Monckton in a rift with Union college Earth scientist and activist

Readers may recall this piece Monckton’s Schenectady showdown in which he schools a number of students despite “en-masse” collections (to use Donald Rodbell’s words) of naysayers. Mr. Rodbell and Erin Delman, pictured below, wrote this essay (which I’ve excerpted below) in their student newspaper The Concordiensis, citing their angst that Monckton was speaking.

A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth

IMG_3846

Erin Delman (left), President of the Environmental Club, debates with Monckton – photo by Charlotte Lehman | Department Chair and Professor of Geology Donald Rodbell (right) asks Lord Christopher Monckton a question at the event on the “other side” of global warming. – photo by Rachel Steiner, Concordiensis

By Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman in |

As Earth scientists, we were torn. The College Republicans and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) were hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic, on Mon., March 5, and we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. On one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought. On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.

And thus, the college environmentalists – including Environmental Club members, the leaders and members of U-Sustain, concerned citizens, and renowned Earth scientists with PhDs from prestigious research institutions – decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus. We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.

Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint. He kept asserting that this debate must follow a rigorous, science-based approach, and that the consensus of experts is, by itself, an insufficient basis on which to decide the veracity of the evidence for significant human-induced global warming.

Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere, nor in highly charged and politically motivated presentations either by Lord Monckton or by Al Gore.  The fact of the matter is that science has spoken, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence has shown very, very clearly that global warming is occurring and is at least mostly caused by humans.  While scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not.

[end excerpts]

===============================================================

Sigh, there’s that ridiculous 97% figure again. You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them and making themselves look like sycophants. And then there’s this:  “Serious scientific debate cannot be carried out in the blogosphere…” well, then, PLEASE tell that to the RealClimate team so they stop trying to do that on the taxpayers dime.

It seems Erin Delman is training to be a professional enviro-legal troublemaker

She is interested in pursuing a joint Ph.D. and law degree in geology and environmental law and is considering a career in environmental policy, particularly involving water rights.

…so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.

Full article here: A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth

===============================================================

Monckton responds in comments to that article

Monckton of Brenchley March 16, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Permalink

Oh, come off it, Professor!

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Professor Donald Rodbell’s personal attack on me in Concordiensis (“A Lord’s Opinion Can’t Compete with Scientific Truth”) deserves an answer. The Professor does not seem to be too keen on freedom of speech: on learning that I was to address students at Union College, he said that he “vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger”. My oh my!

The Professor should be reminded of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”. I exercised freedom of speech at Union College. The Professor may disagree with what I said (though his article is lamentably unspecific about what points in my lecture – if any – he disagreed with); but, under the Constitution, he may not deny or abridge my right to say it.

He and his fellow climate extremists ought not, therefore, to have talked of “opposing the presence of Lord Monckton”: for that would be to abridge my freedom of speech. It would have been fair enough for the Professor to talk of opposing my arguments – yet that, curiously, is what his rant in Concordiensis entirely fails to do.

The Professor says it is certain that “the world is warming, climatic patterns are changing, and humans are a driving force”. Let us look at these three statements in turn.

– The world is not warming at present. It has not been warming for almost a decade and a half, though it has been warming since 1695. In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.

– Climatic patterns are indeed changing. But they have been changing for 4,567 million years, and they will go on changing long into the future. However, the fact of climate change does not tell us the cause of climate change.

– Humans are indeed exercising some influence. Indeed, though the Professor implies otherwise, I stated explicitly in my lecture that the IPCC might be right in saying that more than half of the warming since 1950 was caused by us. However, that tells us little about how much warming we may expect in future. My best estimate is that the CO2 we add to the atmosphere this century will cause around 1 C° of warming by 2100. But that is not far short of the IPCC’s own central estimate of 1.5 C°.

Next, the Professor asserts, without any evidence, that “97% of scientists overwhelmingly oppose [Monckton’s] viewpoint”. Overlooking the tautology (the word “overwhelmingly” should have been omitted), as far as I am aware there has been no survey of scientists or of public opinion generally to determine how many oppose my viewpoint. I am aware of two surveys in which 97% of scientists asserted that the world had warmed in the past 60 years: but, in that respect, they agree with my viewpoint. No survey has found 97% of scientists agreeing with the far more extreme proposition that unchecked emissions of CO2 will be very likely to cause dangerous global warming. And, even if there had been such a survey, the notion that science is done by head-counting in this way is the shop-worn logical fallacy of the argumentum ad populum – the headcount fallacy. That fallacy was first described by Aristotle 2300 years ago, and it is depressing to see a Professor trotting it out today.

Science is not done by headcount among scientists. It is done by measurement, observation, and experiment, and by the application of established theory to the results. Until Einstein, 100% of scientists thought that time and space were invariant. They were all wrong. So much for consensus.

Next, the Professor says I made “numerous inaccuracies and mis-statements”. Yet he does not mention a single one in his article, which really amounts to mere hand-waving. He then asserts that I have “no interest whatsoever in pursuing a truly scientific approach”. Those who were present, however, will be aware that I presented large quantities of data and analysis demonstrating that the principal conclusions of each of the four IPCC climate assessments are defective; that the warming to be expected from a doubling of CO2 is 1 C°; and that, even if 21st-century warming were 3 C°, it would still be 10-100 times cheaper and more cost-effective to do nothing now and adapt in a focused way later than to try to stop the warming by controlling CO2.

The Professor goes on to say that “the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications”. No: rigorous thought is the cornerstone of science. That is what is lacking in the IPCC’s approach. All of its principal conclusions are based on modeling. However, not one of the models upon which it relies has been peer-reviewed. Nor is any of the IPCC’s documents peer-reviewed in the accepted sense. There are reviewers, but the authors are allowed to override them, and that is not peer review at all. That is how the IPCC’s deliberate error about the alleged disappearance of all Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was not corrected. Worse, almost one-third of all references cited in the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report were not peer-reviewed either. They were written by environmental campaigners, journalists and even students. That is not good enough.

Next, the Professor says that, in not publishing my own analysis of “global warming” in a reviewed journal, I am “fundamentally non-scientific”. Yet he does not take Al Gore to task for never having had anything published in a reviewed journal. Why this disfiguring double standard? The most important thing, surely, is to shut down the IPCC, whose approach – on the Professor’s own peer-review test – is “fundamentally non-scientific”.

The Professor goes on to say, “It is impossible to scrutinize [Monckton’s] methods, calculations, and conclusions without a complete and detailed peer-reviewed publication that presents the important details.” On the contrary: my slides are publicly available, and they show precisely how I reached my conclusions, with numerous references to the peer-reviewed literature and to the (non-peer-reviewed) IPCC assessment reports.

Next, the Professor says that “rather substantial errors” were pointed out to me at Union College. Yet in every case I was able to answer the points raised: and, here as elsewhere, the Professor is careful not to be specific about what “errors” I am thought to have made. I pointed out some very serious errors in the documents of the IPCC: why does the Professor look the other way when confronted with these “official” errors? Once again, a double standard seems to be at work.

The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken” and that, “while scientific consensus can be wrong, it most often is not”. Well, the eugenics consensus of the 1920s, to the effect that breeding humans like racehorses would improve the stock, was near-universally held among scientists, but it was wrong, and it led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka. The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s and 1950s, to the effect that soaking seed-corn in water over the winter would help it to germinate, wrecked 20 successive Soviet harvests and killed 20 million of the proletariat. The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s has led to 40 million malaria deaths in children (and counting), 1.25 million of them lasts year alone. The don’t-stop-AIDS consensus of the 1980s has killed 33 million, with another 33 million infected and waiting to die.

The climate “consensus” is also killing millions by diverting billions of dollars from helping the poor to enriching governments, bureaucrats, bankers, landowners, windfarm scamsters, and environmentalist racketeers, and by denying to the Third World the fossil-fueled electricity it so desperately needs. It is time to stop the killing. If arguing for a more rational and scientifically-based policy will bring the slaughter of our fellow citizens of this planet to an end, then I shall continue to argue for it, whether the Professor likes it or not.

He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
441 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nerd
March 17, 2012 12:07 pm

Ha ha ha. Classic.

TomRude
March 17, 2012 12:16 pm

Earth scientists are among the most skeptical of AGW. Yet, many when asked about meteorology and climatology are sorely misinformed. Then, among these, some of them figure there is a career -or a sweet end of career- in switching to the alarmist side and becoming a convenient propagandist. Obviously Rodbell is one of them.

See - owe to Rich
March 17, 2012 12:22 pm

Lord love a duck, you played a blinder with that one. (I hope you’ll forgive some English slang on this American blog, and I think that the “blinder” slang should occasionally be replayed to Muir Russell and Co, to show that both sides can do it; it does not mean anything untoward, but just perceived skill.)
Rich.

PaulR
March 17, 2012 12:26 pm

Bravo Lord Monckton!
Having read the transcript of the assembly, it is plain the professor is hand waving. Keep up the good work.
Paul R.

Tom C
March 17, 2012 12:27 pm

@Nerd,
Fresh.

March 17, 2012 12:28 pm

Wonderful! Why is it that such otherwise intelligent and presumably rational people “go off the rails” when their cherished viewpoint is challenged? It’s rather as if one had invited a Southern Baptist Minister out for cocktails on a Sunday after services.

brennan
March 17, 2012 12:32 pm

Have they also published this response in the Campus paper as well? That would be fair, no?
I think the most telling thing about it is that they had the opportunity to debate Lord Monckton either at the time, or by actually taking his topical points where they believe he is in error, but failed to do so in any way. Poor little Erin has leaned that she has sent all that time and money on her earth theology study, to find out there is no god; no wonder she expressed such “utter disgust and sheer anger”.

klem
March 17, 2012 12:33 pm

“You’d think these “educated” people would bother to check such things before mindlessly regurgitating them ”
I think the more accurate word might be “indoctrinated” in that sentence.
And as a fellow geologist with a lifelong love of science, I can honestly say Donald Rodbell has publicly embarrassed himself.

Andrew
March 17, 2012 12:34 pm

I wonder when there will be anybody that can counter in an intelligent, educated and thoughtful manner. Oops – sorry that will never happen whilst we have such brain-washed Earth citizens. Thank god for people like Monckton who can eloquently say the things that need to be said. Indeed Aristotle would be turning in his grave to hear such crass statements from the ‘consensus’.

March 17, 2012 12:34 pm

Two childlike inhabitants of academia have tantrums in front of a kindly adult, and later quite shamelessy write a story about it. Still the kindly adult reasons with them and tries to help them out. Quite a moving tale of compassion and humanity.

Robin Hewitt
March 17, 2012 12:35 pm

See the top Comment on that piece in Concordiensis, Earth Scientist Dr Norman Page tears them to shreds. Maybe I should copy it before it mysteriously disappears.

Mark Hladik
March 17, 2012 12:35 pm

Does anyone know (or can we post a link) to respond to the student newspaper directly?
It would not be difficult to show that there is a ‘consensus’ (sensu stricto) of equally-educated equally proficient scientists of all stripes (physicists, chemists, etc) who do NOT accept CAGW dogma. I doubt if the student newspaper would bother to print/publish a single one, but at least we could show the student journalists that they still have some “homework” to do.
Just a thought,
Mark H.

March 17, 2012 12:38 pm

Those college kiddies use the usual “progressive” argument.

Paul Coppin
March 17, 2012 12:39 pm

Besides farmers and agronomists, what’s an “earth scientist”? (other then the obvious allusion to people who like to fling mud around….)

Beesaman
March 17, 2012 12:39 pm

IMHO any academic involved in a scientific area that tries to openly prevent someone debating a scientific concept, especially at a university, should be fired.

Kaboom
March 17, 2012 12:42 pm

Monckton of Brenchley, rouser of rabble. I’m quite sure that’s the ironic definition few had in mind when the term was first coined.

Claude Harvey
March 17, 2012 12:43 pm

This is yet another example of why debating “The Lord” is not a good idea. As the professor just demonstrated, Monckton’s opponents are most often reduced to emotionally rooted, incoherent babbling. Gotta’ love a swash-buckling wit like Monckton’s on display in an intellectual showdown (very rare). The professor’s standing among even his “true believing” students cannot have been enhanced by his encounter and his juvenile “so’s your mother” defense of his position.

March 17, 2012 12:43 pm

Either the pics are in the wrong position (right left) or the attributions are reveresed as tht is surely Erin on the right.

orkneylad
March 17, 2012 12:46 pm

Here here m’lord!
A magisterial takedown.

BarryW
March 17, 2012 12:50 pm

The utilize these tactics because when they try to debate the skeptics they get their clocks cleaned.
Also notice how the CAGW activists always use the “consensus” to support their position without specifying what that actually is. Thereby allowing them to insert their own extreme positions into the discussion as if they were agreed to by the majority. A favorite technique in the political realm that you can see in everything from the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street.

Ian W
March 17, 2012 12:51 pm

The ball is now well inside “The Concordiensis” court. Are they sufficiently open minded and ethical that they will also publish Lord Monckton’s rebuttal?
If they are really on the side of the Catastrophic Antrhopogenic Global Warming proponent climatologists, ethics cannot be expected to be one of their qualities. So will they be scientific or will they do all in their power not to shake faith in their ’cause’?

Robert of Ottawa
March 17, 2012 12:51 pm

97% of Cardinals agree with the Pope.

Kaboom
March 17, 2012 12:52 pm

I think a good point is raised, if not put in the spotlight as it should, namely that it is impossible to be a good scientist and adhere to the consensus. Science is driven by testing, by doubting and by making the construct of ideas vibrate to see if pieces fall off. It’s no coincidence that a thesis has to be defended in front of an – sometimes hostile – panel of scientific peers. Every paper of significance needs to be held to an equal standard or it is just that, paper. You cannot be part of the 97% and be a scientist that advances the field, you’re just flotsam.

Hugh Pepper
March 17, 2012 12:56 pm

Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

March 17, 2012 12:58 pm

It’s not the AGW that is the problem, which most scientist agree is taking place to some degree, nor is it the GW or GC, which is a net number between natural climate change and AGW, it is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) that would be the problem IF the positive feedbacks in the climate models are correct, which is unlikely since very little is known about feedbacks and they are more likely to be negative, and for which there is hardly a scientific consensus. The alarmist keep conflating the three GW, AGW, and CAGW. So when they make the statement that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening, that is probably a true statement, but it is also a meaningless statement. CAGW is hardly agreed and is the subject of much study and disagreement, but it is CAGW that has caused the EPA to label CO2 a pollutant. Just ridiculous!

March 17, 2012 12:58 pm

Look at the picture of the President of the environmental club. She has very insecure body language for someone supported by 97% of the scientific community, does she not?

March 17, 2012 1:00 pm

Hugh Pepper,
As the undefeated WUWT champion of totally content-free, baseless opinion, I would expect nothing less from you than that ignorant waste of pixels.

Hugh Pepper
Reply to  Smokey
March 17, 2012 1:27 pm

Well said Smokey. You certinly have a way with words.
Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.

climatebeagle
March 17, 2012 1:05 pm

> we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.
Hey guys, did you think about taking a scientific approach, either:
– we were looking forward to hearing alternative theories and evidence related to climate change
or
– we look forward to an engaging debate where we can demonstrate the strength of the AGW evidence
Your sentiment of disgust or anger doesn’t seem very suitable for institute of learning, maybe, just maybe, your response is because deep down you know AGW is faith, not science.

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 1:07 pm

While I don’t doubt Monckton’s good intentions, I don’t think his panoply of failed consensus helps his case; none of them hold even a drop of water.
Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.
The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known. This cannot be compared to a consensus that forms in a free society.
As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. If the countries most severely affected by malaria had any kind of capable and responsible government, these governments would have been free to make or procure DDT and use it. (Chances are, however, that the insect vectors would by now be largely resistant to DDT, had its widespread use continued.) The causes for the continued malaria problem are the same as those for the continued problems with tuberculosis and HIV: Poverty and government malfeasance.
Monckton’s positions on these affairs certainly show that he has his heart in the right place, but as illustrations of “failed consensus politices” the examples don’t work.

Adam Gallon
March 17, 2012 1:11 pm

The comments are 100% in favour of his Lordship. And that’s ignoring his Lordship’s own response.

Dr. Dave
March 17, 2012 1:12 pm

Robert of Ottawa says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:51 pm
“97% of Cardinals agree with the Pope.”
=====================================================
If you were to ask American Trial Lawyers if we should enact meaningful and sensible tort reform (like most of the rest of the civilized Western world). I’m quite sure at least 97% of them would agree that any such reform would be a terrible idea. It would be beneficial for society as a whole but it would be damaging to the financial interests of their practices. In this respect, explain to me how “climate scientists” who are essentially grant feeding parasites are morally superior to lawyers.

March 17, 2012 1:15 pm

I’ve saved as a PDF the Concordiensis comments, up to comment 8 (the last comment when I last viewed). The comments so far simply, calmly, and scientifically eviscerate the Rodbell and Eldman opinion piece.
Good stuff.

Frank K.
March 17, 2012 1:16 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Smokey – the snarky comments by people like “Hugh Pepper” is a strong indication that their side is badly LOSING the CAGW argument with the public, and that Lord Monckton is in fact being very effective and persuasive in his debates and presentations.
Don’t worry, Hugh. It will all be over in November when America votes to defund CAGW-ism…

Dr. Dave
March 17, 2012 1:17 pm

Smokey,
I’m afraid you were entirely too charitable with your response to Hugh Pepper. It’s funny though, that even the dullest, most witless of gormless cavilers believe they have a contribution to make.

