Rational Db8 writes:
>> And who ever claimed that there weren’t any Nobel Prize winners who support AGW? Heck, Obama and Gore both immediately come to mind on that count. So what is the possible point in this entire digression of yours?
>> > Rats, but there probably are others. Without a Nobel Prize, the argument has NOTHINGK! HAAAAA.
>> Other than this joke, which did get a grin out of me. (Col. Klink strikes again!!)
Ah, my sarcasm skills have failed me again!! The whole diversion into Nobel Prize territory in that comment I wrote was a diversion.
I should have thought of this earlier http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/book98/fig.ch3/p060.html
Never send a man to do a computer’s job.
Ok, Smokey, Rational Db8 and others.
If you’re happy with that petition and it’s inherent flaws, it’s fine by me. Just as I don’t mind you backing Monckton in each and every of his claims.
But I’d rather you wouldn’t call yourselves rational or skeptics because while you are prone to repeating old and often outdated if not factually wrong anti-ACC memes (Hockeystick, climategate, etc…) you apparently can’t adress reasonable criticism of what you deem acceptable (Monckton, the Oregon Petition, …)
If you want to discuss the petition, please adress my points:
– A petition is only a matter of opinion
– Only 3,805 of the responders hold “earth science” degrees
– I couldn’t find the number of person who didn’t repsond to it, but about 10.6 million people would qualify to sign this petition in the U.S…
Not to mention that actual studies have been conducted showing some sort of consensus on climate change:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Is suyts the same as James Sexton?
>> I showed 50 years and I showed 70 consecutive years of increasing atmospheric CO2 and no increase in temps!
Would you care to repeat which graph that was you were looking at for 50 and for 70 years?
You do realize (please say yes) that there are multiple factors that go into determining temperature, and at any given point in time a further increase in CO2 can get negated several times over. In signals analysis, you see this all the time.
Of course, I think you go against most accepted science including Lindzen and what most people believe. …wait, I am getting ahead of myself making too many assumptions in this reply. I don’t even know if suyts has posted here before, so I’ll wait for a graph first.
>> It is about the deep seeded belief that man is an aberration of nature and not a part of nature; that man is destructive towards nature. Therefore, anything that works towards the benefit of humanity must be destructive towards nature. Man caused CO2 production is a proxy for human advancement and prosperity. And, that my friend, it what this is about. There’s a word for this, it is commonly known as misanthropy.
You have heard of the word “moderation” before and how lack of it can hurt, kill (you name it), so why are you making these categorical claims?
>> This will probably be my last time checking back here.
Just my luck.
OK. Till next time.
Rational Db8>> try a little prioritization – when present conditions such as cancer, malaria, starvation, etc., are killing millions each year, and ‘anthropogenic global warming,’ after 30 some odd decades of heavily funded research cannot even get past the null hypothesis of natural variability
As I already mentioned, there are many cases where you can’t repeat an experiment, just look at any trial in court.. we have to weigh evidence and make decisions best we can off things that may or may not have happened. People do this all the time in their daily home and work lives. This is the nature of the beast when we want to consider certain questions. There is science being done to help us better tackle these questions.
And if you can’t repeat the experiment and falsifying data is not forthcoming, then falsifiability might also have a hard time being met.
What do you propose for falsifiability? Without even knowing the exact hypothesis in play (can you point to the papers that include this AGW hypothesis?), I imagine we would have to shut down all human CO2 production to perhaps maybe get an idea about falsifiability. Are you proposing we do that? Are you proposing we shut down all CO2 for 30 years to measure results and then… of course not. And that experiment would have too many variables anyway.
In any case, the best we can do is build models that hopefully can predict.. and then see what the models say (if the models appear to do a reasonable job). That is the game the scientists (regardless of their position on this topic) are playing. People arguing we should not be performing any experiments anyway are not going to be very convincing. Most people, I think, want to let this battle keep playing itself out among the scientists doing science.
>> ..or advocating other or shifted areas of research doesn’t begin to equate with advocating taking action on the issue
You misunderstood me. I didn’t mean (or say) he appears to want us to assume “AGW” and “take action”. What I said is that he appears to want us to do more and “proper” research that is focused differently. I think we agree on that point; however, just in case, let me quote how he ended the interview clip:
“What should happen is.. in the next few years.. is we should have similar measurements in 100 different places. Then we should begin to note what is going on on the global scale. But until now, we don’t have it. Until we have that sort of information, it makes very little sense to believe the output of the climate models.”
