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
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 Opinions | March 7, 2012
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.
Hugh Pepper,
The Git has credibility. You don’t.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 3:23 pm
“Try reading this: Frozen Annals – Greenland Ice Sheet Research by Professor Willi Dansgaard.”
===========================================
No, thanks. I did not ask, how they “reconstructed” temperatures.
I am simply asking, why it is correct to consider those “reconstructed” temperatures representative for the whole world.
It would be nice, if you could simply describe the method of proving such a thing.
Smokey said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Thanks Smokey 🙂 I was beginning to wonder after Tallbloke called me a “mine of disinformation” the other day.
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm
What makes you believe that there is a single scientific paper that encompasses the reasoning behind palynology, sedimentology, Köppen climate classification etc? I suspect that you are either ignorant, or a troll.
Dr. Dave said @ur momisugly March 17, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Many thanks Dave; that info is definitely going into my next book!
WATER RIGHTS?!? HAHAHAHAHA! Water can have a right! It’s a non-living thing! Oh, God, that’s hilarious!
@Kasuha:
Mosquitoes weren’t becoming immune to DDT. It was banned because it was believed to be thinning egg shells. The “immune mosquitoes” is a fallacy and you better check into that.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 5:24 pm
———————
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm
And please, give me a link to a scientific paper, that proves, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative.
———————
What makes you believe that there is a single scientific paper that encompasses the reasoning behind palynology, sedimentology, Köppen climate classification etc?
===============================================
May I interpret your answer as” there is no scientific proof, that the “reconstructed” temperatures are representative for the whole world”? Thank you.
Then the claims based on considering those “reconstructed” temperatures representative for the whole world are not based on a scientific method and hence are not results of a scientific work. Although they use scientific terms, their claims are essentially an unproven bull***t.
Now let us forget the “reconstructed” temperatures and talk a little bit about existing weather stations. Is there a scientific paper, that proves scientifically, that the set of existing weather stations is representative for the whole world?
This is a very important question, because if it is not, we can not even call the calculated warming “global”.
I am not sure, whether Lord Monckton checked the issue, before he claimed the world had been warming. We can do it for him now.
Lord Monckton has two public meetings scheduled in Sacramento later this week on MARCH 21st- One with the legislature and one at Sacramento State as noted below-
1) Viscount Monkton “will be joined by Tom Tanton, expert on energy and California public policy.
1:30 PM – California State Capitol, Room 127
1315 10th Street, Sacramento
Panel discussion with Lord Christopher Monckton, Tom Tanton, and members of the California state legislature.
Free and open to general public.”
2) 7:00 PM – Hinde Auditorium, Sacramento State University Union
6000 J Street, Sacramento
Presentations by Lord Christopher Monckton and Tom Tanton
Moderated by Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (Bakersfield – 32nd District)
Free and open to general public – Audience questions welcome.”
Dinesh F says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:59 am
Why does Monckton refer to the historical temperature in England to ‘prove’ his point regarding warming over the whole planet – an elementary error and highlights his lack of scientific rigour and selective use of data. Remember January 2010 when the UK was suffering a major cold snap? At exactly the same time Australia was suffering record high temperatures and the Winter Olympics was suffering from a lack of snow due to unseasonally warm temperatures.
————————————————————
Your reading comprehension needs more work.
Chris Monckton didn’t claim that this record was a proxy for world weather conditions. But if there is such a thing as global climate, then the records of one place over a long period are a reasonable benchmark for assessing change.
BTW, your use of terms such as ‘cold snap’ and ‘unseasonally warm’ while claiming cherry-picking by others is a bit of a hint about your views on the role of natural variation.
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 6:18 pm
[snip]
I do not wish to get into an argument about scientific proof when there is no such thing, nor what “a scientific method” might be when it’s at home. There are logical and mathematical proofs, but scientific theories are not mathematics, or logic. It’s hard to conceive of a common scientific method behind Charles Darwin’s decade long investigation of barnacles and Einstein’s derivation of Relativity from James Clerk Maxwell’s equations.
IPCC’s First Assessment Report contained a very important chart of estimated average temperature of the Northern hemisphere that was clearly inspired by Hubert Lamb’s work. It shows the Holocene Optimum, Roman Optimum, Vandal Minimum, Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. The later periods of cooler and warmer climate are reflected in gardeners’ diaries in Europe and Asia as well as the USA following settlement by Europeans. Lamb’s climatic epochs were inferred largely from the Northern tree limit throughout Asia and Canada. In warmer periods this approaches close to the Arctic Circle, in cooler periods it is further away. Currently, it is much further away than during the Holocene Optimum, or the Roman Optimum and is similar to where it was during the Medieval Warm Period.
Trees, like all land plants, can only grow successfully when temperatures fall between limits determined by the tree species. So, not only do we have the Northern tree limit to infer temperature, but corollary from pollen grains of differing tree species.