Tez
March 17, 2012 1:18 pm

They must be giving away Phd’s in cornflake packets nowadays. How thick must you be to attack the master of facts and repartee with opinions dressed as science?
The Lord has dispatched this unworthy adversary with his usual aplomb.
The shamed “professor” should not be employed in an education facility. Reminds me of a saying: Those that can, do. Those that cant, teach.

David A
March 17, 2012 1:19 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.
====================================================
What is it with your non-sense. You Sir are a poster child of baseless assertion without evidence, just like the high priest professor and his devotee devotee.

David A
March 17, 2012 1:23 pm

Ronald P. Abate says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:58 pm
————————————————————–
BINGO Ronald. I have both won and lost debates about GW, and AGW, but I have never lost a debate when the subject turned to CAGW, consequently I always remeber to turn the debate in that direction.

harrywr2
March 17, 2012 1:26 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science.
I can sit down with a piece of paper and calculator and come up with Monkton’s numbers or Bill McKibbons numbers using just basic radiative physics.
McKibbons number –
We’ve have had between 8 and 9 doublings of CO2. The current temperature of the earth is 33C higher then is no greenhouse gases(including water vapor) were in the atmosphere. Hence 33/8 ~ 4C per doubling.
Monktons number – CO2 alone will cause about 1.2C increase in warming all other things remaining equal.
Yeah…brilliant me…I can be either a catastrophist or the head denier…all with ‘back of the envelope calculations.
The problem I have is that while I can calculate the ‘average’ feedback from a doubling I don’t know if it is a straight line, an accelerating curve, a decelerating curve or a sine wave.
It all depends on clouds and we don’t have very good historical records of global cloud cover, even the IPCC has stated that the role of ‘clouds’ is highly uncertain.

David Allen Borth
March 17, 2012 1:28 pm

Hugh Pepper!
The pure unadulterated “logic” of Lord Moncton pervades any discussion of the CAGW topic and shreds the self congratulating paper tigers that stand for the “peer reviewed” science of the alarmists.

Hugh Pepper
Reply to  David Allen Borth
March 17, 2012 1:50 pm

SCience is not a consequence of “unadulterated logic”, as David Allen Booth maintains. SCience is all about empirical research, expressed reasonably , and even logically. Logic is a word which fits philosophy, a discipline which actually reflects Mr Monckton’s training.

JDN
March 17, 2012 1:32 pm

@Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.

Latitude
March 17, 2012 1:34 pm

………..between utter disgust and sheer anger
=================================
That’s all they have left…………

TANSTAAFL
March 17, 2012 1:37 pm

“We collected en-masse before his presentation to make it unambiguously clear that we would not allow such erroneous discourse to go unnoticed.”
Scratch a leftist, find the fascist writhing underneath.

u.k.(us)
March 17, 2012 1:51 pm

Very well done Mr. Monckton.
Even your last sentence, was nicely restrained.

johnl
March 17, 2012 1:55 pm

Is Monkton right about DDT? Lambert has argued that DDT is no better than other insecticides for vector control, and also that banning DDT for agricultural use has extended its useful life for vector control. Malaria is caused by the presence of standing water and the lack of vector control.

March 17, 2012 1:59 pm

When they make the statement that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is happening, doesn’t that make you want to know just who the other 3% are?
Especially since their “97%” was only based on “…the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2…”
Rephrase that last, then. Of these specialists, 3.79% (3 of 79) answered something other than “risen” to question 1, 2.59% (2 of 77) answered no to question 2, and two (2.53%) failed to make a comment on question 2.
Imagine that – there are actually some of the “the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change)” that didn’t answer “risen” to question one.
And there were some scientists “who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change”, who didn’t agree with question 2.
Finally, there were two “climate scientists” who were brave enough to totally refuse to answer this question: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”.
I applaud those brave souls, daring to be on the “other side” in the Climate Wars.

March 17, 2012 1:59 pm

That’s going to leave a mark!

March 17, 2012 2:00 pm

Michael Palmer says:
“As to the DDT ‘ban’, there is no such thing, at least not internationally.”
Good! So where can I buy some?
. . .
Hugh Pepper says:
“Mr Monckton is universally criticized…”
That’s only in your universe, Hugh. In the real universe some folks may criticize Lord Monckton. But they’re all afraid to debate him. Instead, people like you take potshots from the sidelines, where it’s safe.

Hugh Pepper
Reply to  Smokey
March 17, 2012 3:13 pm

It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted. But he is persuasive, in a perverse way!

John Blake
March 17, 2012 2:00 pm

A New York City subway token-taker has more to offer than these two fatuous dolts. While this quavering enviro-wacko hones her water-baby skills in hopes of a rent-seeking schtick with such as Gleick, one has to ask: Why Rochester? Having just parachuted into Durban, mayhap His Lordship like Odysseus got blown a tad off-course.

DirkH
March 17, 2012 2:05 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
“Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.”
No, I’m not. I did follow all of that, and you are deluded if you think any honest person with a brain comes to that conclusion. Note, I do not say the alarmists have no brains. It’s just that they had to make a decision between being honest and being efficient. Turns out they are neither.

DirkH
March 17, 2012 2:09 pm

Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. ”
There is one, effectively, as even in-house DDT use causes EU importers to refuse accepting agricultural produce as organic, leaving farmers with no income. EU greens are totalitarian – NO to any kind of chemicals means an absolute no.

Bill Marsh
March 17, 2012 2:10 pm

The Professor ends by saying that “science has spoken”
So did the Wizard of Oz and the Ministry of Truth in 1984.
I m reminded of Samuel Clements comment, “Whenever I find myself in agreement with the majority, I find it is time to pause and reflect.”

March 17, 2012 2:10 pm

I am great admirer of his lordship, but was a bit surprised that he would associate himself too closely with the Dr. Scafetta’s ideas, at least until there is some solid evidence that what Scafetta is proposed is based on the solid science. This association could be misused to undermine his up to date excellent scientific credibility.

DirkH
March 17, 2012 2:14 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:50 pm
“SCience is not a consequence of “unadulterated logic”, as David Allen Booth maintains. SCience is all about empirical research, expressed reasonably , and even logically. Logic is a word which fits philosophy, a discipline which actually reflects Mr Monckton’s training.”
What drug are you on? The very principle of causality is a LOGICAL expression: if A, then follows B; you can draw the truth table for that; you can build a boolean LOGIC circuit for it.
If you were not a disingenious dolt I would recommend to you the Tractatus Logicus Philosophicus by Wittgenstein but I doubt you would even understand the structure of that book.

harvey
March 17, 2012 2:14 pm

Mr. Monkton has become passe’ his arguements have all been refuted…
He unfortunately reminds me of the barkers who worked the crowd at circus’s a grifter of the highest order.
REPLY: And you Mr. Puca, remind me of delinquent teenager. When will you ever contribute anything of value here beyond drive-by snark and hate? – Anthony

DirkH
March 17, 2012 2:20 pm

Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder. ”
Wrong on all counts. You should google Lebensborn.

Ken Hall
March 17, 2012 2:21 pm

Viscount Monckton starts his presentations and debates by stating unequivically for the audience to NOT believe him. Monckton provides references to support his arguments on each point and invites the audience to check them for themselves. I have checked most all of them for every video presentation I have seen of the Viscount Monckton.
I would like to equally make the same qualitative check against his arguments, but quite inexplicably, for a supposedly educated man, he fails to provide ANY references whatsoever to back up his arguments. Even worse, It appears to me that the professor did not even attend and witness the event upon which he casts his unsupportable accusations.
Would we trust a film critic who did not even watch the films he was critiquing? Or would we think him a fool or a fraud?
Such a woefully inadequate critique of Viscount Monckton is not only arrogant and insulting, but utterly devoid of fact, evidence or reason. If this is the standard of the Professor’s science, “I believe the following hypothesis, because someone else said so. or I disagree with another hypothesis based upon nothing more than fashionable hearsay” then he is not fit to teach kindergarten children, let alone University students.
So which of the two should I believe?
The Viscount who provides references, which I have independently checked and and found to be largely correct. Or the Professor who has written nothing more than a hearsay filled rant, devoid of facts or reason?
The Professor failed to use one single substantive, referenced, checkable, evidence-based fact at all to support his own arguments as his “hatchet job” was filled with third-hand hearsay. He should indeed be ashamed of himself.

Gail Combs
March 17, 2012 2:21 pm

Paul Coppin says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Besides farmers and agronomists, what’s an “earth scientist”? (other then the obvious allusion to people who like to fling mud around….)
____________________________________________
Rather obvious that he is someone who could not make the grade as a full geologist and had to settle for the lesser degree. (Appologies to other Earth Scientists)
Here is the definition (It is a general degree while geology is a specialization) http://geology.com/articles/what-is-earth-science.shtml

Dr. Dave
March 17, 2012 2:23 pm

I can readily understand why Dr. Rodbell become “disgusted and angry” at the prospect of Lord Monckton speaking at HIS college. Rodbell is a geologist who earned a Ph.D. in 1991 (right when the AGW gravy train was leaving the station). He worked for the USGS as a “research geologist” for about a year and then did a fellowship in Ohio for about a year. He has been at Union College since 1994. In his mind this is own personal fiefdom. He’s a big fish in a small pond. Only HE decides what the science is. Only HE sets the agenda and defines the narrative. HE decides what students are exposed to what they should “learn” (i.e. indoctrination). Someone like Lord Monckton could easily spit in his Wheaties!
I can only imagine how grim it must be to be one his students. If you don’t agree with and able to regurgitate his dogma, you are not likely to pass. These kids with exit college hopelessly brainwashed.

March 17, 2012 2:28 pm

..utter disgust and sheer anger…
I guess that article could be subtitled ‘Fear and Loathing in Schenectady’!

neill
March 17, 2012 2:29 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Dr. Pepper, I presume?
Surely you’ll be happy to summarize exactly WHY the good Lord ‘has no credibility regarding science’, as well as the ‘already debunked’ details you vaguely refer to.
Instead of just taking your word for it.
(And — thanks in advance — try not to bespittle our displays.)

Gary Hladik
March 17, 2012 2:31 pm

Robin Hewitt says (March 17, 2012 at 12:35 pm): “See the top Comment on that piece in Concordiensis, Earth Scientist Dr Norman Page tears them to shreds.”
Thanks, Robin. I wasn’t going to bother reading the article, but Dr. Page’s response made it well worthwhile. I recommend that WUWT readers browse the comments to the Delman & Rodbell article.

Eric Webb
March 17, 2012 2:31 pm

Well done Mr. Monckton, you are a hero to all of us skeptics. Looks like the same old agenda driven BS being portrayed by the warmingistas. its hysterical that they keep putting out the same old lies over and over again, but i guess in their upside down world, if they tell you the same lies over and over again, it somehow makes them more truthful. Would be great to see a televised debate with Bastardi and Monckton vs Mann and Al gore though, how epic that would be!! i can just see the fire coming straight out of Gore’s mouth!!

kcom1
March 17, 2012 2:32 pm

“A lord’s opinion can’t compete with scientific truth.”
What about a patent clerk’s?

Mike, Stockholm
March 17, 2012 2:32 pm

How come these people always get cranky when confronted with scientific facts?

neill
March 17, 2012 2:34 pm

I love the “97% of scientists” schtick. When will they start saying ‘97% of the 79 scientists that responded’?
Any day now, any day…….

March 17, 2012 2:35 pm

Lord Monckton of Brenchley
In the 40 years to 1735, before the Industrial Revolution even began, the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures) rose by 4 Fahrenheit degrees, compared with just 1 F° in the whole of the 20th century.
Illustration of the above statements:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm

March 17, 2012 2:35 pm

“On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.”
Yeah, the impact of truth can be dangerous to CAGW supporters can’t it?

jorgekafkazar
March 17, 2012 2:41 pm

Michael Palmer says: “The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known. This cannot be compared to a consensus that forms in a free society.”
Your ignorance of logical argument is profound. This fallacy is known as “a Red herring.” It ignores the fact that claims of consensus are a lie in the first place. Are good democratic lies somehow more noble than socialist lies? Besides, your statement is incorrect and should have read: “The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known up until now.

Mark and two Cats
March 17, 2012 2:44 pm

…[we] decided to oppose the presence of Lord Monckton on our campus.
—————————————————————–
Pesky old Freedom of Speech. But hey – if obama is re-elected, that will go away.

Scottie
March 17, 2012 2:44 pm

This may seem pedantic but Monckton is one of the few who seem to understand the difference between ºC and Cº. (Or Fº and ºF for that matter.)
The first is an actual temperature. For example, 1ºC is the temperature which is 1Cº above 0ºC. The second is not an actual temperature; it is a division on the Celsius scale.
So you cannot have a temperature increase of 1ºC, but, as Monckton says, you can have an increase of 1Cº.
This was drummed in to me at school many years ago.
Sorry, but I consider this sloppy, and symptomatic of post-modern science.
/rant

SadButMadLad
March 17, 2012 2:44 pm

@Michael Palmer, I got the impression that Monckton was using them as examples of “consensus” to highlight that the climate change consensus is just as valid, or invalid in this case. In other words using the term conensus means nothing and the examples given show that.

Gary Hladik
March 17, 2012 2:49 pm

Hugh Pepper says (March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm): “Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science.”
Thank you for visiting WUWT, Ms. Delman. I wish you success in your budding career as the poster child for vacuous CAGW dogma.
Josh, I think we have a winner!

REPLY:
Actually Hugh Pepper is a well known troll here who’s trademark is snark. That’s not Delman – Anthony

pat
March 17, 2012 2:54 pm

The shallow, trite, and factless response by this professor demonstrates he has no response other than his delusional politics.

R7 Rocket
March 17, 2012 2:54 pm

You can’t have a serious scientific debate if your hypothesis (fossil CO2 will lead to catastrophes, even if the catastrophes are mutually exclusive) is unfalsifiable.

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 2:54 pm

The first comment on the article is a cracker. Followed by more crackers. Excellent rebuttals. 😉

Dr Norman Page
As an Earth scientist I am appalled by the whole tone of this piece. You say “Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger. ” You sound like a bunch of priests being appalled at hearing heresy which questions your received truth. In the piece there is nothing but unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority not one reference to data of any sort. That you think of yourselves as scientists shows the extent of your self delusion…………….

The naivety of these young ones would be understandable due to their ages but they are studying science I presumed.

RobertInAz
March 17, 2012 2:54 pm

“Is Monkton right about DDT? ”
It’s been years since I read the article, but it related to more targeted (than in the 40s) DDT use inside mosquito nets would have a very positive impact on malaria.
Read about the remarkable resurgence of bedbugs.

March 17, 2012 2:55 pm

A hidden pearl of wisdom from Ms Delman: her aspiration to focus on “water rights”, rather than “climate change”.

Joe Veragio
March 17, 2012 2:55 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
” Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review. ”
🙂
Is that all your own work Hugh, or something you’ve heard others say ?

Marlow Metcalf
March 17, 2012 2:57 pm

When he writes “my slides are publicly available” it would be helpful if he were to include a short cut link for us lazy people.

Kath
March 17, 2012 2:59 pm

Well said, your Lordship!

Max Phillis
March 17, 2012 3:00 pm

The original article maintains, “Most readers know that the fundamental building block of all science is peer-reviewed publications.”
From the tone of this article (and many others), you would think that young science students these days are trained to simply accept any written publication as true factual, if it only has made it through the referees of a peer-reviewed publication. In actuality, that is not the case. Any graduate of any decent science program is trained to critically review published papers. Often times, journal clubs are set up for this purpose, and research scientists and trainees will discuss various strengths and weaknesses of published work. Factually, a lot of incorrect junk is published all the time in peer reviewed journals, particularly in soft sciences (such as climate science).

March 17, 2012 3:05 pm

In the sense that Monckton accepts that the planet has warmed recently and that CO2 has a significant (measurable/detectable) impact on temperatures, Monckton is as much a part of the 97% as the rest of the 97%.
Watched a horror movie yesterday and it’s bemusing to always watch the lone ‘sceptic’ in his battle against fear, meet a nasty end because of his denialism of superstition.

clipe
March 17, 2012 3:08 pm

Monckton at UWO monday.
http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/Nerenberg/
Nerenberg Lecture 2012
Premise:Mathematics is the lingua franca of the sciences. Few speak it. Today’s statesmen and the handful of courtiers they have time to trust must often go beyond their expertise. This is the Courtier’s Conundrum: how can the inexpert adviser advise expertly? Margaret Thatcher’s six policy advisers were not scientists. Yet they often gave scientific advice, because they had to…

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 3:08 pm

ADVICE ALERT TO ALL YOUNG UNIVERSITY WARMIST SCIENTISTS

Keith
The other fun thing to understand is that this argument is kept in perpetuity by such sites like the Internet Archive; unlike papers published in periodicals and other transient publishing mediums – you would do very well for your future careers to stick to the facts, verify your conclusions to source and keep your emotions under check.
http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/march-7-2012/a-lords-opinion-cant-compete-with-scientific-truth/4222/#comment-19691

I could not have said it better myself. Check the facts for yourselves and stop being a blind person following a blind person who claims to you that they can see. Don’t believe a word we sceptics have to say but DO check our counter claims and arrive at honest conclusions. The science is not settled and there never was a 97% of climate scientists blah blah. CHECK IT!

jonathan frodsham
March 17, 2012 3:14 pm

Erin Delman is an it. It wants to be an environmental lawyer. I could not even in my worst nightmare think of a worst lowlife occupation. This in itself gives us the type of person “It” is. It is just a very nasty piece of work. It is also an educated idiot. Educated idiots usually find employment in the government liberal sector, as it will, and funded by the taxpayer. It will be a environmental lawyer winding up teaching its rubbish to other students so they can do the same (Teach)
If I had such a daughter (I have 3) I would be ashamed

Len
March 17, 2012 3:15 pm

Adults should give up childish thngs and thinking as a child thinks. Adults who call themselves scientists should know a litle bit about the scientific method and of the role of truth in science. In fact the very definition of science is searching for the truth. And research is used because it is hard to find the truth, so more and more research is needed. Neither Erin nor Prof. Robdell know enough to carry an adult conversation with Lond Monckton as their vile words and false claims (97% consensus of scientists support CAGW) demonstrate. How fortonate they were to have an opportunity to personally hear a presentation by Lord Moncton. Their loss is not just the argument, but they missed a great opportunity to listen and learn from a unique person. I would welcome the opportunity.