So he appears to be for further research, stating his view that we don’t know enough.
As further comment on his interview:
I would view the approach he wants us to take (measuring CO2 above vegetation) as offering an independent estimate of CO2 origin levels. We already have other means to estimate sources of CO2. If people want to spend the money there, more types of experiments would help strengthen our estimates.
Also, he said that the plants control the atmosphere and not vice-versa. I think each plays off each other. It is not nearly as one-sided as he claimed there. I think Smokey the gardener would agree with me on this :-).
And of course, the plants are not burning fossil fuels. We have estimates for how much fossil fuel we are burning. We have estimates for what is going into the oceans. In the end, the “land” gets attributed everything we can’t otherwise quantify. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hall_03/
>> and yet thus far they’ve been unable to gain anywhere near the number of comparable pro-AGW signatories.
I don’t think they are spending their time or money to the same degree trying to spread the word and get signatures. I really think they could muster a very large number of supporters if they had a weak hand scientifically speaking and needed to pad the climate science resume. There are mistakes, but they have the abundance of research on their side. [Which “side” is this again? OK, let me read the petition text.]
The petition is just an opinion piece. It makes some statements of facts that I think zero of the signatories could prove if asked.
One such statement reads: “The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
A null hypothesis for the above (hypothesis) might be: the proposed limits have no bearing whatsoever on either the environment, the advance of science and technology, or the health and welfare of mankind.
Yes, I think currently the evidence most strongly supports current climate models over competing physical models. I don’t think there is a set of equations (a model) from a skeptic group that does as good of a job at hindcasting past temperatures as the climate models do. [BTW, once you have your equations, feel free to use a computer to save you some pencil led and finger punching on a common calculator.]
I am not swearing by these climate models, generally. In fact, I am skeptical (and largely ignorant of the details) of the precision in the methods (tree ring or any other) used to estimate past temperatures. This is one reason why I don’t worry too much about MWP estimates of temps.
Yes, I am not convinced we are very near or above human record temp highs, but I do worry about ghg effect potential.
>> Are you a fantasy book writer? Because you are making up supposed problems here as if they had any basis in reality
18 proxies does not appear to me to be a large number of proxies. That is what I meant. What steps were taken to show that these 18 are representative?
>> I’m sorry, I haven’t got a clue what you mean by this, nor where you think is ‘where it really counts,’ if open letters directly to the United Nations and the USA Senate aren’t ‘where it counts.’
OK, I wasn’t clear. 700 is about 2% of 2^15 letters. The point being that it is much easier to submit a letter to a no one saying whatever you want it to say, than it is to put your signature on something being given to Congress to also be put in the public record.
Rational Db8 >>I suggest you read up a bit more on who’s doing the cherry picking. Here’s a small start: http://climateaudit.org/2005/06/02/mbh98-proxies/
In case anyone cares, I just posted two comments to that link. See for example, http://climateaudit.org/2005/06/02/mbh98-proxies/#comment-324437.
This second comment reads in part:
*****
A) I agree there can be serious problems,
B) but I think the “general” methodology is workable. I disagree with this blog posting (if it says) that it is generally a bad idea to use a criteria to filter proxy data and to give some sort of weight to proxies for use in reconstruction.
C) I have no comment on the precise details of what Mann did because I have not read or studied the relevant papers and source code.
*****
>> You seem to have this very strange penchant of acknowledging that you haven’t read the research paper or studied relevant aspects of it, or don’t understand xyz, or haven’t dealt with the math or science involved… then you plow right on to make various definitive statements about how those papers are in error or the facts or science or what-have-you are thus and such contrary to whatever the skeptic’s view might be.
I have opinions because I have read some of whatever it is I am talking about (or have other experiences that can help me).
If you have a specific problem with what I write, please comment specifically on the particular point I tried to make. I can’t reply very meaningfully to generalities such as this comment above.
As you can see in the second comment (see quote above) I just wrote at the climateaudit page you referenced earlier, I can certainly give an opinion because I have an idea of the topic. But it is also true I have not read the details. I like disclosing that I am working off a fair amount of ignorance of the details of a paper I am “critiquing” when that is the case, as it gives a better idea of where my response is coming from. If you know your audience (ie, if you know me), then you are more likely to understand and reply to the audience meaningfully.