During the 20thC the Köppen Climate Boundary in the USA was furthest North during the 1930s, furthest South during the 1970s. Oddly enough, this was determined by thermometer readings in order to enable changes to seed sowing charts published by the USDA. I know this will be a shock to you, but garden plants and crops, as well as trees will only grow between certain temperature limits varying by species — just like trees. And these changes in the Köppen Climate Boundary in the USA correlate with changes in the calculated average temperature of the Northern hemisphere no matter how much we may dislike the admittedly dubious concept of averaging an intensive variable.
So, noting the fact that a temperature “signal” is very noisy and therefore not particularly precise, I can state with considerable confidence that the very long thermometer record of CET is just as informative as averaging records from a bunch of stations scattered unrandomly throughout the Northern hemisphere.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:33 pm
“I do not wish to get into an argument about scientific proof when there is no such thing, nor what “a scientific method” might be when it’s at home. …scientific theories are not mathematics, or logic.”
==============================================
No problem, then calculations of “global warming” are pure fantasy products, disguised as science.
You can not claim you had discovered a “global” trend if you do not have representative data. If you knowingly do it, then it is a fraud.
You can not determine temperatures in areas, where there has never been a thermometer referring to correlation of other areas without proving, that such a “method” produces correct results. Not simply results, I mean CORRECT results. You can not just combine numbers as you like and claim it to be science. It is not science.
johanna says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm
“Chris Monckton didn’t claim that this record was a proxy for world weather conditions. But if there is such a thing as global climate, then the records of one place over a long period are a reasonable benchmark for assessing change.”
=================================================
I really like your “if”, Johanna. It looks like you know that there is no “global climate”, climate had normally been defined as a regional phenomenon, before the AGW guys came.
Just tell me please, for what area you can use the Central England record as a “reasonable benchmark for assessing change”, especially how high the uncertainty would be. Statistically, you know. And why, please.
You can start wit the area of Central England itself, it would be nice to learn, how high the uncertainty for this area is. Then we can talk (based on the Central England record) about Europe, Africa, and of course about the whole world too.
Dinesh F says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:59 am
“Why does Monckton refer to the historical temperature in England to ‘prove’ his point regarding warming over the whole planet – an elementary error and highlights his lack of scientific rigour and selective use of data.”
================================================
The funny thing is, Dinesh, that Monckton or someone else can beat AGW guys in a debate by selective use of data, and they can not even successfully criticise him for that, because they do the same. If they raise a question about Central England record, he can talk about trees and so on. A kind of “mutual destruction”, the AGW guys would not like it.
But a lasting victory can not be achieved this way.
Greg House,
The 2nd Law makes clear that you cannot have an energy imbalance that persists for centuries. The CET is thus a very good indicator of global temperature trends. And we can see that many other long term records show the same mildly rising temperature trend line that the CET records. The obvious conclusion is that the planet has been warming naturally since the LIA.
And based on the verifiable fact that the long term temperature trend line has not accelerated [it is the same both before and after the rise in CO2], the inescapable conclusion is that the effect of rising CO2 on temperature is so small that it is unmeasurable; there may be climate sensitivity to CO2, but for all practical purposes it is essentially zero.
The current and projected rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. I understand that this concept causes dizziness in some folks who have been weaned on the demonization of “carbon”. But think about it. If rising CO2 caused runaway global warming, we would certainly see some evidence following the ≈40% rise in CO2, would we not? But there is no such evidence. What does that tell you?
Smokey says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:52 pm
The 2nd Law makes clear that you cannot have an energy imbalance that persists for centuries. The CET is thus a very good indicator of global temperature trends.
==============================================
I see, not for centuries, but for 1 century it must be OK, right? A very interesting understanding of the 2nd Law. But let us talk about “indicators”.
The whole “global warming” thing is based on statistics. You can not hold a thermometer somewhere and measure the “global temperature”. The “global temperature” is not a real physical temperature, it is a statistical product.
We are talking about samples here. You need to understand, that if you measure the temperature twice a day and calculate the average, you do not get a real physical temperature as a result, but merely a statistical value. If you have several thermometers scattered throughout an area, then you have a sample. Samples can be of very different quality. And so on. That is why I am asking questions about uncertainties.
What you are saying about indicators looks like a sort of wishful thinking to me. Of course, it would be nice to have a good one, but you need to prove first, that your indicator is good. If you can not, then you do not have one, so simple is that.
Greg House said @ur momisugly March 19, 2012 at 8:11 pm
So you are denying the existence of climate change. Interesting… not!
Smokey says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:52 pm
If rising CO2 caused runaway global warming, we would certainly see some evidence following the ≈40% rise in CO2, would we not?
===============================================
No, not necessarily. I have already addressed the issue of the absent correlation on this page, must be easy to find.
The Pompous Git says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:17 pm
So you are denying the existence of climate change. Interesting… not!
===================================
… and for that I will be certainly go to hell, won’t I? (LOL)
No, actually I simply do not see the claims about “climate change” scientifically proven and I suspect a lot of fraud there.