Graphite
March 17, 2012 3:24 pm

See – owe to Rich says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Lord love a duck, you played a blinder with that one.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
English slang?
Maybe in a Boulting Brothers parody of P.G. Wodehouse . . . but in the real world?
You’ll hear Prof Rodwell talk sense before you hear those words.

Jeff B.
March 17, 2012 3:34 pm

Look at the body language of that sad girl. She doesn’t have any confidence in her beliefs. She’s been indoctrinated with a load of garbage that she believes based on emotion and not intellect. The University system is a Left leaning wasteland full of the self important pseudo-scientists like Mann and Trenberth. Can’t wait for that bubble to burst so we can get back to real learning.

March 17, 2012 3:36 pm

Hugh Pepper
“Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him?”
————————————————————————————————————
Damn right I’m “defended” him. You have to be student before you become teacher. An intellectually active student engages a body of knowledge, paying particular attention to contrasting views, and then produces a coherent synthesis from ideas and information to serve as a base for teaching. The mettle of the teacher is tested as he presents and defends his subject in the arena of ideas before groups of passionate, skeptical truth seekers. Such a group does not include the “consensus” coterie. Their minds were made up before the discussion began. Like sheep, they are comfortable going in a direction as long as a lot of others are going that way too.
Hell, I’m part of the 97% that thinks it’s warming, but I’m also part of the very small percentage who has read H H Lamb’s “Climatic History and the Future”, plus many global and historical climate studies and analyses, and have concluded that present climate and weather events are not unprecedented, and are far from unusual.
After sea levels rose over 400 feet since the last Ice Age, global temperatures were 2 to 4 degrees C warmer 8000 to 3000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, Greenland ice cores show that 9100 of the past 10000 years were warmer than any of the past 100, that glaciers in Glacier Bay, Alaska, retreated 60 miles 1780 to 1912 and only six miles since; yes I’m “defended” Lord Monckton. He doesn’t need my defense, or a consensus of believers, because climate history and science support his positions.
I’ll bet that if we asked “climate” scientists if they agreed the Earth had experienced natural climate changes many times, including much warmer and colder periods, that over 97% would say yes, and only the Al Gore acolytes would say no.
Then we would have “our” consensus.

Phil
March 17, 2012 3:37 pm

Thank you, Lord Monckton. It is sad that, for so many, belief trumps science.

Mike, Stockholm
March 17, 2012 3:41 pm

Curious and interested in different points of view and theories = student.
“Disgusted and sheer angry” about ditto = useful idiot.

BradProp1
March 17, 2012 3:43 pm

It would appear the “alarmists” have become the new “Deniers”. But they’re even worse because they have no facts to backup their “denialism”. 😉

A Lovell
March 17, 2012 3:44 pm

From Erin Delman’s cv.
“She helped organize the College’s award-winning cardboard recycling program, and she is also active with Union’s chapter of Campus Kitchens, a nationwide program aimed at using leftover dining hall food to make nutritious meals for local residents.”
May I have a Udell Scholarship and an award please? I recycle cardboard and make meals from leftovers for local residents (my family) nearly every day!
Well done once again, Lord Monckton. Another thorough shredding.

kakatoa
March 17, 2012 3:45 pm

Anthony says “….so I suppose I’m not surprised at this article. With that California background and water rights bent, I predict she’ll be joining the Pacific Institute to supplement Gleick’s mission.”
Ms. Delman might be interest in furthering her education by attending UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability (IoES). She just missed a fundraiser for the program noted in a post post by Lawrence Bender (the producer of an Inconvenient Truth) entitled: America’s Young Minds: A Neglected Renewable Resource. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-bender/climage-change_b_1346459.html?ir=Green
Ms Delman would likely agree with Mr. Bender that.. “To be sure, governments will remain critical to any comprehensive effort to save our planet. But waiting for governments is no longer an option. It is time for other institutions to step up. And one place that is happening is our universities, which can serve as powerful agents of change.”
With UCLA being so close to the center of the movie industry it is likely she will be able to gain first hand knowledge of the differences between journalistic and theatrical truth. Fact checking is not required for one as recently played out over at NPR- ” NPR Retracts Episode Claiming Apple’s Factory Abuse- http://www.mobiledia.com/news/133655.html
“NPR radio show “This American Life” retracted its episode about Apple’s factory abuses — due to errors in fact-checking — which triggered an outpouring of criticism and cast a negative light on Apple.
The program will air another show explaining what went wrong, detailing conditions of Apple’s Foxconn factory in Shenzhen, China. Based on material from performer Mike Daisey, who wrote a one-man-show entitled, “The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs” the episode described visits to factories in Shenzhen.
“The program, which put Apple’s treatment of workers under a microscope, fueled a backlash against the company from journalists, regulators and consumers. Now, This American Life says it isn’t standing behind the report, due to exaggerated details, since Daisey’s script was part of a monologue for performance purposes.”
I just heard parts of the “what went wrong” episode on NPR today. Mr. Daisey’s rational for skipping the fact thing reminded a bit of Dr. Gleick’s rational for lying. I have a greater respect for Garrett Hardin’s foresight, noted in The Tragedy of the Commons, to make sure corrective feedbacks are in place. Traditional science has the corrective feedbacks pretty much in place. Post Normal Science on the other hand not so much; as theatrical truths can trumpet real ones in the PNS world. I was glad to hear that NPR stood up for journalistic truth vs. theatrical truth. Last time I checked books are categorized into a couple of different categories: Fiction and Non Fiction. Journalistic truth is kind of like Non Fiction, and theatrical truth is like Fiction. My librarian aunt gets very annoyed if someone represents a Fiction work as Non-Fiction…………..

Jimbo
March 17, 2012 3:46 pm

Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman

“As Earth scientists, we were torn………Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.”

Continental drift also disgusted many of Wegener’s colleagues who stood by the consensus. By the way they don’t say why they felt “disgust and sheer anger.” Is it because they have nothing say but wave their arms wildly about?

D. Patterson
March 17, 2012 3:49 pm

JDN says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:32 pm
@Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.

The other half of the truth which you omitted is the right of the taxpayers employing their elected representatives to terminate the employment of academics who wrongfully abuse their positions and authority by denying the right of their critics to debate the science and policies in the public forum.

4 eyes
March 17, 2012 3:56 pm

Mr Pepper,
Let’s just stop attacking the person. Let’s get back to the facts because, as you say, “SCience is all about empirical research” which implies it has nothing to do with who is doing it. Lord Monckton (along with many others) has stated that temperatures have not risen in 15 years (some say a decade). This is a purely empirical exercise using statistics. Do you agree that temperatures have not risen in the last decade?

Ian H
March 17, 2012 3:58 pm

A problem in any social organisation faces is the type of people that are attracted to join it. This can have undesirable consequences if people are attracted to join for the wrong reasons.
The Catholic Church for example has long struggled this problem. Because of its rules on celibacy it unfortunately attracts not only those who are running towards God, but also those who are running away from their own sexuality – sometimes for very good reason. Hence the Church finds itself afflicted by paedophile priests.
The comments of the students above indicate a similar problem is now developing in the Climate and Earth sciences. It looks to me from the comments that these students are attracted to study in these area not out of a deep abiding curiosity for the subject and wish to find objective answers, but out of environmental crusading zealotry and a desire to justify solutions. I suspect it will be difficult for these students to truly become scientifically dispassionate. If they succeed in becoming scientists at all they will be activist scientists along the lines of Mann and Hansen.

Theo Goodwin
March 17, 2012 4:01 pm

dtbronzich says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Wonderful! Why is it that such otherwise intelligent and presumably rational people “go off the rails” when their cherished viewpoint is challenged? It’s rather as if one had invited a Southern Baptist Minister out for cocktails on a Sunday after services.
Yes, amazing how intolerance has switched places in America.

TimH
March 17, 2012 4:04 pm

I am reminded of a recent event where 2 corporate executives got so intoxicated and out of control on an international flight that they had to be physically tied up. They were later found trying to chew through their restraints.
I, for one, will be delighted to see Rodbell and Delman try to chew their way out of this one.

John West
March 17, 2012 4:06 pm

I’ve been mulling over the “utter disgust and sheer anger” statement. I can only conclude that they actually believe mankind is ruining the planet and Lord Monckton is hindering progress toward “healing the planet” for personal gain, basically to them he’s a charlatan of the worst sort, something akin to a miracle medical treatment con artist in the process of conning a family member into costly and ineffective treatments in lieu real treatments to the detriment of the family member. Certainly, the presence of such a charlatan would incite feelings of utter disgust and sheer anger. How would I deal with such a con artist? Discredit the treatments by proving the treatments are ineffective and potentially detrimental if I could. Discredit the con artist by proving the con artist is a scoundrel if I couldn’t discredit the treatments. Appeal to authority by imploring the family member to seek a second opinion from what I consider a reputable medical professional if I couldn’t successfully discredit the treatments or the charlatan. If all else fails, I’d have to attempt to separate the charlatan from my obviously brainwashed family member any way I could. Obviously, the “rules” of civil debate and logic are meaningless to me in this situation; I wouldn’t care whether I’d have to use ad hominem attacks or any other logical fallacy to save my family member from such a swindler. This seems to be the same strategy the advocates for action on climate change take with respect to skeptics. So, that’s what we’re up against, except everything is turned upside down, it’s like we’re in some twilight zone where the doctors prescribe snake oil and the traveling salesmen are providing antibiotics. Can reason, logic, and evidence be successfully employed in such a situation? Perhaps not to those that feel a familial connection to Mother Earth and have acquired a religious like belief that man is defiling the planet, but maybe to those as of yet to be indoctrinated it may have an effect. I hope so.
I think that’s why they fear Lord Monckton so much; his cool, calm, and collected manner has a way of projecting a principled character that’s incompatible with that of a charlatan; while the leadership of the advocates of taking action on climate change project just the opposite. I may not always agree with him and of course he makes mistakes occasionally (he’s human), but his stand against this epic railroad (unjust conviction) of humanity for global bureaucratic empowerment is indeed inspirational.

Ian W
March 17, 2012 4:10 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Well said Smokey. You certinly have a way with words.
Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.

Hugh – you have not read or listened to Lord Monckton’s presentation.
He provided evidence in the form of quoted ‘peer reviewed’ papers for everything he said. Indeed, he caused somewhat of a stir by _agreeing with the IPCC_ in some of what he said. You would discard what the IPCC said and demand evidence? You would not be welcome with the IPCC lead authors and reviewers as _they_ don’t expect evidence or even peer reviewed papers. You will also see that Lord Monckton scrupulously quotes the papers his evidence is based on, much of it references in the IPCC reports. So if ‘Cook and Abrahams’ have thoroughly debunked these assertions then they will also not find favor with the IPCC. Perhaps you are unaware that you are falling into the trap of always disagreeing, even when it is papers in support of your cause that have been quoted – an inverted confirmation bias?

johanna
March 17, 2012 4:20 pm

“we were not quite sure how to respond. Frankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.”
———————————————————————
Your sentiments vacillate? May whatever deity (or none) that we subscribe to save us from a world where the owners of vacillating sentiments have any role that affects other people:
Vacillate – Synonyms:
waver – wobble – hesitate – oscillate – fluctuate
OK, that was shooting fish in a barrel. Being an airhead is unfortunate, but probably not malicious.
But then we got:
Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
While I don’t doubt Monckton’s good intentions, I don’t think his panoply of failed consensus helps his case; none of them hold even a drop of water.
Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.
————————————————————-
This is another kettle of fish. The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum – as even the cause of Godwin’s Law was told by his own scientists at the time.
It is chilling to read that someone in this day and age, long after eugenics was disproved as well as dismissed as morally bankrupt, uses it as a first example of how Chris Monckton’s list of failures of consensus science does not ‘hold even a drop of water.’
You have not got the faintest idea what you are talking about. Your knowledge of genetics is apparently gleaned from the tabloids, or perhaps the darker corners of the internet.
Others may wish to take issue with your later points, but your opening salvo was so wrong, on so many levels, for so many reasons, that you can only have strengthened Monckton’s case.

HowardG
March 17, 2012 4:25 pm

Hugh Pepper,
Based on your post at 1:27 pm, I popped the words “Cook Abrahams debunk Monckton” into my search engine (sans quotes) and came up with this link.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/
I suspect this is not what you had in mind. Would you be so kind as to provide a couple of on topic links that support your point of view.

mfo
March 17, 2012 4:25 pm

Another account of the talk in Concordiensis by Gabriella Levine and Ceillie Keane, on 7 March, included the following comment by a former student who graduated in 1987:
“As Union enters its 217th year, however, 200 years of heritage have come and gone, as has the decorum once proudly displayed by Union students and their professors. I am ashamed of those among you who lack the intellect to rationally confront logic and reason, and who then resort to name calling, ad hominem attacks, and post script mendacity when you fail in open debate. I am also ashamed of the culture that permits these hysterics and the appalling lack of leadership demonstrated by the current faculty. Alternately, I applaud the dwindling number of you who value and promote Union’s eroding heritage of plurality and open debate. It is the latter few who give me hope for Union’s future. I wish you great success and look forward to seeing you this May.”
http://www.concordy.com/article/news/march-7-2012/lord-monckton-fuels-global-warming-debate/4216/
New email same mfo

RockyRoad
March 17, 2012 4:46 pm

But back to the real discussion after this Hugh Pepper character has tried three times to hijack the discussion (and like most hijackers, has been shot down mercilessly).
The main points I see are these: The professors that teach this brand of “earth science” stuff at Union college should pay back their last 5 years of salary. And all the “earth science” students should get full tuition refunds. That only begins to rectify the situation.
But more to the point–how many of you would be happy if your son or daughter came home with a BS from Union and that was LITERALLY all they had learned? I personally would be horrified!

David Allen Borth
March 17, 2012 4:50 pm

97% of this commenters at Concordiensis supported Lord Monckton. Now to get my analysis peer reviewed.

u.k.(us)
March 17, 2012 4:55 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm
It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted. But he is persuasive, in a perverse way!
================
You set a high standard for others, while exhibiting none yourself.

March 17, 2012 4:56 pm

Rodbell just became roadkill.

March 17, 2012 4:56 pm

Worrying to see these emerging greenshirts. La-la-la. Fingers in ears. Accusing Monckton of everything of which he is NOT guilty but they are. Liars and cheats. Calling themselves professor, too. What has Science become?
OTOH, perhaps there are a few students there now secretly reading W**T.

March 17, 2012 5:00 pm

Aachoo!
Oops, sorry – too much Pepper.
🙂

James Sexton
March 17, 2012 5:02 pm

John West says:
March 17, 2012 at 4:06 pm
I’ve been mulling over the “utter disgust and sheer anger” statement. I can only conclude that they actually believe mankind is ruining the planet………..
======================================================
Yes, and this is the crux of the argument. It isn’t about science. It never was. It is about an ideology and a belief system.
Many people, mostly the alarmists, believe humanity is an aberration of, and not part of, nature. They believe any advancement of humanity comes at the expense of nature. This is why Mz. Delman wants to worry about our water. It’s a Malthusian concept. Any rational individual knows we can’t run out of water, but that isn’t the point. The point is, we’re using it for humanity. It’s just like their fuel and energy efforts.
They wanted carbon free energy, but we didn’t build and advance already proven technology with essentially no emissions, (nuclear and hydro), instead we built windmills. An ancient technology which was proven not to work for these purposes. We also advanced natural gas at the expense of coal, because gas burnt cleaner. But, humanity was able to successful utilize the resources and find all that we’ll need for this use. Now, the alarmists are lining up against natural gas. Why? Because anything which benefits humanity, they are against us using it.
They’ve a peculiar form of self-loathing which extends to the rest of humanity. They are misanthropists, and they work against humanity. To effectively do this, they must exercise control over the rest of humanity. Left to our own devices, humanity has shown he can conquer the elements and adapt and effectively utilized the resources Nature has provided and continue to advance.
Alarmist advocacy is simply utilizing totalitarian socialism as a means to express their Malthusian misanthropy.

March 17, 2012 5:10 pm

Hugh Pepper said @ March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm

Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

The Good Lord shows the deficiencies of the CAGW argument using logic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with “research”. There are no “accepted processes” for criticism. If there were, you would be able to refer to an authoritative source. Rational discourse relies entirely on Aristotle’s Laws of Thought. You should acquaint yourself with them.

