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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Greg House says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:50 pm
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?
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.
Greg House says:
March 17, 2012 at 7:23 pm
So if that’s the case, what’s your worries?
hillbilly33 says:
March 17, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Clueless in one, clueless in many.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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]
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.☺