Greg House says:
“The whole ‘global warming’ thing is based on statistics.”
Absolutely wrong. Global warming — which has been occurring naturally since the LIA — is reflected in the steadily rising temperature trend line, which has not accelearated despite a hefty increase in CO2. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is that more CO2 is not jacking up global temperatures… and there goes your CO2=CAGW conjecture, which is being falsified by the ultimate Authority: the planet itself.
So who should we believe? The climate alarmist crowd? Or Planet Earth? Because they can’t both be right.
Smokey says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:52
The current and projected rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
=====================================
I do not buy the claims about “harmless CO2” with regards to “climate sensitivity”.
Since we are on the Monckton thread, I read his reference to a 1859 experiment that allegedly proved the “green house effect”. What that experiment really proved is that certain gasses including CO2 can absorb and re-emit IR radiation, but it did not prove that this effect can cause a significant warming. Like a foot stomping can cause some vibration, but not an earthquake. I have already posted some information about it on the parallel thread, there is no need to double it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/19/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates-new-good-news/#comment-928622
Smokey says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Greg House says:
“The whole ‘global warming’ thing is based on statistics.”
————-
Absolutely wrong. Global warming — which has been occurring naturally since the LIA — is reflected in the steadily rising temperature trend line,
====================================================
I am sorry, the “temperature trend line” is not statistics? You did not really mean that, did you?
Greg House says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:29 pm
johanna says:
March 19, 2012 at 7:31 pm
“Chris Monckton didn’t claim that this record was a proxy for world weather conditions. But if there is such a thing as global climate, then the records of one place over a long period are a reasonable benchmark for assessing change.”
=================================================
I really like your “if”, Johanna. It looks like you know that there is no “global climate”, climate had normally been defined as a regional phenomenon, before the AGW guys came.
Just tell me please, for what area you can use the Central England record as a “reasonable benchmark for assessing change”, especially how high the uncertainty would be. Statistically, you know. And why, please.
You can start wit the area of Central England itself, it would be nice to learn, how high the uncertainty for this area is. Then we can talk (based on the Central England record) about Europe, Africa, and of course about the whole world too.
____________________________________________________
Huh?
I never said any of the things you extrapolated. For the record, I certainly believe in global climate to the extent that I believe that very much colder and warmer periods have occurred in Earth’s history. As I am a sentient being, I also believe in regional climate, and regional climate variation.
I am sceptical about global temperature as currently modelled (not measured, because they can’t do it). That doesn’t mean I don’t comprehend that global temperature changes – there is irrefutable proof that it does.
The Central England record is a marker, an indicator, and one of the longest running ones we have. It is not ‘proof’ of anything – but I would back it in favour of many of the models that currently infest what is revealingly called ‘the science’. If the Central England records showed (for example) that it got colder over 50 years, and some model claimed the opposite, I know where my money would be. The people who compiled the Central England records were not in the grip of a scientific fashion, or financially rewarded (at least systematically) for producing particular results.
The hardest thing about evaluating evidence is weighting it. The fact that you give more weight to one thing than another doesn’t mean that you agree 100% with the first, and give 0% to the second. Monckton’s use of this example did not mean that he gave it 100% universal application, and nor did I. But if a model pops up that claims that it is a load of bollocks, it is a very defensible data source.
I hope that clears things up.
Greg House says:
Smokey says:
March 19, 2012 at 8:52
The current and projected rise in CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
=====================================
I do not buy the claims about “harmless CO2″ with regards to “climate sensitivity”.
So what? That is only your unsupported opinion; your conjecture, based on your belief, not on the scientific method. You can “buy” all the nonsense you can afford. But the fact is that there exists no testable, verifiable, empirical evidence, per the scientific method, that CO2 is causing any global damage or harm.
I have provided a testable hypothesis: ‘At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless and beneficial.’ Falsify that, if you think you can. But like the others I have little doubt that you will come up short.
CO2 is absolutely beneficial to the biosphere. Agricultural productivity has increased in lockstep with the rise in CO2. If you would like me to re-post citations proving that fact I will, but it gets tedious providing links to true believers. Those factual citations seem to have no effect at all. But ask, and you shall recieve.
And per the scientific method, CO2 has caused no global harm. Therefore, CO2 is ipso facto “harmless”. A little education on the climate null hypothesis would be helpful in showing that nothing unusual is occurring. Use the WUWT archive search function to educate yourself on the null hypothesis, and to understand how it decisively falsifies the CO2=CAGW nonsense.
Smokey says:
March 19, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Greg House says:
I do not buy the claims about “harmless CO2″ with regards to “climate sensitivity”.
————–
So what? That is only your unsupported opinion;
====================================================
I am sorry, shame on me, I somehow misread your words I quoted. I answered it as if you said “both harmful and beneficial”, not harmless. Sorry again.
Of course, CO2 is harmless, I meant it so in that posting.