Grant
March 17, 2012 5:15 pm

Michael Palmer- 1:07pm
By coincidence, there was a story in todays National Post that dealt with a Canadian political figure and his early support of eugenics . Writing in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, Dr. Shevell, a prominent McGill University physician, discusses the acceptance of eugenics in areas of North America and Germany in the early 20th century.
“…Dr. Shevell said he has long been interested in the role of medicine in the Third Reich, when eugenics led to horrific experiments by physicians and scientists on people considered to be inferior human beings.
As someone who has “revered” Mr. Douglas for his medicare achievements, he said he was surprised to come across the former premier’s 1933 sociology Master’s thesis from McMaster University in Hamilton, titled The problems of the sub-normal family. Similar ideas reappeared in a 1934 document of the CCF, the NDP’s predecessor, said Dr. Shevell.”
“Under eugenics, human reproduction is restricted as a way to address social problems and improve the human population. By the mid-1930s, 24 U.S. states, Alberta and B.C. had laws mandating sterilization of those found to be intellectually disabled or morally degenerate.”
It seems Michael Palmer, that we can find evidence of ‘legalized’ eugenics in North America and Germany. I would say Lord Monckton’s point on eugenics remains standing.
Your comments on DDT are also in need of correction. DDT was banned in the US in 1972, effectively eliminating the world’s largest and lowest cost supplier. The Stockholm Convention (2004) attempted to correct this by allowing global use of DDT in the use of malaria control.
It seems your bag of refutation was hastily filled.

Werner Brozek
March 17, 2012 5:24 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others.

I saw his slide show and he shows that there have been other periods with the same warming as between 1975 and 1998. He also talks about a cooling for many years. And guess what? Phil Jones agrees with him! Was Phil Jones part of the 97%? See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.
And a different comment by Phil Jones:
Phil Jones, July 5, 2005:
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
That was in 2005. The latest from the MET is that there has been no warming for 15 years which is what Monckton said.
Now can you please tell us one specific thing that Monckton said that was debunked by others?

bcbrowser
March 17, 2012 5:30 pm

I wonder if it’s the title “Lord” that makes them think that the man is a pushover. The funny thing is, they never learn that he knows his stuff very well and they keep coming year after year having their faces blooded. Great fun Mr. Monckton and I thank you for that very much. Only confirms one’s suspicion that a large segment of the academia worries little about the truth, only caring about reinforcing their own preconceived beliefs.

Werner Brozek
March 17, 2012 5:33 pm

Marlow Metcalf says:
March 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm
When he writes “my slides are publicly available” it would be helpful if he were to include a short cut link for us lazy people.

The link below shows a 95 minute speech he gave on October 15, 2009 where many slides are shown. Keep in mind this is before climategate.

BarryW
March 17, 2012 5:35 pm

I notice how the trolls keep saying Moncton was refuted without a.) providing reference. b.) are ignorant of the fact that every time I’ve seen critiques of his lectures he has, in turn, refuted those critics.

March 17, 2012 5:42 pm

Marlow Metcalf says on March 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm:
When he writes “my slides are publicly available” it would be helpful if he were to include a short cut link for us lazy people.
=========
All you have got to do is to put “Lord Monckton’s slides and presentations” into your search engine and your wish will come true. – Personally I can watch and listen to Lord Monckton’s slides for hours on end. He really is good – and how he keeps it all in his head is beyond me.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 5:42 pm

Will Nitschke says:
March 17, 2012 at 3:05 pm
“In the sense that Monckton accepts that the planet has warmed recently and that CO2 has a significant (measurable/detectable) impact on temperatures, Monckton is as much a part of the 97% as the rest of the 97%.”
——————————————–
That is exactly my opinion too.
Monckton is brilliant, I always enjoy watching him, but he is no threat to the AGW concept.
I’d like to know, why he does not question the general calculations of “global warming” like “Hansen and Lebedeff 1987”. Neither are the data sufficient nor are the methods really scientific.
As he went to school and university students were not taught anything about “warming CO2” or “trapped radiation”, this idea was actually debunked by Professor R.W.Wood back in 1909. He was definitely taught, that the air gets warm through contact with the surface and convection. And now he agrees on “human impact”?
And this idea of his from the comment above is simply scientifically horrible: “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)…”. Central England is representative for the whole world?

March 17, 2012 5:43 pm

John Shade: Two children throwing a tantrum in front of an adult. That about sums it up.

Frank
March 17, 2012 5:47 pm

I was looking at the Professor’s article and followed the link to some of Ms. Delman’s other articles. In an article where Ms. Delman was responding to comments on one of her previous pieces I discovered the following quote:
“Editorial pieces should not be diatribes, but rather an assertion of opinion and an attempt to educate or persuade.”
http://www.concordy.com/article/opinions/january-19-2012/in-defense-of-the-purpose-of-opinion-articles/3445/
I think that it is ironic that she and the professor authored an editorial that I believe was very much a diatribe…
FWIW – Frank
PS: It was very interesting to follow the link to other articles by Ms. Delman.

F. Ross
March 17, 2012 5:50 pm

In my extensive research over the last 27 minutes I have found that approximately 97% of Mr. Pepper’s statements are fatuous with a margin of error of +3, -0.
And, yes, sorry to admit, that’s an ad hominem and I’ll probably go to hell for it.
One tires of reading the inane “peppery” drivel.

Toto
March 17, 2012 5:58 pm

“allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.”
Therefore, by their logic, they need to either not allow the speech or to allow it and reject it, whatever that means. It clearly does not mean debate it, so it must mean simply declare it to be false, which is an odd attitude for an academic institution. Many have noticed this non-science strategy before. Their strategy is not to try to convince anyone, it is to deny the existence of any doubt. The cause needs foot-soldiers, not free thinkers. To build a revolutionary guard, you need to build fear and hatred, not chat with the enemy.

LamontT
March 17, 2012 6:02 pm

Having just checked over in the opinion pieces comments it amuses me that not one comment supports the professor. All of them starting with the scientist in the first response are critical of the piece.

Dante d. Leone
March 17, 2012 6:05 pm

So, they’re blowing pot derived smokes up all humanoids ar-and-s’s, and hope a bunch of dumb flukes, preferebly all folks in the whole wide world, believe in the same crap they themselves, obviously, so do not, just so they could portray themselves as having been looking, at the very fluking least, ordinarily commonly correctly like they could possibly be right under the right statistically gobbledigook circumstances?
[Moderator’s Note: A masterful evasion of those words that get a comment consigned to the spam filter and then snipped. Congratulations. -REP]

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 6:08 pm

DirkH says:
March 17, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
“Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder. ”
Wrong on all counts. You should google Lebensborn.

Your reply is different from the others here, inasmuch as it contains at least some substance – indeed there was Lebensborn, and since in my youth I used to know one individual who had been born and raised there, I won’t have to google it.
However, Lebensborn hardly qualifies as a large scale eugenics experiment.
Care to explain what you might mean with “wrong on all counts”? I see only this one count.

Jerky
March 17, 2012 6:10 pm

[SNIP: This is getting tedious. Somone posts, Monckton answers. Someone posts the same stuff, Monckton answers again. Someone posts yet again…. Take it elsewhere. We’ve seen it. Everyone has seen it. Repetition does not make something truer. -REP]

Latitude
March 17, 2012 6:11 pm

Donald Rodbell-The Environmental Science Policy & Engineering Program
You guys realize this is so much easier to teach, when you teach global warming…..

March 17, 2012 6:13 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
…he (Monckton) males stuff up… He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted.
Mr. Pepper. You remind me of that fellow Glieck who wrote an Amazon book review on Donna Laframboise’s “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert,”
and who expressed utter disgust and sheer anger at the book he obviously had not read. Go and read the transcript (or watch) the Monckton lecture and Q+A period. He references peer reviewed literature throughout and doesn’t ever claim to have conducted his own research, just as the IPCC doesn’t conduct any research. Both have assessed the scientific literature. I don’t suppose you have read the Donna Laframboise book either, but no doubt you have strong opinions on that too. Pathetic.

LamontT
March 17, 2012 6:14 pm

“Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.”
=====================================================================
Hugh. Can I call you Hugh? You can call me Tom if you want. Anyway Hugh you make a claim based on authority here. The problem is you don’t even back up your authority. So I must ask you what authority you have to be claiming he is debunked.
Since you want to debunk him I’ll give you an easy target. Might I suggest you look at this WUWT post that summarizes his presentation and gives bits of it including actual video. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/ You can then go through and pick two, well you can pick more if you want two will do, points where he is wrong and easily debunked.
This should should be an easy task for you since you have indicated how thoroughly debunked he is. Since this is so easy I fully expect your reply here showing two points debunked. This isn’t an unreasonable challenge since you are speaking from authority in you initial claim I merely am asking you to back that authority up.
Mind you I do find it interesting that of the over 300 reply’s to that article giving actual quotes and examples from Lord Monckton’s speech that you didn’t post even once. Almost as if you you couldn’t actually debunk any of his statements and didn’t want to appear foolish. But no that couldn’t be it so here I am graciously granting you the opportunity to put up or shut up. If you do not respond with a couple of example from Lord Monckton’s speech easily debunking him then we will know that you do not speak from any sort of authority on the topic of Lord Monckton.
Cheery-O. I eagerly await your schooling of me in just two easily debunked points from this specific speech.

Hugh Pepper
Reply to  LamontT
March 17, 2012 7:43 pm

Thank you Tom. The debunking I reference has been thoroughly done By Professor Abrahams. You can Goggle him if you wish. Abrahams left Monckton’s contentions in shreds, as you will see if you check out the presentation.

J. Felton
March 17, 2012 6:14 pm

Congrats once again to Lord Monckton.

Latitude
March 17, 2012 6:14 pm

Don Rodbell
Professor of Geology and Chair
Education Research Courses Publications
Education:
B.S. 1983, St. Lawrence University; M.S. 1986, Ph.D. 1991, Geology, University of Colorado
Research Interests:
I am interested in documenting the geologic record of global climate change. My focus is on the timing of fluctuations of mountain glaciers during the last 2 million years in the Andes Mountains of Peru and Ecuador, and on the geologic record of El Nino preserved in lake deposits in the tropics. I have also applied these techniques to lake deposits in the northeastern U.S. These records provide important information on natural cycles of climatic change on which human effects have been superimposed.

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 6:15 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Michael Palmer says:
“As to the DDT ‘ban’, there is no such thing, at least not internationally.”
Good! So where can I buy some?

Glad to help. Took me almost a minute to find a supplier:
Contact name: SACHIN PATEL
Company: BHUMI SALES
Address: 3 MANHAR COMPLEX NR. C U SHAH COLLEGE ASHRAM ROAD
380014 AHEDABAD, GUJARAT
INDIA
Phone: +91-79-27541632
Fax: +91-79-27541632
Email: bhumi_ss@yahoo.com.sg

Gary Hladik
March 17, 2012 6:18 pm

“REPLY: Actually Hugh Pepper is a well known troll here who’s trademark is snark. That’s not Delman” – Anthony
Dang, I knew I should have added “/sarc”! 🙂
I’m aware that Hugh “peppers” WUWT threads with inanities, but after reading the Delman/Rodbell article, I couldn’t tell their writings apart. Hence the deliberate “confusion” on my part.
Sorry for wasting your time, Anthony.

JimJ
March 17, 2012 6:19 pm

I always look forward to reading the Viscount’s posts and comments. His rapier wit and grasp of details have to drive the consesus batty. Unfortunitly, there are very few public figures that can defend the skeptic position well if at all. Consequently, they are very reluctant to stick their heads up to discuss the issues because of the very real fear of public humiliation which will most assuredly be their fate. Again, how long did it take for Santorum to be the butt of Jay Leno’s jokes? Jay Leno for God’s sake. We have a long way to go folks.

March 17, 2012 6:21 pm

On criticism and science
Grandvewe Cheeses’ Sapphire Blue Cheese won the top prize, Champion Cheese, at the 2012 Sydney Royal Cheese and Dairy Produce Show and it was the Git’s great privilege to eat the penultimate portion on Friday night. The Git is not a great fan of Roquefort-style cheeses, but this particular cheese was sensational! While The Mercury gave the credit to the owner of the cheesery, it failed to mention Cheryl, who is the girl who actually makes the cheeses.
The occasion was the monthly book discussion group started by Mrs Git more than twenty years ago and the topic was cheese. Naturally, we didn’t just discuss cheese in literature, especially when the maker of a prizewinning cheese is a close neighbour.
Cheryl, when questioned, said that she knows nothing of cheesemaking science, nor does she want to know. Diane had given here the recipes when she was first employed two years ago. The making of cheese proceeds through several distinct stages and proceeding to the next has been the subject of much research. Critical aspects include pH, temperature, humidity and so on. Cheryl explains that she does all of this by “feel”: “this batch won’t be suitable for Roquefort”; “this batch needs an extra ten minutes before draining” etc. Not only does Cheryl not know the science behind what she does, she doesn’t even want to know.
Of course the science behind cheesemaking is as fascinating as the science behind many aspects of life — to those of us fascinated by science. Is it a requirement that one understands cheese science to criticise and appreciate fine cheese? What an absurd idea! It’s all about taste, aroma and mouth-feel. Science can inform us of many things, but it cannot substitute for human judgment (criticism).
The Good Lord has an excellent grasp of CAGW science, but his judgement of the effects of believing the bullshit — millions of dead people — has nothing whatsoever to do with science. His judgement has everything to do with being a rational and caring human being.

J. Felton
March 17, 2012 6:22 pm

Sorry, I had a browser error and my comment was published halfway. Don’t think I’ll ever get used to typing on a smart phone. Mods, if you could please delete my last comment that would be greatly appreciated!
Another excellent article Lord Monckton. I would say your best qoute by far is “100% of scientists thought Einstein were wrong in that space and time were invariant. They were wrong. So much for a consensus.”
This qoute right here, aside from all the other evidence on Anthony’s and other sites, completley debunks the failed consensus argument. You would think the good Professor would know that. Apparently not.

hillbilly33
March 17, 2012 6:27 pm

One never has to bother to defend Christopher Monckton. The Lord is more than qualified and willing to look after himself as evidenced in another of his classic responses to those so frightened of free speech and points of view different to their own. Why do such snivelling closed-minded “torn” intellectual minnows set themselves up for such a shellacking?

March 17, 2012 6:29 pm

Greg House says:
“Central England is representative for the whole world?”
Close enough. The long term rising temperature trend line since the LIA is more or less the same in many other locations.
And since there is no discernable change in trend either before or after the ≈40% rise in CO2, the obvious conclusion is that the effect of CO2 is negligible. It is too small to measure. It is undetectable. There has been no acceleration in the natural global warming trend, as was widely predicted.
If CO2 had the effect claimed by the climate alarmist crowd, we would see it reflected in the temperature record. But it is simply not there. Time to stop the “climate change” funding. There is no justification for throwing good money after bad.

Tim Minchin
March 17, 2012 6:30 pm

I’m wondering if Hugh Pepper isn’t a few wavelengths short of a spectrum

Kasuha
March 17, 2012 6:35 pm

I like Lord Monckton’s talks very much. There’s no doubt he’s not a scientist – he’s a politician and a very skilled speaker. But he still provides very consistent scientific information and his name keeps him doors open to places where many skeptics aren’t allowed. Unfortunately, sometimes bits of information in his talks are more emotional than scientific and these have better chance than others to be also inaccurate or wrong. Sadly, this gives many “warmists” chance to dismiss the whole talk with “he’s all wrong because he got _this_ wrong”.
I did my own research on DDT some time ago because I simply couldn’t believe that such miraculous insecticide would be banned for having such weak effects on humans. What I found was quite a surprise to me. Yes, there are certain negative influences on human health but main reason behind the ban in “civilized countries” was the fact that if it wasn’t banned, insects would become immune to it anyway. In fact many kinds already were immune and doses had to be increased substantially to control these which still weren’t immune completely. And the truth is, DDT is still being actively used in malaria control. It must be used carefully, combined with other insecticides and for short periods of time to prevent mosquitos developing immunity to it. In some areas mosquitos are already immune to it and there’s no point in using it there anymore as its weak but existing negative impact on human health then remains the only effect. But in the areas where mosquitos still aren’t immune to it, it is still used to control them.
There are very strong reasons behind how DDT is being handled today and I believe it is being treated very reasonably. Blaming “ban on DDT” for malaria deaths is not fair.

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 6:35 pm

johanna says:
March 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm
But then we got:
Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Eugenics may or may not work (…)
————————————————————-
… The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum –

This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects. The only question is whether or not the trait that is the object of optimization is indeed to a significant extent genetically determined. If it is, it follows that it can be enhanced by breeding.
Like others here, you are confusing ethical with scientific objections. You may have valid ethical arguments, but this doesn’t imply you have scientific ones. Like Monckton, you may have your heart in the right place, but I’m not sure about your head.
Regarding your assumption that I learned my genetics in some tabloids, well that, and in medical school, and I also cover some of it in my biochemistry lectures at university.

Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer
March 17, 2012 6:44 pm

It may have been mentioned in the comments before, but it sounds to me if Ms Delman is a fellow traveler with another student ‘activist’, who proselytized, er, “testified” in front of Congressional Democrats recently.
Oh, Lord Monckton? I don’t know if the college in question is a private or public institution. If private, they can do as they wish regarding speech on this side of the pond. Many thanks for this, as well as your myriad other battles. You truly remind me of the late Andrew Breitbart. Utterly fearless, and charge into battle with the confidence that comes with facts on your side. Again, many thanks.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 6:50 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“Greg House says:
“Central England is representative for the whole world?”
Close enough. The long term rising temperature trend line since the LIA is more or less the same in many other locations.”
———————————————–
Being representative is a slightly different thing.
Let me give you an example. Let’s assume, you and me discussed 10 issues and agreed on all of them. Now, if someone would like to have your opinion on the issue Nr. 11, can he simply ask me? According to your logic, my opinion is representative for yours.