Is it completely useless to give an opinion on something whose details you haven’t digested yet?
Please allow me to vent on proxies for a moment.
I asked if the 18 proxy samples might not be representative because I know it is very possible they wouldn’t be.
First example: I read the joannenova/wuwt link provided about the WMP and the magic tree that completely skewed the results and was not a representative sample (this is of a pro-AGW paper) http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_portoportugal.php .
Second example: Going to the co2science.org site, I looked at summaries of different papers. In there you find some examples such as these:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_portoportugal.php Here we see that the 1940s are marked much higher than current decades. We find the 19th century reaching much higher average temps than the 20th century. These results are very inconsistent with our best estimates of temperatures over the past 150 years. There is a problem with this proxy. The proxy appears to be biased upwards the further back in time one goes. I would not consider this to be representative. I don’t trust proxies over thermometers and satellites even though these have their imperfections. I trust the BEST analysis much more than any given proxy, eg, such as this one. Did any of the 18 look like this?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l3_azorespico.php If this proxy is used, then we have the same problems as the first. The middle of the 19th century has a value much higher than anything in the 20th century. Was something like this used for the 18 proxies?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_capblanc.php This proxy is missing the 20th century information. If we add this piece based on the .8 C value rise experienced to today, then we find that we are currently near the peak of any temperature of the past 3 thousand years, except a little less than the WMP peak in this proxy. If this proxy were used, would the last point have been added in by hand?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_lagunaaculeo.php This one is also missing lots of the rise from the last 50 years. If this missing info were added by hand, it would put current temps on par with (and likely above) any high temp we have experienced so far in over 1000 years. If this proxy was used, was the last 50 year period added by hand? It makes a big difference if not.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_bermudarise.php Contrast this with those above. The 19th, 18th, and 17th centuries are clearly below the 20th century or today. Clearly something is wrong if this serves as a proxy as well as one of the first two. Was this used in the 18?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_fenidrift.php This one has the general LIA time period above the temp in “1900”. And the coldest point in the past 1000 years was only slightly colder than 1900. Was this used as a proxy?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pigmybasin.php Going backwards, this one has a jump from less than 22.5C to almost 27C in what appears to be 10 to 20 year time period about 1000 years ago. I truly get the feeling there is an artificial “discontinuity” there of some sort. Was this used for a proxy?
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_pigmybasintex.php This states the WMP peak was almost 1 C less than our current temps. What a contrast to most of the above! What kind of significance should we give to this? How can both this and most of the above each be accurate proxies?
How about absolutely fresh study that also says WMP was cooler than today http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate_And_Pollen.html ? How can this be accurate as well as those above?
Do people understand why I do not give too much worth to temp proxies prior to the 1850 date? I use them as a guide, but it seems nonsense to worry about absolute maximums amid this chaos.
Whether we are at a max of the last few thousand years or not is almost irrelevant to the fact CO2 poses a reasonable question about future temperatures. If we have drivers/forcings that cycle naturally, we will eventually return to the WMP or any other high temp period. Once that happens ghg effect will be there (assuming WMP was otherwise similar to today in most respects).
So I care about the details of ghg warming effect. The proxies of the past.. not so much.
And I can understand why someone (eg, Mann) would want to first test the likely validity of any candidate proxy by comparing with the current and last century. Just look at the mess above! You have to have some criteria for finding something reasonable among all the weeds. [I understand Mann’s methodology is likely flawed to some degree and renders his graphs (and I am not even looking at the EKG flatline from 1998) untrustworthy and very likely biased to some degree towards hockeystickness.]
There was a remark about how Wikipedia is not trustworthy when it comes to Climate Science.
Well, when push comes to shove and people fight in the talk sections or re-edit pages ad nauseum, there are a number of rules that will determine the “winner”. One of these rules is that Wikipedia does not create original content. Another is that Wikipedia does not judge primary sources either. Why is this important in the context of Climate Science?
Because the vast majority of “important” bodies, scientific or political, around the world recognize AGW to various extents. It is not Wikipedia’s fault that this is the case, for better or worse. If Wikipedia sticks to their rules, they will not give undo emphasis to any anti-AGW views, except in some cases, depending on context.