March 17, 2012 6:57 pm

Michael Palmer,
Eugenics was easily perverted because it was used as a justification for eliminating undesirable individuals and groups from the species, rather than being used in a positive way, by encouraging the procreation of those with desirable characteristics. Neither one works due to human nature, but the evil side of eugenics seems to be the usual tendency of governments.
It is best to steer clear of anything that smacks of eugenics, for the simple reason that it is too tempting for those in power to use it against perceved enemies. Who will appoint the panels that will decide who will be eliminated? Germany identified ‘subhuman’ classes, and superhuman Aryans. Don’t think it can’t happen here. Human nature is the same everywhere.
There are already discussions regarding “death panels” in government healthcare. If government healthcare becomes a reality, it is absolutely certain that there will be such panels. Will the government spend $100,000 to keep a 90-year old alive for six more months? Private health plans will spend the money, they do it all the time. But government bureaucrats have different uses for it, such as buying votes. So we are coming full circle from the 1920’s and ’30’s. It’s really all eugenics, no matter what they might label it today.

Paul Coppin
March 17, 2012 6:59 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm
It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted. But he is persuasive, in a perverse way!

Hate to pile on (well no I don’t actually), but Hughie, its only difficult to debate Monckton, if you know nothing of the topic. Someone actually conversant with the material (and a requisite command of the English language) could debate Monckton, and defeat him, if his arguments are indefensible. The fact that you believe him to be undebatable means at least one or more of at least three things: your debaters are ignorant on the topic to be debated; your debaters lack a command of English sufficient to engage in debate,
He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted.
Hate to ad hom here, but are you thirteen? If this was benchmark for anything, nobody would be able to talk about anything. There is a longstanding English expression known as “re-inventing the wheel”. Consider your quote in that context and see if you can devine the logical causality. “Troll” is too kind, Trolloid would be more apt, in the hope that at some point you might actually rise to the level.

Mark Bofill
March 17, 2012 7:03 pm

Hugh Peppers says:
Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.
Hugh,
as defined on the Merriam Webster dictionary website
Definition: credibility (noun) 1 : the quality or power of inspiring belief
Obviously, Lord Monckton has credibility with many people. Examples include many posters here. This is also plain that Professor Rodbell is aware of it, “On the other, however, dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection risked that he would have an impact, and a dangerous one at that.” If Lord Monckton had no credibility, he would not constitute a risk of having a dangerous impact. Furthermore, if you truly believed Lord Monckton had no credibility it is unlikely that you would feel the need to post on the matter at all.
Definition: research (noun) 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws
Equally obvious is the fact that Lord Monckton has indeed done considerable research on the topics he discusses. For example, he demonstrates familiarity with the IPCC’s statements and positions; it is improbable to the point of absurdity he could do so without having done research on the material. Perhaps you meant he has authored no papers published in peer reviewed journals? I think many, possibly most of the readers here are students of science who have published nothing. As students who study sciences, we know from experience that an understanding of highly technical material is attainable with discipline and effort, regardless of the presence or absence of academic trappings. Further, the understanding is effective irrespective of how it was obtained.
Respectfully, I suggest that you consider making an effort to clarify in the future what you mean when you make claims such as ‘his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others’. As they say, the devil is in the details. For example, is it your contention that his statement that ‘it was settled science that there is a greenhouse effect, that CO2 adds to it, that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere, that we are largely to blame, and that some warming can be expected to result’? I’m sure the readers here would be fascinated to hear more from these master deniers who have debunked these claims Lord Monckton has made! Obviously, you don’t mean that. If you were more specific, you would avoid problems like this. You might even make progress in persuading people that your assertions may be valid by breaking down the specifics of what you disagree with Lord Monckton about and why.

March 17, 2012 7:04 pm

Everyone, especially the most prominent people in the debates (like Monckton), need to come clean. I have posted a comment on this at Roy Spencer’s site, and on my own blog:
The Climate Science Debate: All Should Come Clean

Paul Coppin
March 17, 2012 7:11 pm

Yet, perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to your professor, you raised your hands in denial of the truth. Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority.
As I’ve previously written in other threads about Moncton’s visit, I believe this is by far the most salient, and damaging, point of his entire speech, and the point about which Redbull and Dulman are most upset about. Not only does this refute the consensus, it enjoins to challenge it. The age of the college and the attitude of its staff suggest that the stocks still remain on the common.

March 17, 2012 7:11 pm

Greg House,
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I simply provided seven more locations that all show a steadily rising warming trend from the LIA, in response to your question.
Michael Mann tried to erase the LIA, but his MBH98/99 papers were falsified. There was, in fact, a LIA. It was the second coldest episode of the entire Holocene. The planet has been gradually warming along the same trend line since then. I just provided additional examples supporting the CET record. I can provide more if you like.

J. Felton
March 17, 2012 7:19 pm

Greg House said
“Central England temperatures are representitive of the whole world?”
* * *
As far as I know, the Central England temperature measurements are among the oldest in the world. (Whether or not they are accurate is another story.)
I think this was the point, as longetivity in temperature records obviously matter in order to get the whole story.

johanna
March 17, 2012 7:21 pm

Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm
johanna says:
March 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm
But then we got:
Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Eugenics may or may not work (…)
————————————————————-
… The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum –

This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects. The only question is whether or not the trait that is the object of optimization is indeed to a significant extent genetically determined. If it is, it follows that it can be enhanced by breeding.
Like others here, you are confusing ethical with scientific objections. You may have valid ethical arguments, but this doesn’t imply you have scientific ones. Like Monckton, you may have your heart in the right place, but I’m not sure about your head.
Regarding your assumption that I learned my genetics in some tabloids, well that, and in medical school, and I also cover some of it in my biochemistry lectures at university.
———————————————————————-
Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.
When Chris Monckton and I talk about eugenics, it relates to selective breeding of humans for physical and mental traits that were considered to be desirable, a fallacious and barbaric school of consensus that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. The main instruments were identifying and sterilising or isolating people who were considered to be bad breeding stock. In the US, that would have included most of the black population, given the views of the time about average inferior intellects in that ‘race’. In my parents’ European country, it could have included my grandfather, who was ‘just’ a postman; his sister, who had epilepsy; and their cousin who was a dwarf. But, they all reproduced, and amazingly, the family has done pretty well.
Do I have to draw you a picture? Eugenics as cited by Monckton has nothing to do with breeding livestock, then or now. As for citing your university credentials, go back to the head post and perhaps realise that you have inadvertently reinforced the point – that people in universities are not always as smart as they imagine themselves to be.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 7:23 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“If CO2 had the effect claimed by the climate alarmist crowd, we would see it reflected in the temperature record. But it is simply not there.”
———————————–
One can argue, that CO2 does have the effect, but other factors interfere and spoil the correlation between CO2 and the temperature.

Jaypan
March 17, 2012 7:26 pm

Almost missed the best piece today …
The body language of this professor tells me a lot already.
Then I’ve read their original article. They are AFRAID like little kids in the dark
and would do almost everything to silence Monckton. Wow.
How this AGW issue does change some people, let them forget all principles.
But before I became too concerned, I’ve read the comments there.
So the funny part began …
Thanks everybody for their contributions.

Steve from Rockwood
March 17, 2012 7:28 pm

If I were guiding students I would invite Monckton to speak. Beforehand I would caution my students that this guy is the best there is. Don’t get sucked in, don’t confront him with silly talking points. Take it all in and when it’s over we’ll get together and talk about the event, putting things into perspective. But have some fun while you’re there. The shrill “we were torn” teaches young people nothing. Sometimes the old cliche that “those who can’t – teach” hits a little too close to the mark.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 7:28 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:11 pm
“Greg House,
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say. I simply provided seven more locations that all show a steadily rising warming trend from the LIA, in response to your question. ”
—————————–
Maybe I have misunderstood your idea, I am sorry. I thought it was about it was about the issue of something being representative for something else.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 7:34 pm

J. Felton says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:19 pm
“As far as I know, the Central England temperature measurements are among the oldest in the world. (Whether or not they are accurate is another story.)
I think this was the point, as longetivity in temperature records obviously matter in order to get the whole story.”
———————————–
OK, let us say, back in XXXX the only temperature record available was the one from the Central England. Was this record representative for the whole world and why?

March 17, 2012 7:35 pm

From one of Mockton’s detractors:
“As to the DDT “ban”, there is no such thing, at least not internationally. If the countries most severely affected by malaria had any kind of capable and responsible government, these governments would have been free to make or procure DDT and use it. (Chances are, however, that the insect vectors would by now be largely resistant to DDT, had its widespread use continued.) The causes for the continued malaria problem are the same as those for the continued problems with tuberculosis and HIV: Poverty and government malfeasance.”
This is the old problem of 1/2 the story, 1/2 on Mockton’s side, and 1/2 on his detractor’s side.
The primary nation HURT TERRIBLY by OUR DDT ban was INDIA. We used to supply them with TONS to treat their malarial Swamps. By 1975, the year we banned DDT (and I’ll BET the Mockton detractor has NOT read the Rucklehouse, may he rot in HE-double toothpicks..report “On the Decision to Ban DDT”. A report with “science” so shoddy as to be an embarrasment to everyone who TOUCHED it! I have a copy of it, I know of what I speak…!) the Indian government had the malarial death rate down to < 50,000 per year. By 1986, the year I became interested, and obtained the EPA report, and found out the terrible truth of how our "prissyness" condemned hundreds and thousands to a horrible fate…death from Malaria…, the death rate was back to the about 250,000 per year..which it had been for many years prior to the USA assisted DDT programs of the 50's 60's and 70's.
INDEED the Indian government and people ARE NOT STUPID and they now MAKE their own DDT and are controlling the malarial problem once again. ALAS the nations in AFRICA, in general, do NOT have the resources that INDIA does, and because WE, yes WE the good old USA have been and would be the primary source, the African nations are S.O.L.
Now two quick points about DDT, and it's "hazards". Number 1., the "egg shell thining". TENUOUS ASSOCIATION AT BEST. Ultimately proved to be primarily due to the ethylene di-bromide used to stabalize Tetra-ethyl Leaded gasoline. (Leaded gasoline removed in 1970..not needed for OCTANE improvement, and valve seats then HARDENED by surface treatement processes, and thus the lead cushion to prevent wear..no longer needed!) Number 2. The alledged "persistance" in the enviroment. 1990's, soil samples found, U of Michigan…sealed in 1910. When analysed? You guessed it, 10 PPM DDT! Naturally occuring. (Someone doing a SIMPLE mass calculation on the amount of DDT needed to put 10 PPM in all the top soil around the world would have found it to be several times the industrial production which had ever been!)
LAST POINT: "Oh, you can control malaria by Quinine." Hum, had a Swiss MD friend of mine pull that one on me. Then he did 2 years medical relief work in Thailand during the 1980's. He DID, indeed (Thank you Dr. Hans R.) APOLOGIZE to me for that ignorance. You see, quinine in too large a dose is deadly poisonous. In all but the most highly educated societies, it has to be administered "a pill at a time" to keep the less well informed and disciplined from TAKING A WHOLE BOTTLE AND DYING because "the more will make you better faster". (Primative thinking!)
SO, sorry to go off on such a tirade. But I despise people for superficial thinking on BOTH sides of the arguements, and in the long run…would prefer that sometimes …some claims, when they aare COMPLICATED as this one, be left to better venues to discuss.
Max

RockyRoad
March 17, 2012 7:37 pm

Greg House says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:50 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“Greg House says:
“Central England is representative for the whole world?”
Close enough. The long term rising temperature trend line since the LIA is more or less the same in many other locations.”
———————————————–
Being representative is a slightly different thing.
Let me give you an example. Let’s assume, you and me discussed 10 issues and agreed on all of them. Now, if someone would like to have your opinion on the issue Nr. 11, can he simply ask me? According to your logic, my opinion is representative for yours.

I’d rather have a representative thermometer than a representative tree. And that’s the main issue, rather than one of semantics.
Or, “wood” you like to take this discussion to the next level?

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 7:38 pm

johanna says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm

Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.
When Chris Monckton and I talk about eugenics, it relates to selective breeding of humans for physical and mental traits that were considered to be desirable, a fallacious and barbaric school of consensus that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. The main instruments were identifying and sterilising or isolating people who were considered to be bad breeding stock.

“fallacious and barbaric” – there you have your own error, in a nutshell. Barbaric it is, but not fallacious – the scientific basis of breeding humans is exactly the same as for breeding livestock. As I said before, you are confusing ethics and science.

RockyRoad
March 17, 2012 7:39 pm

Greg House says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:29 pm
“If CO2 had the effect claimed by the climate alarmist crowd, we would see it reflected in the temperature record. But it is simply not there.”
———————————–
One can argue, that CO2 does have the effect, but other factors interfere and spoil the correlation between CO2 and the temperature.

So if that’s the case, what’s your worries?

RockyRoad
March 17, 2012 7:43 pm

hillbilly33 says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm

One never has to bother to defend Christopher Monckton. The Lord is more than qualified and willing to look after himself as evidenced in another of his classic responses to those so frightened of free speech and points of view different to their own. Why do such snivelling closed-minded “torn” intellectual minnows set themselves up for such a shellacking?

Clueless in one, clueless in many.

Mark Bofill
March 17, 2012 7:45 pm

jonathan frodsham says:
March 17, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Erin Delman is an it.
——————–
Jonathan, I hate to be a pain in the left buttock and all, but I’d rethink this if I were you. She’s a kid, not an ‘it’. Maybe some people commit sufficient atrocities that they should no longer be considered people, but come on. I can’t say I personally think of environmental law as a noble calling, but it’s not beyond the reach of my imagination that someone could make something worthwhile of it. Maybe I just have a REALLY good imagination, I don’t know.

March 17, 2012 7:46 pm

Michael Palmer says:
“Contact name: SACHIN PATEL
Company: BHUMI SALES
Address: 3 MANHAR COMPLEX NR. C U SHAH COLLEGE ASHRAM ROAD
380014 AHEDABAD, GUJARAT
INDIA”

My question is still the same: where can I buy DDT, if it’s not banned? I think there would be a problem attempting to import something from India that I cannot purchase in the U.S.
So once again: where can I buy DDT, if it’s not banned? I live in the U.S. Give me a U.S. source where I can buy it off the shelf, please.
The fact is, DDT is effectively banned. We can’t buy it like we used to be able to.

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 7:53 pm

Max Hugoson says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:35 pm
(on DDT, the universe, and everything … )
As you correctly point out, India makes the stuff themselves. Whose fault is it that it took them so long? DDT is easy to make, as far as chemical synthesis goes.
African countries, if they had some sort of reasonable government, could have done the same, or just bought it from India instead of wasting their money on gilded toilet seats and Kalashnikovs. To put the blame on Uncle Sam no longer doling the stuff out for free is absurd.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 7:54 pm

RockyRoad says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm
“Or, “wood” you like to take this discussion to the next level?”
—————————————————————–
What do you mean by “the next level”?

RockyRoad
March 17, 2012 7:56 pm

Oh oh… I think Hugh Pepper is a bot! He’s posting the exact same stuff that got him a dozen excellent rebuffs and he POSTS IT AGAIN!
Mods, is there any way you can wake Hugh up? Maybe send something to his email saying we all get his point but his point is pointless?
This is getting tedious beyond any normal expectation.

March 17, 2012 7:57 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
“The debunking I reference has been thoroughly done By Professor Abrahams. You can Goggle [sic] him if you wish. Abrahams left Monckton’s contentions in shreds, as you will see if you check out the presentation…”
That is not ‘debunking’, that is pure cherry-picking. Abraham doesn’t have the balls to debate Lord Monckton, so he emits one-sided propaganda from his hideout. Anyone can do what Abraham did, by sifting through reams of commentary and cherry-picking this and that to try and paint a deceptive picture. Alarmist blogs do it all the time.
The plain fact is that Abraham is terrified of debating Lord Monckton. He’s a chicken; is there any doubt at all? I will humbly retract that comment — if and when Abraham screws up enough courage to go toe to toe with Monckton on a level playing field. But so far, Abraham is a scaredycat who cringes in the safety of his ivory tower, taking pot shots but never daring to show his face in public with Lord Monckton. Spin it any way you want, but your boy is a chicken.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 8:02 pm

RockyRoad says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:37 pm
I’d rather have a representative thermometer than a representative tree.
——————————————-
That is understandable, but the problem is, that a non-representative thermometer is not any better, than a non-representative tree.

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 8:02 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Michael Palmer says:
“Contact name: SACHIN PATEL

My question is still the same: where can I buy DDT, if it’s not banned? I think there would be a problem attempting to import something from India that I cannot purchase in the U.S.

You don’t have to, because there are viable alternatives to DDT, such as malathion and pyrethroids (although, as with DDT, resistant Anopheles strains exist). They are being used all the time for example in Florida. How much endemic malaria cases from Florida have come knocking at your door lately?
The case against DDT may have been trumped up, but so is the case against the DDT ban as the most appalling genocide in history.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 8:07 pm

RockyRoad says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:39 pm
“So if that’s the case, what’s your worries?”
————————————
I do not think it is helpful to use invalid arguments, that is all.

LamontT
March 17, 2012 8:10 pm

Ah Hugh I did as you suggested and found that Professor Abrahams had been shredded into little bits by Lord Monckton’s 84 page reply to him. It was one of the first returns when I did the search you suggested. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/abraham-surrenders-to-monckton-uni-of-st-thomas-endorses-untruths/ here for the first site I came across on the topic. And http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/monckton-warm-abra-qq2.pdf if you want to read that rebuttal to Professor Abrahams.
That said you didn’t actually meet my challenge. I asked you to pick two examples from the linked lecture by Lord Monckton and rebut them. Instead you pointed to a debunked attack by Professor Abrahams as if that settled things. I’m afraid it didn’t remotely hold up to analysis and fell apart.
So again please pick two easily debunked items from Lord Monckton’s Schenectady speech and demonstrate just how easy it is to debunk him. I’m afraid Professor Abrahams is simply out as a source of debunking as he was debunked himself.

Dante d. Leone
March 17, 2012 8:11 pm

Dante d. Leone says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:05 pm
[Moderator’s Note: A masterful evasion of those words that get a comment consigned to the spam filter and then snipped. Congratulations. -REP]
Well, even if it wasn’t all that, I’m learning, still, so I’ll take it from an obviouse master and be proud, as the aitch in the elevator to the bottom, of the current hill.
[Moderator’s Query: I am going to hate myself, but I’m pretty sure something just went over my head. If you tell me what it was, I promise to take it with humility. -REP]

March 17, 2012 8:13 pm

Michael Palmer,
I don’t want substitutes, I want the real thing: DDT! Where can I buy some?
It’s almost as though it’s been banned.☺

Michael Palmer
March 17, 2012 8:24 pm

Smokey says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Michael Palmer,
I don’t want substitutes, I want the real thing: DDT. Where can I buy some?
It’s almost as though it’s been banned.☺

It seems we have a case against DDT after all – it seems to be highly addictive to some, and compromise their mental faculties. It should be banned!

LamontT
March 17, 2012 8:25 pm

Equally important is it legal to import DDT into the US?
Cannot be legally sold or bought in the US. http://www.epa.gov/international/toxics/pop.html
And it does appear to monitored when imported. – http://www.cec.org/Page.asp?PageID=924&ContentID=1262
I didn’t see a quick indication that you can legally import it into the US on the other claw I didn’t see that you can’t. If you do import it from India you certainly would be monitored if it wasn’t confiscated. And you couldn’t sell it. There might be repercussions as well if you attempted to use it.
So it isn’t specifically banned but it certainly isn’t something you can buy in the US so it is effectively banned. I would thus state for the record that DDT is banned.

March 17, 2012 8:53 pm

Michael Palmer says:
“It should be banned!”
Haven’t you noticed? It is.

Greg House
March 17, 2012 9:01 pm

LamontT says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm
“Ah Hugh… I asked you to pick two examples from the linked lecture by Lord Monckton and rebut them.”
——————————————————-
May I take this? Thank you.
This is easy. Two things I have already done, see above, about “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)” and the absence of correlation between CO2 and the temperature.
The third one is the thing about warming having stopped 12-15 years ago. I’ll just give an example. Look at this “warming”: 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-4-5-6-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13. You can see, may “warming” stopped for a while, but then…
The problem is, he uses not only valid arguments, but also invalid ones.

March 17, 2012 9:08 pm

Sorry Greg,
The recent warming has a lower high:
http://climate-change-theory.com/360month.jpg

Sam Geoghegan
March 17, 2012 9:25 pm

I don’t pretend to know anything about climate science but have the following points been dealt with by sceptics? Both sides of the argument have their fair share of acolytes- I suspect many who know nothing, hang on every word Monckton has to say.

Laurie
March 17, 2012 9:38 pm

Lord Monckton: ….therefore not CAGW…
Dr. Rodbell: Liar! Liar! LALALALALALALALALALALA! I can’t hear youuuuuuu!

March 17, 2012 9:54 pm

Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm
For someone who claims to have gone to medical school or to be, God-forbid, lecturing students, you’ve yet to learn to distinguish between livestock breeding, genetics and eugenics. The latter may employ and apropriate principles of the former two to support its inherent ideology, but it is an entitity on its own. Eugenics is a racist ideology developed in California, of all places, and well before Hitler. It was about protecting and enriching a presumed superior human group, the “Nordic Race,” and to enhance its health and intelligence, as subjectively defined by some people at the time, through programs including selective breeding, forced sterilization and genocide.
So, learned doctor, when you pop a howler like “you [johanna] are confusing ethical with scientific objections”, I don’t know whether to laugh or throw up. Are you defending, for example, David Starr Jordan’s “race and blood theory,” the notion that only 10 percent of the White population is eugenically viable, that Blacks are mentally inferior, that Jews are genetically poisonous? Those were some of the central, unchallenged conclusions reached and acted on by eugenic “science.” No, those were not mistakes, those were pre-dermined goals and conclusions fraudulently represented as honest science. Do, then, try to comprehend this simple point: Eugenics is what it historically was, not what you want it to be. It is not some sort of a potentially benign version of “applied genetics” as you appear to imply, but an ignorant superstition tarted-up with scientific-sounding gobledeygook and poor or fraudulent research to resemble real science…in other words, a pseudoscience. It was wildly successful with “policy-makers” in the US and Germany for the same reasons that CAGW succeeded; it was supported by powerful people and institutions, it was lavishly funded, addressed the vanities and fears of people and was legitimized by a temporarily dominant cadre of morally deficient, fundamentally stupid and corrupt academics. Rings a bell?

March 17, 2012 10:05 pm

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 3:13 pm
“…It would be very difficult to “debate” Mr Monckton. His style stresses the limits of reasionable (sic) discourse. In short: as has been outlined by Professor Abraham and others, he males (?) stuff up. He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted…”
You could also make the same comment about another public speaker – Academy Award winning, Nobel prize winner, Al Gore.
“…He’s a very inventive guy with words and numbers. He cannot reference his assertions to research which he has actually conducted…”

Hugh Pepper
Reply to  henrythethird
March 18, 2012 5:01 am

Let’s be clear. “Facts” are not ideas conjured through some intellectual exercise alone. “Facts” about the real world are established by a rigorous exercise of observation and measurement. There are accepted protocols which work to ensure that the practice of finding the truth is legitimate. If everybody follows the “rules”, this system works. It is legitimate for Al Gore, who you apparently have demonized, to quote research which has been apprpriately conducted by others. You are also free to follow this style as well, and I encourage you to do this.
The physics of climate science has ben well established for many years, and universally accepted. Read Michael Mann’s recent book, for example, for an authoritative summary of this basic work. But then, I suppose, he has also been thoroughly demonized.

March 17, 2012 10:15 pm

Once again, many thanks to the overwhelming majority of commenters here for their kind support. The trolls are fewer and dimmer than ever, confirming that they know the climate scare is over.
Mr. Vukcevik (not a troll) asks why I support Dr. Scafetta. Not the least of many reasons is that he has done what I lack the skill to do: he has been able to subtract the naturally-occurring ocean oscillations from the temperature record, isolating a long-run residual increase at a rate of 0.9 C/century that may be anthropogenic. Another compelling reason is that his forecast of the global temperature trend, which he began in 2000, has proven skilful, while that of the IPCC has proven exaggerated beyond all reason. Dr. Scafetta is getting it right: the IPCC is getting it wrong.
One wonders what research Mr. Pepper did before concluding I had done “no research”.
And let us be clear about the DDT ban. DDT was indeed banned by the US and many Western countries. Many of them made banning DDT a condition of their aid to Third-World countries, many of whom were, in effect, bribed to stop using it. The consequences have been heartbreaking, and I cannot any longer bear to read them out during my talks, which is why I now show the DDT and other “consensus” slides in absolute silence. DDT was first banned at the instigation of the Environmental Defense Fund. Its then lawyer, Victor John Yannacone Jr., advised the Board of the EDF that they should press for a ban only on the outdoor use of DDT: indoors it would save children’s lives without giving the mosquitoes a chance to acquire resistance.
The chairman of the EDF sacked Yannacone on the spot. As he left the room, he heard one of the Board say: “That’s the last time we employ a lawyer who knows anything about science.” Result: deaths from malaria, which chiefly kills children, rose from 50,000 per year before the worldwide ban to more than 1 million a year afterwards. Some 40 million children have died as a direct result of the DDT ban, 1.25 million of them last year alone. Had the ban not been introduced in the West and then imposed on the rest via strings attached to foreign aid, malaria might have been wiped out almost everywhere in the world by now. There are few more poignant demonstrations of the massacre caused by a cruel, scientifically-illiterate, politically-motivated “consensus”.
On 15 December 2006, Dr. Arata Kochi, newly-appointed head of the World Health Organization’s malaria program, announced that the WHO was lifting the DDT ban, He said: “In this field, politics usually comes first and science second. We will now take a stand on the science and the data.” He was ignored by almost all nations, who seem to prefer the now-accelerating massacre of the innocents that is malaria today.
If the “global warming” scare continues to divert trillions away from giving fossil-fueled electricity, clean water, safe sewerage, decent health care and education to the world’s poorest people, then tens of millions will die who would otherwise have been saved. Consensus kills.

Hugh Pepper
Reply to  Monckton of Brenchley
March 18, 2012 5:11 am

WHere is your research published Mr Monckton? Please refer me to this work and I will be delighted to read it. Please note: I am not referring to intellectual commentary, which can be easily done from the sactuary of our homes. There are legions of people (thankfully) who trudge around the frozen regions of our world, and who venture onto the oceans, folks who do actual research and who write papers summarizing their work. It is this kind of inquiry, Mr Monckton, which I am asking you to cite.

D. King
March 17, 2012 10:21 pm

Michael Palmer
DDT
It’s a game of semantics and cute arguments, except when it’s not!

Richard Patton
March 17, 2012 10:32 pm

JDN says: March 17, 2012 at 1:32 pm
@Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.
The courts have generally held that the 14th ammendment puts State and local governments under the limitations of the Bill of Rights. Otherwise Utah could legally make Mormonism, and Georgia could make the Southern Baptist Church their official State religions.

Richard Patton
March 17, 2012 10:34 pm

Bad editing that was supposed to read:
JDN says: March 17, 2012 at 1:32 pm
@Monckton: The constitution only applies to the US congress and states via the commerce clause (usually). Universities and university professors abridge free speech all the time. They don’t make federal laws and are, therefore, unconstrained by the bill of rights. Otherwise, nice job.
The courts have generally held that the 14th ammendment puts State and local governments under the limitations of the Bill of Rights. Otherwise Utah could legally make Mormonism, and Georgia could make the Southern Baptist Church their official State religions.

Werner Brozek
March 17, 2012 10:38 pm

Sam Geoghegan says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm

I would rather comment on something in writing since that is easier to quote. But to comment on one item, Monckton says the trend is down from January 1, 2001 over the next 9 years. He uses Hadcrut3. Then the narrator says the trend is UP over 10 years! But that is NOT what Monckton said!
Take a look at the graphs below. It DOES go down over the 9 years as Monckton stated. While it goes up over the 10 years from 2000 to 2010, Monckton never said anything about a 10 year period.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/to:2010/trend

jollygreenwatchman
March 17, 2012 10:50 pm

“… their student newspaper The Concordiensis”
As in “Hail Eris” and all that ? Well, that explains a lot 😉

Nicodemus
March 17, 2012 10:56 pm

OT as far as the content of this post is, but a Latin grammar question for those readers who are better informed than me [probably 97% at least…].
The Concordiensis??? WTF? “ensis” is an adjectival suffix denoting geographical origin or location, at least in biological Latin, of which I have a reasonable knowledge. Something like ‘Acta Diurna [or whatever time frame is used] Concordiensis’ would seem to make sense. ‘The Concordian’ [noun] would make sense. But the Concordiensis? Perhaps I am wrong, in which case I am pleased to be informed. But I worry when a school of higher learning seems to lack the basic knowledge of our culture.

March 17, 2012 11:00 pm

Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Eugenics may or may not work – the fact of the matter is that it has not been tried (and I’m not suggesting that it should). The extermination campaigns of the Nazis may have been influenced by, but certainly are not the same as a planned breeding program; nor can it be assumed that most people who would support planned breeding would support murder.

Eugenics most certainly *was* tried — the National Socialists’ program in the ’30s encompassed euthanasia, sterilization, and selective breeding. The extermination camps of the “Final Solution” were political establishments, and separate from the effort to create a race of übermenschen.

James Sexton
March 17, 2012 11:16 pm

Greg House says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:01 pm
LamontT says:
March 17, 2012 at 8:10 pm
“Ah Hugh… I asked you to pick two examples from the linked lecture by Lord Monckton and rebut them.”
——————————————————-
May I take this? Thank you.
This is easy. Two things I have already done, see above, about “the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)” and the absence of correlation between CO2 and the temperature.
The third one is the thing about warming having stopped 12-15 years ago. I’ll just give an example. Look at this “warming”: 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-4-5-6-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13. You can see, may “warming” stopped for a while, but then…
================================
Greg, if I may……. the use of the word “proxy” may the problem. Historically, Central England has a pretty good correlation with the rest of the world’s temps…. though admittedly that’s subjective. I don’t believe Monckton or anyone else is asserting there are any predictive or intuitive properties with Central England temps and how they would relate to the rest of the world, but rather, there’s simply a good historical correlation.
The correlation between CO2 and temps is subjective as well, and depending upon the time frame, it may hold different meanings to different people. Clearly, there is no correlation in the last 15 years. One can pick some start point and say, “aha! a correlation”….. but, that’s entirely subjective.
Lastly, when people say “the warming has stopped”, they’re using the present participle. Notice, there’s no indication or prediction of future events when such a statement is made. So, your example isn’t valid towards the statement ‘the warming has stopped’. For it to be a valid representation, it would look like this…… 1-2-3-2-3-4-5-4-5-6-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-6. See the difference?
Here’s the CO2 correlation for the entire Mauna record. CO2 really only correlated for 20 years out of the 54 year record.

Dr. Dave
March 17, 2012 11:40 pm

For those interested in DDT I strongly recommend this article by the late Dr. Edwards. It is perhaps the single best, succinct description of DDT I have ever read.
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
That said, I actually know a few things about insecticides as we apply them to humans to treat mite and lice infestations. I’m also a gardener. DDT today is a niche application insecticide. It possesses several rather unique properties. It is virtually non-toxic to humans in normally encountered doses, it doesn’t stink, it has repellant properties and most importantly it has “persistence.” A single application of DDT can last a month or more. Although in the early days a number of agricultural pests developed resistance (not “immunity”) to DDT, the mosquito never did to any great extent. In his previous comment, Lord Monckton was absolutely correct in his description of how DDT was politicized (and resulted in the death of millions). We really don’t need DDT in the US. But they need it certainly for indoor use in Africa, India, Indonesia, etc. Just like using antimicrobials to treat human infection, the smartest choice is the agent with the most focused spectrum of activity to reduce the development of resistant strains. Same is true for insecticides. I’m a big fan of permethrin. It’s non-toxic, it doesn’t stink and it’s extremely broad spectrum. That’s why I seldom use it in the lawn or garden except when the big guns are necessary. We do, however, shampoo the heads of our children with this stuff at a 1% concentration to kill head lice. This is a concentration MUCH higher than landscapers or even exterminators use.

wfrumkin
March 17, 2012 11:43 pm

This comment thread ties together some important points about CAGW as a belief system.
1. Most humans are harming Gaia
2. A few enlightened people undetstand the price to be paid will need to be a culling of the unworthy
3. Deniers have forfeited their right to live on mother earth
4. Since Malthus predicts that most of the human race are fated to starve anyway, banning carbon will only speed up the inevitable (hopefully) limiting the damage to Gaia.
5. Of course, we the enlightened get to survive and keep our private jets and waterfront mansions in the new sustainable world we create.
/bitter sarc.

March 17, 2012 11:47 pm

Is Lord Monckton always right? No. But he presents an important opposing viewpoint that I appreciate is out there. To me, he is like Richard Dawkins. I don’t agree with many of his claims, but I think he is an important counter-balance to other points of view.

Man Bearpigg
March 17, 2012 11:47 pm

So the professor was not content with getting mullah’d once, he thought he would have another go and got mullah’d again ..

Asmilwho
March 17, 2012 11:58 pm

“we were torn … the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger …. it seemed ludicrous …. dismissing him and allowing his speech without rejection ”
Is this was passes for the language of scientific debate amongst climatologists, these days?

James Sexton
March 18, 2012 12:06 am

Sam Geoghegan says:
March 17, 2012 at 9:25 pm
I don’t pretend to know anything about climate science but have the following points been dealt with by sceptics? Both sides of the argument have their fair share of acolytes- I suspect many who know nothing, hang on every word Monckton has to say.
============================================
I suspect you don’t know jack. If you don’t pretend then don’t bring up things that have been hashed and rehashed. If you have a specific question. Ask it. If you want to know all of the specific replies to what that contextually challenged individual stated, it’s in the archives here.