The discussion that was linked above talking about this issue and condemning largely two individuals did not list specific cases (or I missed it as I skimmed the story). Without specific cases, it’s hard for me to assume Wikipedia was doing anything but sticking to their rules.
Lord Monckton claims of being a former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher are at odds with John Gummer’s recollections as reported in an interview on Radio National in Australila on Monday 8.10 am 21 March 2011.
Fran Kelly: “John Gummer has been a Conservative Party MP in Britain for 35 years, serving as Cabinet Minister for Agriculture and Environment under Margaret Thatcher and John Major.”
John Gummer: “Well, Lord Monkton isn’t taken seriously by anybody. I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher’s office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he’s not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come here. Mrs Thatcher used to have the best scientists in the world in and she would nail them to the wall as she argued with them, because she was a scientist. And, like me, she didn’t want to believe in climate change, it’s the science makes it absolutely impossible not to believe that this is the most likely interpretation of what facts, which are becoming more and more clear.”
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/british-mp-calls-for-a-carbon-tax/3014168
suyts says:
February 14, 2012 at 7:57 am
It is a seven year cooling which has happened 6 times over the last 40 years, it is not significant. I went through every one of your comments and feel sorry for, trying to debate something you know nothing about, not even watching the videos on Monckton.
You must not be a normal person then, ever heard of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or the fact solar forcing has been the main driver of climate for the last 11000 years up until 1970. These and many other factors have to be considered when determining how much CO2 is increasing temperatures. Like I said, you are laughable and we can all see why you are not on the petition, but you should be, they won’t check your education, you think they are going to ask for an academic transcript.
You are the one that hates yourself, you haven’t got enough education to debate and you hate it, making crap up left right and centre and when it comes down to it you claim the debate is about misanthropy.
You say you had so much spam on your website you had to delete everyone’s comments LOL yeah right, you just got your uneducated joke conclusions ridiculed and could not handle it.
Smokey says:
February 14, 2012 at 4:44 am
George Montgomery,
Care to explain how that Gummer jamoke was privy to every conversation between Lord Monckton and Mrs Thatcher? Or maybe he had ESP; a mind reader. Or, maybe he’s trying, like you are, to demonize an effective voice that debunks the CAGW nonsense.
Gummer claims that he knows everybody, since he states that Lord Monkton isn’t taken seriously by “anybody”. Quite the contrary, there are endless comments in this thread alone, many by CAGW believers who take Lord Monckton so seriously that they do their best to demonize him by character assassination and Alinsky tactics. If Lord Monckton didn’t matter, they would simply ignore him, no? But he knows his science, and he routinely mops the floor with them in debates, and he is widely quoted in the media. So they certainly do take him seriously; he is a direct threat to their scare story, to their gravy train, and to their belief system. But Mr Gummer? How can anyone take that clown seriously?
Finally, I note that your link was about some petty jackass pushing for a “carbon” tax. Incredible. With every last alarmist prediction an abject failure, they still want to tax ordinary citizens over a fake, contrived scare. Shameless.
. . .
Jose_X says:
“The whole diversion into Nobel Prize territory in that comment I wrote was a diversion”. Actually, everything you write appears to be a diversion. And what is this “WMP” you keep wasting pixels on? You should pray to dog for a cure for dyslexia.
On the plus side, thanx for working so diligently to increase the traffic on WUWT. Almost 800 comments on this thread alone, and plenty of them are yours. You will probably singlehandedly prompt Big Oil to send Anthony a bonus check this quarter.
. . .
minor9985 says:
“…the fact solar forcing has been the main driver of climate for the last 11000 years up until 1970.” Did that happen in March or April of 1970? I forget which month it was. But I remember that it was the first of the month.
And you say to a very reasonable commentator:
“You must not be a normal person then…” “…you are laughable…” “…trying to debate something you know nothing about…” “You are the one that hates yourself, you haven’t got enough education to debate…” “LOL yeah right, you just got your uneducated joke conclusions ridiculed and could not handle it.” And so on.
For some reason, I think major9985 doesn’t have many friends. And what he writes is either psychological projection, or pure anti-science [eg, see his 1970 comment above]. But who am I to argue with a “postgrad in Climate Adaption”? ☺
minor9985,
There is zero credible, verifiable significance to the year 1970. Where do you get that nonsense? You claim that for 11,000 years everything was natural variability, and then in 1970 everything switched to unnatural variability??