Greg House
March 18, 2012 12:19 am

James Sexton says:
March 17, 2012 at 11:16 pm
——————————————————
James, maybe I caused some misunderstanding trying to be concise in my previous posts.
Generally you can not a)prove causality alone with correlation and b)disprove causality alone with absence of correlation. This is a central point. If you do not agree with that, I will go into details next time.
Second, the argument about “stopped warming” misses the point. The AGW side can rightfully argue, that they do not mean the warming must be really continuous, they mean specifically long term trends. However, this argument about “stopped warming” is not completely useless, because a lot of people have got the impression from the pro AGW media, that the warming is continuous and catastrophic, so debunking the claims of the media is a good thing.
Third, about good correlation between temperature records, the thing is, that a good correlation is not enough to use one weather station or one region as a proxy for others for many reasons. I’ll give you just one simple example: the records (5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-6-7) and (5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-4-3) correlate very well, but the trends are different.
Generally I strongly recommend to be very suspicious of anything coming from the climate science, including alleged measurements, statistics and conclusions.

Ken
March 18, 2012 12:23 am

It is extremely sad that our children are subjected to an overwhelmingly Liberal Educational system from K through College. The educational system is similar to the AGW nightmare we are currently facing. It’s no more than another attempt by the Progressive / Liberal camps to reach into our lives, limit our freedoms, control our politicians, and to reallocate our tax dollars as they see fit. My big question is this; Where are the adults from both sides of the argument? This whole situation is playing out like a bad Jerry Springer episode. Somewhere there has to be a group of educated and mature scientists that are willing to sit down and work this issue based on facts. Seriously, Where is Inhofe?? How can NASA be hijacked without congressional hearings? Why isn’t someone of authority questioning the historical temp data adjustments that are being made? I am a huge skeptic, and not just AGW, but with almost every decision coming out of DC these days. Everything evolving before our eyes is a back room deal aimed at special interest. Are we going to have to completely clean house in DC before honesty, integrity, and selflessness become common place again? Bad behavior has become too widely accepted. The farther this country moves away from religion the worst it gets.

Louis
March 18, 2012 12:41 am

Donald Rodbell and Erin Delman state the following in their article:
“Peer reviewed publications are the building blocks of all the pillars of scientific knowledge…”
They also assert the following claim as if it was an undisputed scientific fact:
“Lord Monckton does not stand alone in his beliefs on this issue; however, 97 percent of scientists overwhelmingly oppose his viewpoint.”
So my question is, from what “peer reviewed publication” did they obtain the scientific knowledge that 97 percent of scientists oppose Lord Monckton’s viewpoint? Most of the points in their article are general in nature and rightfully described as “hand waving”. But this one point is very specific. it should therefore meet their own requirements and come from peer reviewed research. Otherwise, they have only succeeded in condemning themselves with their own words.

Christopher Hanley
March 18, 2012 12:46 am

Re Sam Geoghegan 9:25 pm:
Monckton’s claim that the Earth has not warmed in over a decade, despite a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration 365 ppm – 395 ppm, is manifestly true.
No one, including Monckton, claims that it has not warmed since, say, 1979 or 1950 or 1880 or 1750.
Any claim that the Earth has warmed or not warmed is meaningless unless a starting point is specified. For instance, the Earth has not warmed since ~ 7500 BP, if that’s any help.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2 TemperatureSince10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC.gif
As for the other claims where the narrator says Monckton is wrong, he can no doubt answer for himself, but they seem pretty trivial to me and do not challenge his basic contention that IPCC ‘science’ is more of a belief system than science and that the organisation itself is corrupt.
As Arthur Schopenhauer says in The Art of Controversy XXXVII: “Should your opponent be in the right, but, luckily for your contention, choose a faulty proof, you can easily manage to refute it, and then claim that you have thus refuted his whole position”.

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 12:49 am

Sexton -So what do I look for in the archives to find the specific refutation of the author’s points, which includes misquoting, cherry picking and opinionation? -Is he right?
And yes, I don’t know jack about climate science-like 99.9% of pundits who have an opinion on it. -That’s what I said didn’t I?
Monckton always comes across as a sophist to me, and he regularly keeps company with flaming conservatives like Glenn Beck and Alan Jones -not that has a bearing on the facts but these people take a sceptical stance for entirely ideological reasons. I suspect they don’t know jack either.

March 18, 2012 12:56 am

Sam Geoghegan,
Are you really Joel Shore in disguise? Because we’re discussing facts here, not political ideology. Science has no ideology, and there are plenty of good leftist commentators here who know that CAGW is a bunch of pseudo-science bunkum.

Jimmy Haigh.
March 18, 2012 1:22 am

Callme a conspiracy theorist but…
I am a geologist but I do not recognise neither Erin Delman nor Donald Rodbell as the same kind of geologist as I am, i.e., one hwo understands rocks and things. And the enormity of time…
I reckon the green movement, feeling vulnerable due to the fact that virtually all real geologists know that CAGW is a total crock of sh*t, are packing geology undergrad courses with true believers. And if Rodbell is a professor, it suggests that they have been doing this for a while and that they are succeeding in their cunning plan…

Jimmy Haigh.
March 18, 2012 1:27 am

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:43 pm
“Thank you Tom. The debunking I reference has been thoroughly done By Professor Abrahams. You can Goggle him if you wish.”
“Goggle” him???????

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 1:29 am

Smokey
I could easily get that kind of response from a warmist blog.
Sorta evasive if you think ideology doesn’t come into play. -Seriously- is that a joke?
Like I say. 99.9% of people take a stance on climate change based on ideological proclivity and the press, I don’t know where you get off thinking facts have anything to do with it.
But that’s an aside. I thought the guy in the video might have a point about Monckton, Do you think he’s infallible?
By the way- I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find CAGW bunk.

March 18, 2012 1:32 am

Monckton of Brenchley says:
March 17, 2012 at 10:15 pm
……………………
My thanks to Lord Monckton of Brenchley for his kind reply to my post.
I appreciate the time he found to do so, but even more so the time and the noble effort he devotes to put right a huge wrong which in the name of science is, and would be at the increasing rate, burdened on those who can least afford it.

Andrew30
March 18, 2012 1:36 am

Sam Geoghegan says: March 18, 2012 at 12:49 am
[Monckton always comes across as a sophist to me, and he regularly keeps company with flaming conservatives like Glenn Beck and Alan Jones -not that has a bearing on the facts but these people take a sceptical stance for entirely ideological reasons]
People with your level of sophistication have made similar types of statements about another person, they go like this:
“You have a benefactor that is a criminal, so you must be a criminal” (not that has a bearing on the facts)
and;
“The leader of your prior religious group is a Muslim extremist, so you must be a Muslim extremist” (not that has a bearing on the facts)
and;
“You mother was an avowed communists, so you must be an avowed communist” (not that has a bearing on the facts)
So the question to you Sam Geoghegan is: Are these valid statements to make even if they (as you indicated is the weasel word part of your post) do not have any bearing on the facts?
If these types of statements are a valid mechanism of indictment then how could such a person ever get elected?

Andrew30
March 18, 2012 1:49 am

Sam Geoghegan says: March 18, 2012 at 1:29 am
[By the way- I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find CAGW bunk.]
I would go so far as to say that there are plenty of people here who don’t find CAGW at all.

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 1:59 am

Christopher Hanley
Thanks, but if choosing a trend over a short period of time is dubious, why was Monckton making the ten year cooling trend so salient in his speeches?
Aren’t you agreeing with the narrator that some of his techniques are deceiving? The narrator didn’t claim what his motives are but one can only guess.

James Sexton
March 18, 2012 2:03 am

Sam Geoghegan says:
March 18, 2012 at 12:49 am
When I said you don’t know jack, it was in response to this statement of yours, “I suspect many who know nothing, hang on every word Monckton has to say.” Many here are very well informed and have formed their own opinions without Monckton’s assistance. Myself included, though, I agree with much of what he has to say.
And yes, all of that has been thoroughly addressed. You can start here….. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/11/monckton-responds-to-potholer54/ But, you need to be sure and read the comments. And, you need to be able to sift through the context of much of the comments and the relevance. It’s probably better if you bring up a specific question if your actually curious. Most of them can probably be easily answered here.

March 18, 2012 2:05 am

I have said it lots of times before here at WUWT, but it is worth repeating again as this is a classic case:
Geologists are the most sceptical of all scientists – they, after, all do have a sound knowledge about historic climate. The exception to this, of course, are those geologists who work for government, or quasi-government, organisations – they have to toe the party line, or suffer dismissal or non-renewal of their employment/consultancy contracts.
Consequently, the opinion of most government employed geologists should be treated with extreme scepticism, as their opinions are little more than a reflection of their employment prospects.

James Sexton
March 18, 2012 2:13 am

Greg House says:
March 18, 2012 at 12:19 am
James, maybe I caused some misunderstanding trying to be concise in my previous posts.
================================================
lol, yes, and I was trying to clarify the communication difficulties you and the others were having. I do agree with your statements, though.

Stephen Richards
March 18, 2012 2:22 am

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Well said Smokey. You certinly have a way with words.
“Mr Monckton is universally criticized because HE has not provided “evidence” for his numerous assertions. Are you defended him? If so on what basis? And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.”
You are a [snip . . civility is a strength . . kbmod] OR just completely not of this planet. There is not one iota of thruth within your comment and not a single demostrably proven fact. Crawl down your troll hole and remain there until you have understood the’ meaning of science ‘ and facts.

James Sexton
March 18, 2012 2:28 am

Sam Geoghegan says:
March 18, 2012 at 1:59 am
Christopher Hanley
Thanks, but if choosing a trend over a short period of time is dubious, why was Monckton making the ten year cooling trend so salient in his speeches?
Aren’t you agreeing with the narrator that some of his techniques are deceiving?
=============================================================
So, when the narrator deceived you about the time frame referenced, your take away is that Monckton’s truthful assertion was deceptive. Trolls are so cool!

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 2:30 am

Andrew 30
Guilt by association? I think political association influences policy, narrative in the press and public discourse. I also believe it provides support for rampant partisanship because there’s nothing more a political persuasion wants than to have one over its competition.
But first you have to establish the truth and it is obvious that in many instances, Monckton stretches it for [insert reason here]. Is his basic assertion that climate change is exaggerated -true? My guess is yes but I’m a scientific layperson.
Some of his Marxist takeover theories border on paranoia- as if to say the right aren’t complicit in metastatic growth of government as well.

Stephen Richards
March 18, 2012 2:34 am

Second, the argument about “stopped warming” misses the point. The AGW side can rightfully argue, that they do not mean the warming must be really continuous, they mean specifically long term trends. However, this argument about “stopped warming” is not completely useless, because a lot of people have got the impression from the pro AGW media, that the warming is continuous and catastrophic, so debunking the claims of the media is a good thing.
Greg
Most of your post I can totally agree with but not this bit (“rightfully argue”) Since 1975 apprx the agw argument has always been communicated by them, in the media, as a continuous rather than continual rise in global T. It has been only since the early 2000s that the conversation has changed to “little significant trend”. Now for sceptics that has meant “stopped” but for the agws it is resting before taking-off again with renewed vigor.
They may well “mean” to say continual but never did to my knowledge.

Brian H
March 18, 2012 2:38 am

Peter Miller says:
March 18, 2012 at 2:05 am
I have said it lots of times before here at WUWT, but it is worth repeating again as this is a classic case:
Geologists are the most sceptical of all scientists – they, after, all do have a sound knowledge about historic climate. The exception to this, of course, are those geologists who work for government, or quasi-government, organisations – they have to toe the party line, or suffer dismissal or non-renewal of their employment/consultancy contracts.

Or work at universities, where they face denial of tenure and grants, at the very least.

wayne Job
March 18, 2012 2:38 am

The Monk is right about DDT, its banning is one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed, bar none. It has killed more people than all wars combined, including Hitler Stalin and Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, my god these people have no shame. The perps involved in this ban without science should be charged with crimes against humanity.

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 2:46 am

Andrew 30.
I’d like to re-state my CAGW comment as ‘I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find AGW bunk’. That at least encompasses guys like McIntyre, Pielke Jr. and Lucia, -Probably Anthony Watts as well.

Crispin still in Johannesburg
March 18, 2012 3:01 am

@Hugh Pepper
…And by the way, Cook and Abrahams have thoroughly debunked Monckton’s assertions. Everyone who follows this conversation must be aware of this.
+++++++++
Hugh, learn at least one lesson from the history of conflict: never bring weasels to a dog fight.

Greylensman
March 18, 2012 3:22 am

Sorry guys, I know that your careers depend upon it, billions of dollars spent but it really was and is all for naught. (note no comma before “and”).
Taking the widest and simplest view, all things being equal, in an open system subject to many modes of mixing and circulation, along with a recognition of the butterfly” effect albeit its reverse, the Central England Temperature record really does represent the global picture. It shows no discernible trend.
Crikey
If that thought rings true can anything support it.
Well lets go the Antipodes and we find a similar “open system” with a long continuous record, New Zealand. It too shows no trend.
Seems to me, in such a vast but connected by many factors, environment as the Earths Atmosphere, it matters not one jot if you divide it into 1,000 mile squares and record each and every temperature or 100 mile or ten mile squares. To do so just defines how many angels live in each block.
Man Made global warming is dead
sadly long live the next scare they dream up.

SPM
March 18, 2012 3:39 am

Smokey says:
March 18, 2012 at 12:56 am
Sam Geoghegan,
Are you really Joel Shore in disguise? Because we’re discussing facts here, not political ideology.
==========================================================================
Wrong, Smokes.
You are discussing Moncktons version of the facts, which appear to be driven largely by his political ideology. And a desire to pocket a nice little income from these ”lectures”.
Cheers.

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 3:50 am

Sexton
He’s made the ten year ‘no significant statistical warming’ claim numerous times (It varies between 10-15 years and ‘no warming’ to ‘cooling’). If choosing start/end points over a decade has no weght on the overall history of climate, then why mention it other than to impress the audience? Your answer?

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 3:53 am

johanna says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:35 pm
johanna says:
March 17, 2012 at 4:20 pm
But then we got:
Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Eugenics may or may not work (…)
————————————————————-
… The whole point about eugenics (apart from the ethical issues) is that it doesn’t exist in a scientific sense. The ‘science’ which was so consensual in the 1920s and 30s right across the Western world about improving the human race was complete bunkum –

This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects………

Would that be for the physical or mental traits in “cattle, pigs and dogs”? Try again.

Charles.U.Farley
March 18, 2012 3:53 am

Agw and its supporters display exactly the same blinkered self opinated views as Flat Earthers.
They wouldnt listen to any opposing viewpoints, “earth is round? Whaaaat!? Burn the heretic!” and the irony is that at one time THEY held a consensus viewpoint as well.
Rather than having any real science to back it up they used to shout down opposition too, drown out the other views so only theirs can be heard then call it a consensus of opinion where none exists.
Hats off to M’lord Monckton (doffs and curtseys 😉 ) you just know youre hitting them where it hurts when they squeal this loudly. 🙂

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 3:56 am

James Sexton
Addendum- thanks for the link, I just saw it and will read through it tomorrow.
😉

Dave
March 18, 2012 3:59 am

You are not Earth Scientists. Have you not heard of scientific uncertainty. Richard Feynman would have had a good laugh, or maybe cried, that you are in a `university`. Tenure must be pretty easy to get there.

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 4:00 am

Even IF eugenics does work it is an abhorrence to most people. It is unethical and flat out wrong. What if Warmists decided to sterilize skeptics because we were found to have a mental defect for not towing the consensus – would that be OK?
All people should have the right of free speech as well as a right to control over their own bodies. Trying to justify the unjustifiable is plain silly. What if your beloved sister / brother / cousin / mother etc. had a minor mental defect – would it be it ‘OK’ by you to sterilize them? Nough said.

d
March 18, 2012 4:05 am

Lord Monckton please go to more college campuses. The mere fact that they oppose ur presence is disturbing but not suprising. Please keep exercising ur freedom of speech and thanks for exposing the intolerate environmentalists. I hope u opened many students minds. Thank you.

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 4:08 am

May I suggest Anthony Watts puts up a post titled:
———————
“A challenge to the Concordiensis”
“Can you please rebut every one of Moncktons points, point by point, citing peer reviewed research and or the IPCC’s (sometimes) non-peer reviewed research?”
———————
We can hold the debate right here or on their college newspaper with impartial and independent moderation. Or they can post their rebuttal to Anthony and we can all weigh in. It would be highly entertaining I think. 🙂

Dave
March 18, 2012 4:09 am

Furthermore, you have brought great dishonor on Schenectady. Prof, what do your colleagues think?

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 4:11 am

If the The Concordiensis have the science on their side then why can’t they rebut each and every one of Monckton’s points? Why all the arm waving and appeals to authority? Why not appeal to the specific evidence and present it? Why are they so afraid of debate? As scientists they should be curious, if not, why not?

March 18, 2012 4:13 am

SPM,
As always with the alarmist crowd, when you cannot refute the scientific facts presented by Lord Monckton, you resort to ad hominem remarks. But the scientific facts are not going away: as [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues to rise, the planet’s temperature remains static, thus falsifying the catastrophic AGW scare. And rises in CO2 follow rises in temperature, on all time scales. Effect cannot precede cause. Rising CO2 is largely a function of rising temperatures since the LIA. A warmer ocean outgases CO2 just like a warm beer does.
Facts are pesky things. They just never go away. Instead, they sit there, making the alarmist crowd so uncomfortable that they attack an individual like Lord Monckton, who is merely the messenger pointing out the facts.
The fact is that CO2 is harmless. No global or regional harm has been connected with its rise. And CO2 is beneficial: as CO2 rises, agricultural productivity rises in lock step. See? CO2 is a harmless minor trace gas, essential to the biosphere. More is better. Simples. But then, scientific truths usually are.
. . .
Sam Geoghegan says:
“He’s made the ten year ‘no significant statistical warming’ claim numerous times (It varies between 10-15 years and ‘no warming’ to ‘cooling’). If choosing start/end points over a decade has no weght on the overall history of climate, then why mention it other than to impress the audience? Your answer?”
Answer: the start time is a decade and a half ago; the end time is now. Thus, there is no cherry-picking. The plain fact is that as CO2 continues to rise, the global temperature is not following. Another pesky fact, no?

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 4:17 am

Hugh Pepper says:
March 17, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Mr Monckton has no credibility as a critic of science. He has done no research, nor offered any hypotheses which could be validated through research. He merely criticizes and his slide show has been thoroughly debunked by others. He is an an excellent promoter of contrarian ideas, which have not been substantiated through the accepted processes, namely research which has passed through peer review.

Good! Would you care to debate Monckton who has “no credibility as a critic of science.”? He does not have to offer any hypotheses for he is not the one making the AGW claims over natural climate variation. He uses peer review to knock down your rubbish. You sir are sad and not even worthy of contempt. I will waste no more of my keystrokes on you.

Sam Geoghegan
March 18, 2012 4:28 am

Smokey
You missed the point. 10-15 yrs is insignificant and it IS cherry picked.
I’ll read Monckton’s pothole54 rebuttle tomorrow

March 18, 2012 5:02 am

Jimmy Haigh. says:
March 18, 2012 at 1:27 am
“Goggle” him???????

Must’ve been a reference to NVGs, Jimmy — it takes forever to focus them, and when you’re wearing them, you have no depth perception, you’re stuck with a very narrow field of view, and everything looks
*heh*
green…

March 18, 2012 5:10 am

Sam Geoghegan
We only have 33 years of reliable global temperature data, so 10-15 years is significant.
This 10 to 15 years of no warming could extend to 20 or more years in the next couple of years depending on how cold it gets, as we can extend the trend further back in time as well. One climatologists, who I won’t name (Santer), said only 17 years of a trend is needed:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/19/santers-17-years-needed-for-a-sign-of-climate-change-compared-against-the-ipcc-models/

johanna
March 18, 2012 5:15 am

Michael Palmer says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:38 pm
johanna says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:21 pm

Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.
When Chris Monckton and I talk about eugenics, it relates to selective breeding of humans for physical and mental traits that were considered to be desirable, a fallacious and barbaric school of consensus that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. The main instruments were identifying and sterilising or isolating people who were considered to be bad breeding stock.

“fallacious and barbaric” – there you have your own error, in a nutshell. Barbaric it is, but not fallacious – the scientific basis of breeding humans is exactly the same as for breeding livestock. As I said before, you are confusing ethics and science.
——————————————————————————–
I am not confusing ethics and science. If you had bothered to read my posts, I explicitly made the distinction, using terms like ‘leaving aside the ethical issues’. I did that not because I don’t think the ethical issues matter – on the contrary – but to deal with exactly the criticism you have made.
If you really believe that eugenics is barbaric but not fallacious, please explain what you mean by that. In detail. I look forward to your exposition on why breeding people to have non-floppy ears or different length legs (which is quite possible) has anything to do with eugenics as cited by Monckton and recognised in the history of science as a powerful scientific movement in the 20th century.

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 5:16 am

Michael Palmer says: “The Lysenko “consensus” was enforced and upheld by one of the most cruel and ruthless dictatorships the world has known. This cannot be compared to a consensus that forms in a free society.”

——————
Dear Dr. Peters,
We have had to decline your grant application to study the benefits to plants of global warming and rising co2 in the Balkans.
——————
Dear Dr. Peters,
Congratulations on your grant application to study the degenerative effects on plant of global warming and rising co2 in the Balkans.
——————
Here is your modern day enforcement. 🙂

3x2
March 18, 2012 5:30 am

[w]ere hosting Lord Monckton, a globally recognized climate skeptic[…]
[F]rankly, the sentiment vacillated between utter disgust and sheer anger.
[O]n one hand, it seemed ludicrous to give Monckton a second of time or thought.
Perhaps cooler heads may have resulted in more coherent argument. And that is just the first paragraph.
So Professor, let’s take a look at where you went wrong.
Know your enemy. Had you taken the time to do a bit of research you may have recognised that Monkton is an eloquent speaker with an encyclopaedic knowledge of both the peer reviewed literature and the IPCC reports. He has put a lot of time and effort into his arguments and you may need more than a ‘second of time or thought’ should you wish to avoid looking foolish in future.
His arguments are well documented and would have taken but a few minutes to obtain. Then you could have tasked your acolytes with spending a little time and effort rebutting his ‘erroneous discourse’ point by point. Suitably armed you could then have demonstrated to all present the obviousness of his “numerous inaccuracies and misstatements”.
I think I can see why you didn’t take this route. There is always the danger that, having studied his arguments in detail, they may have found merit and started asking some awkward questions. We can’t have that now can we professor?
Watching the video I could only conclude that this isn’t Science or Education, it’s a Cult. One can only hope that at least one or two listened and were persuaded to investigate further. It would be very worrying sign for Higher Education if none did.
That they will be forced to keep their questions and views to themselves for a year or two until they have their qualifications should set off alarm bells everywhere.
Doesn’t it worry you at all that you are teaching the acolytes that, rather than reason, evidence and debate, the quickest route to the ‘truth’ is to simply silence your opponents? It should. At least one is thinking of moving into Law. Let us hope she doesn’t wind up on the Bench.
As many have pointed out, there is an infinite source of renewable energy just waiting to be tapped: the spinning bodies of scientists past.

Robin Hewitt
March 18, 2012 5:38 am

“the temperature in Central England (not a bad proxy for global temperatures)”.
You have to work with what you’ve got. Obviously an old American record would be more believable but nobody actually wanted to go there.
Henry Scobell recorded this from Parliament in 1646:- http://www.robinhewitt.net/hansard.jpg

March 18, 2012 5:44 am

Sam Geoghegan says:
March 18, 2012 at 1:29 am
Like I say. 99.9% of people take a stance on climate change based on ideological proclivity and the press, I don’t know where you get off thinking facts have anything to do with it.
————–
If CAGW was proven, or even had a shred of evidence supporting it, the number of people believing in it would be about as equal as the number of people that believe in gravity. The reason there is so much skepticism is because most people aren’t gullible, and instead they are highly intelligent and educated, and it is not because of ideological reasons. You may be correct that the press has something to do with skepticism, as many news organizations goal is to inform people.
I mean, come on, if I thought CAGW was true, I would want something done about it, and I would be doing something about it. I wouldn’t be denying it because I “don’t like change”, or I think “the economy is too bad right now” or whatever imagined excuses warmists are coming up with to explain skepticism.

Constitutionalist
March 18, 2012 5:44 am

US citizens enjoy 1st amendment protection. Monckton is not a US citizen. He has the right to behave himself while a guest in our country or the right to pack his bags and leave.

Jimbo
March 18, 2012 5:52 am

A Lovell says:
March 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm
From Erin Delman’s cv.
“She helped organize the College’s award-winning cardboard recycling program, and she is also active with Union’s chapter of Campus Kitchens, a nationwide program aimed at using leftover dining hall food to make nutritious meals for local residents.”

What I want to know Erin is did you enjoy eating the nutritious (left-over) meals? Do you want spittle with your fries? 😉

Constitutionalist
March 18, 2012 5:57 am

Jimbo says:
March 18, 2012 at 3:53 am
> >This is blatant nonsense, of course. Eugenics is used with cattle, pigs and dogs all the time, it works, and nobody objects………
>Would that be for the physical or mental traits in “cattle, pigs and dogs”? Try again.
Both actually. Cattle, pigs, and dogs that are violent towards people or other domesticated animals and thus make handling difficult and dangerous are not typically selected for breeding. There are exceptions such as rodeo bulls and fighting dogs but I can’t think of an exception for swine.

Constitutionalist
March 18, 2012 6:04 am

Jimbo says:
March 18, 2012 at 5:52 am
A Lovell says:
March 17, 2012 at 3:44 pm
>>From Erin Delman’s cv.
“She helped organize the College’s award-winning cardboard recycling program, and she is also active with Union’s chapter of Campus Kitchens, a nationwide program aimed at using leftover dining hall food to make nutritious meals for local residents.”
>What I want to know Erin is did you enjoy eating the nutritious (left-over) meals? Do you want spittle with your fries? 😉
Good grief. Think, McFly. The leftovers in this case is the food that goes unserved not the food left on individual plates after being served. The food left uneaten on plates could go to animal sanctuaries however. There’s definitely a lot of food that goes to waste in the U.S. and that’s a shame.

H.R.
March 18, 2012 6:13 am

wfrumkin says:
March 17, 2012 at 11:43 pm
This comment thread ties together some important points about CAGW as a belief system.
1. Most humans are harming Gaia
2. A few enlightened people undetstand the price to be paid will need to be a culling of the unworthy
3. Deniers have forfeited their right to live on mother earth
4. Since Malthus predicts that most of the human race are fated to starve anyway, banning carbon will only speed up the inevitable (hopefully) limiting the damage to Gaia.
5. Of course, we the enlightened get to survive and keep our private jets and waterfront mansions in the new sustainable world we create.
/bitter sarc.
==========================================================
wfrumkin, you didn’t need that ‘/bitter sarc.’ The way you called it down through #5 is pretty much how I see it.
I for one do not welcome our CAGW spouting malthusian overlords.

Constitutionalist
March 18, 2012 6:26 am

johanna says:
March 18, 2012 at 5:15 am
>Michael, let’s just clear up straightaway that selectively breeding cattle for bulk or sheep for wool or dogs for the shape currently in favour with show judges is not the same as eugenics.
>I am not confusing ethics and science.
Yes you certainly are confusing ethics and science. Mistakes were certainly made in associating some traits and diseases with genetic origins but there were also instances where there was no mistake. Huntington’s disease is a prime example of no mistake. Today genetic testing can be cheaply and easily done to identify individuals who carry the gene for it before they are old enough to reproduce and before diagnostic symptoms show up in middle age. Testing and sterilizing carriers would be eugenics and it would work to at least some degree in reducing the incidence of Huntington’s. Whether or not that should be done is an ethical question not a scientific one. Eugenics as practiced 80+ years ago would not have had the precision it would have today but would have still worked as well as it does in animal breeding. Wolves didn’t turn into dogs voluntarily yet the big difference between a livestock guard dog and a wolf is entirely mental. Dogs that attacked the livestock were killed and those that attacked wolves and protected livestock were bred. It works and would work for humans too on a purely technical basis. It’s the moral implications that are unpalletable although that moral objection appears to be more a matter of fashion than anything else as eugenics was readily embraced by “good” Christian Americans in the day.

March 18, 2012 6:33 am

What I would like to see
I would like to see Lord Monckton in a debate with some of our leading alarmists. I wonder what it would take to get a Dr. Mann to share the stage with Lord Monckton in a televised (or Internet streaming) debate in front of an audience of journalists. (much like what happened once down-under as reported by JoNova)
It might be more fun even to have a team debate with 3 on a side. I am sure that our kind host of WUWT would make a great second to the Lord. Who for a third? (so many good choices out there!)

March 18, 2012 6:47 am

Sam Geoghegan says:
March 18, 2012 at 4:28 am
Smokey
You missed the point. 10-15 yrs is insignificant and it IS cherry picked.

How many faster than light measurements must one ‘cherry pick’ to show that relativity is wrong?

Andrew
March 18, 2012 6:56 am

Excellent reply Lord Monckton.
It never ceases to amaze me how frankly unsophisticated (thick?) alarmist academics seem to be -in the structure and depth of the arguments they offer up. Hand-waving indeed! This fellow shouldn’t only feel a sense of shame at the needless deaths occurring worldwide on account of the CAGW scam – but he ought to be thoroughly embarrassed at the frankly kindergarden-level intellect he has displayed on these pages – to the rest of the world. If I was a paying student on any of his courses, I would now be asking for a refund…
From personal experience that observation is by no means rare. It is remarkable how shallow – intellectually-speaking- many of the leading lights of climate alarmism tend to be. Two examples – here in Australia:
In 2005, one lunchtime, I found myself sitting at a dining table at the Sydney Opera House next to a geographer with the name badge – Prof Andy Pitman. I had never heard of him and although the talk was on CAGW (by someone else) it wasn’t a particular area of interest. The was by the head of research at a large German reinsurer. After the presentation, at question time, I asked the presenter what was the level certainty that precluded variation in solar output as the/ a primary cause of the warming trend observed… after a hand-waving type of answer (“..vee are absolutely sure it is not responsible” – something like that) Pitman lent across toward me and sneeringly declared (rather loudly) that the possibility had been thoroughly proven to be of little if any significance… Up until till then I hadn’t been particularly interested in the AGW debate but Pitman’s (unsolicited) response and his tone rang a big alarm bell for me – it just seemed, well, so unscientific.
The second similar occasion involved a certain Prof TIm Flannery – the Australian paleontologist. Again at an insurance lunchtime gathering (in 2008) – and again it was the thoroughly dismissive tone – almost verging on kind of scathing disgust (perhaps at being surrounded by so many capitalists!) and the idea that an explanation other than man as a driver of climate on Earth was somehow so easily dismissed… and again, the same sense one had of being so, well, under-whelmed by the intelligence of the person…
Since then I have become very interested in the CAGW escapade and I have to say my initial gut feelings of these people have been found to be correct – the more I have read of their work and their discourse. And it is no surprise to me that these most under-whelming ‘scientists’ (I use that term very loosely) are unwilling to front-up to a public debate when challenegd by those who are clearly well-read in climate science and the data – these intellectual pygmies know they aren’t up to the task They have, i’m sure, at least that much insight…
Keep-up the good work Chris!
Best Regards

A. C. Osborn
March 18, 2012 7:18 am

Sam Geoghegan says: March 18, 2012 at 2:46 am
“I’d like to re-state my CAGW comment as ‘I’m equally as certain that there are plenty of people here who don’t find AGW bunk’. That at least encompasses guys like McIntyre, Pielke Jr. and Lucia, -Probably Anthony Watts as well.”
Absolutely classic bait & switch.
Since when has CAGW = AGW.
I dare say that they all do believe that AGW is not bunk, but not Catastrophic AGW.

Andrew30
March 18, 2012 7:37 am

Constitutionalist says: March 18, 2012 at 5:44 am
[US citizens enjoy 1st amendment protection. Monckton is not a US citizen.]
I guess some men were created more equal than others.

March 18, 2012 7:40 am

In response to a few commenters who have questioned my statement that there has been no statistically-significant warming over the past decade:
1. The statement is true.
2. The significance of the recent decade and a half of statistically-insignificant warming lies in the influence so long a period without warming has on the longer-run trend. Since 1950, the linear-regression trend on the Hadley Centre’s monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies is equivalent to 1.2 Celsius degrees per century: yet the IPCC’s central estimate (taken as the mean of its projections of manmade warming over the 21st century) is 2.8 Celsius degrees per century. In my talk I showed a slide illustrating this discrepancy, which I call the IPCC’s credibility gap.
3. I did not show only the temperature record of the past decade. I also showed or discussed the warming that has occurred since the IPCC’s first Assessment Report in 1990; the warming since 1950; and the warming since 1850, when the global instrumental record began.
4. I also discussed the very rapid warming in the Central England Temperature Record from 1695-1745 (at a rate of 3.9 C/century, many times the 0.7 C/century observed in the 20th century); and the three identical rates of rapid warming during the global instrumental record, at 0.16-0,17 C/century, from 1860-1880, from 1910-1940, and from 1976-2001.
5. I considered the paleoclimate temperature record going back 750 million years.
6. I stated that it was quite possible that the IPCC was right to find that more than half of the warming since 1950 was manmade, and cited Dr. Scafetta on the matter.
Let us be clear. Since 1950 there has been warming – though it was well within the natural variability of the climate and needs no further explanation. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming and it is possible that some of the warming since 1950 – perhaps more than half of it – was caused by us. But it is the rate at which the manmade warming has occurred, and the rate at which future manmade warming may occur, that is the crucial scientific question. Even the IPCC takes just 1.5 C as its central estimate of the warming that may occur by 2100 as a result of the CO2 we add to the air this century. It should be remembered that this, therefore, is the maximum quantum of warming that we could prevent if we were to have ceased emitting CO2 altogether since 2000. The 0.7 C of warming from non-CO2 sources, and the 0.6 C of previously-committed warming, that the IPCC additionally assumes for the 21st century will not be prevented by existing measures targeted at the reduction of CO2 emissions.
For these reasons, the implicit (and, from Professor Rodbell, explicit) allegation that I cherry-picked the data does seem unjustifiable.

March 18, 2012 7:40 am

Many scientists could benefit greatly by studying the Lord Monckton’s way of dealing with those who oppose either the process or the more general concepts of science. Some scientists go into undignified rant when confronted with data that may conflict with their beliefs. Here are some I encountered:
Leif Svalgaard: ‘ you are danger to society’
on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Gavin Schmidt: ‘do you have some magical mechanism…. climate homeopathy perhaps’.
on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
Grant Foster (so called Tamino): ‘ you are * # ’’…’
on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-Jun.htm
Chris Colose: ‘…….counting the cows of Idaho …”
on http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm
Now, compare any of the above to the Lord Monckton’s way of dealing with my somewhat provocative post:
‘Not the least of many reasons is that he has done what I lack the skill to do: he has been able to….’ etc,..etc.
It’s always good to learn from those who do it better.