And how many times do I have to repeat my own view regarding the effect of beneficial CO2? For the umpteenth time: I think that essential CO2 will cause ≈1°C warming per doubling, ± ≈0.5°C. But I could be erring on the high side, since the planet has not warmed for many years, while beneficial CO2 – an airborne plant food essential to all life on earth – keeps rising. Good. The biosphere needs more CO2. It is greening the planet.
Smokey,
You’ve missed my point. I didn’t say Lord Monckton wasn’t Margaret Thatcher’s science advisor, John Gummer did.
But, I’ve looked farther, and it would appear that a number of others in Margaret’s policy unit have churlishly not recognised Lord Monckton’s contribution. An article in The Guardian Tuesday 22 March 2010 11.42 BST by Bob Ward deals with the same issue as he writes:
“On page 640 of her 1993 autobiography Margaret Thatcher: The Downing Street Years, the former prime minister describes how she grappled with the issue of climate change, referring only to “George Guise, who advised me on science in the policy unit”. Indeed, given Monckton’s crucial role, it seems to be heartless ingratitude from the Iron Lady that she does not find room to mention him anywhere in the 914-page volume on crucial role, on her years as prime minister.”
Ward writes more in his article:
“It is perhaps surprising that this novel and important innovation by Viscount Monckton was not recognised by the current minister for science and universities, David Willets, who was also a member of the prime minister’s policy unit between 1984 and 1986. In 1986, “Two Brains” wrote a prize-winning essay on the role of the unit, but mysteriously omitted to mention Lord Monckton’s historic contribution.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-sceptic-monckton
So I checked farther and on the Oxford International Biomedical Centre, George Guise is listed as a trustee and has the temerity to describe himself as “formerly science advisor to prime minister Margaret Thatcher”.
http://www.oibc.org.uk/trustees.html
I’m hoping that the truth will come out in Margaret Thatcher’s Prime Ministerial Files as they are released and posted on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation Website. Currently the files are up to the year 1981 but alas my search for Lord Monckton, Christopher Walter, etc. comes up a blank. The files for 1982 comes out this year and hopefully we can clear up the scientific advisor issue once and for all. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/ and http://www.margaretthatcher.org/search/search.asp .
A fine riposte, with lotsa good points.
But a single glaring repeated error:
It’s “consensus”, not “concensus”. Honest.
😉
;p
4 some reason another version of the above second para got snipped above, with the difference being that I had jocularly substituted a “k” for the second “c” to emphasize the pronunciation. Let’s see if removing that egregious offense (?) passes muster.
😀
Smokey
Unlike Lord Monckton, John Gummer, now Lord Deben is an actual member of the House of Lord. Unlike Monckton who inherited his title Gummer earned his for his work in the government’s of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Unlike Lord Monckton Gummer was a member of the privy council and sat in cabinet. He held the position s of Secretary of State for the Environment and Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He was also Chaiman of the Conservative Party for two years. By contrast Monckton held no political office and was a mere gofer. If Gummer says “… the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable” you should take it seriously.
I am endlessly amused at how you and others on here cling on to your die-hard loyalty to a man who is, not to put too fine a point on it a fantastist and in the UK treated as a complete joke by just about everybody but a few loonies on the fringes. He claims to be a member of the House of Lords. He isn’t. He claims to have invented a medicine that cures multiple diseases including cancer and AIDS. He hasn’t. He claims he was a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher he wasn’t. He claims to have written peer-reviewed scientific papers. He hasn’t. And he claims to know what he’s talking about regarding climate Science. He doesn’t. Whether or not AGW is real or not Monckton is the least person you should be calling upon from your side of the argument. The sooner you, Antony and other “skeptics” disowned him the better, not for the “warmists” but for you.
Smokey says:
February 14, 2012 at 8:37 pm
E. Friis-Christensen and K.Lassen work showed that Sun activity correlates to temperature up until the late 70s http://tinyurl.com/858hos2 after this time CO2 became one of the major drivers of temperature increase. I say one of the major drivers, because science is not as gullible as some smokey… They wanted to find what other factors could be driving this increase in temperature and saw that the urban heat island effect was also a factor http://tinyurl.com/7fxtevs This temperature correlation with Sun activity has been shown over the last 11000 years http://tinyurl.com/7cke25x and can explain the resent lull in temperatures due to the Solar Cyclie being at its minimum, but it is moving into its maximum soon http://tinyurl.com/7fly5zp You can see in the graph around 1998 was during its maximum which corresponds to the huge El Nino warming, this is the same deal now with the minimum causing La Nina cooling http://tinyurl.com/6mlhbon There is also things that have a cooling effect which have to be consider like volcanic eruptions http://tinyurl.com/886ptzu All of this has to be taken into consideration when you look at a temperature graph. I hope the next time you plaster the comment section with your graphs you will have a bit more respect for what they actually mean.
George Montgomery,
My apologies. I didn’t realize you were also a mind reader. Perhaps Mrs Thatcher can recall [if Mr Alzheimer hasn’t taken her over yet]. I am endlessly amused at how you and others here cling to your die-hard loyalty to your belief system that “carbon” is a problem of any kind. It’s cute, but misinformed. CO2 is entirely beneficial, my friend. You should learn some biology.
Cornelius:
So Gummerboi ‘sat in rhe cabinet’. Egads, man, that makes him a part of the problem, no? Since the UK is doing so very fine a job in its international finances [/sarc], combating an imaginary threat should raise its credibility in the global markets! Why hasn’t that happened, and how is that working out for you? UK taxpayers should worship the ground upon which your lawmaker betters walk… is that your belief? Right, let’s put a tax on every non-problem.
And minor9985, thanx for going to the trouble of posting your silly links. But sorry, I didn’t bother to open them. The planet itself is debunking your CAGW nonsense, so why bother? If you mistakenly believe that your links supersede the plantet’s Authority, then by all means, post your silly links. Maybe someone will read them, before their eyes glaze over.☺
Smokey says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:53 am
[snip . . adds nothing . .kbmod]
Every time I see one of Moncktons responses I feel disappointed, no real debate is necessary, he avoids questions or statements he knows he cant answer or respond to with his arguments and won’t admit his clearly pointed out mistakes. Enough time has been spent on this fool.
>> I’m hoping that the truth will come out in Margaret Thatcher’s Prime Ministerial Files as they are released and posted on the Margaret Thatcher Foundation Website. Currently the files are up to the year 1981 but alas my search for Lord Monckton, Christopher Walter, etc. comes up a blank. The files for 1982 comes out this year and hopefully we can clear up the scientific advisor issue once and for all. .. http://www.margaretthatcher.org/search/search.asp
I was curious so went there, typed in “monckton”, checked off “Person’s name”, “1-Key”, “2-Major”, “3-Minor”, and “4-Trivial”, and left the rest with default values.
Two entries came up:
84 Nov 6 Tu (Key) http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105784
89 Dec 9 Sa (Major) http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107841
The first has a reference to Walter Monckton: “[Sir P. Bryan] was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sir Walter Monckton in about 1956, and he became Minister of State….”
The second had a reference to Monckton (working for the Evening Standard newspaper) where he had the opportunity to ask Thatcher a few quick questions at a press conference she held in 1989.
If he did play a nontrivial role with Thatcher, at least it is understandable that third parties would have doubts. Monckton’s reply only said he had given her advice. That is a rather open-ended remark that can mean almost anything. He certainly could have bumped into her and offered her almost any advice.. even on climate science, even if Thatcher wouldn’t remember. But the evidence does appear to weigh heavily against Monckton having played any noteworthy role as a science adviser to her.
Smokey says:
February 15, 2012 at 6:53 am
Fair enough mod’s
Ok smokey I can understand you not wanting to open my links, but they are only simple graphs, not words or fancy scientific papers, just graphs. But in all honesty, you dont have to open the links, I have explained everything to you. You specifically asked me to explain it to you, what part dont you understand?
>> Whether or not AGW is real or not Monckton is the least person you should be calling upon from your side of the argument.
Honestly, if Mickey Mouse was able to do a good job delivering my side of the argument, I would accept it. I think the argument should be won on merits, and it might take some time. Monckton has a character he plays well. That is part of his appeal and (I’ll assume) how he earns his money and whatever interesting privileges come his way. There is a lot of demand for someone to present a skeptical position. In a lot of ways he is like a politician “at worst”. I hope his success is at most only moderate to whatever degree it disrupts science; however, currently climate science is getting a lot of attention and scrutiny that we might as well give it.