Monckton's reply to Eos on Climate Denial

Christopher Monckton writes via email:

Dear Anthony, – Ivar Giaever and I were subjected to an unprovoked and more than usually scientifically illiterate personal attack at some length in the AGU’s Eos newsletter recently. I wrote the attached reply, which Eos are refusing to print. – Christopher

It appears that Eos has indeed refused to print this reply, as this according to the document properties, this document was created June 30th, when the early edition was available, and there’s been no response so far from Eos. -Anthony

Right of Reply

I am grateful to the editors of Eos for this right of reply to Corbin and Katz (Effective Strategies to Counter Campus Presentations on Climate Denial, Eos, 2012 July 3), an unjustifiable 1200-word personal attack on Dr. Giaever and me by way of a mélange or smørgasbord of the shop-worn logical fallacies of argument ad populum, ad verecundiam, and, above all, ad hominem.

The authors, arguing solely from consensus (ad pop.) among scientific experts (ad vcd.), say without evidence that speakers like us “intend to muddy the waters with respect to climate science” (ad hom.); they serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations by non-climate-scientists against us as though they were authoritative (ad vcd.), while omitting to cite published rebuttals (e.g. Monckton of Brenchley, 2010) to these dubious sources (ad hom.); they accuse us of misrepresentation, distortion, and flawed analysis without adducing a single instance (ad hom.); they advance not a single scientific or economic argument; and they four times brand us as “climate change deniers” (ad hom.) – a hate-speech comparison with Holocaust denial. These allegations are serious and require a reply.

The authors also say we attempt to discredit their research when, as philosophers of science from al-Haytham via Huxley to Popper (1934) make clear, error-elimination by questioning of hypotheses is essential to the scientific method. They describe “strategies” to counter us – including “public displays” and “social media” – which surely belong more in the realm of political propaganda than of scientific discourse.

Our argument against the Party line they so uncritically espouse is that catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate; that there is no sound scientific reason to expect that it will; and that, even if it did, future adaptation would be at least an order of magnitude more cost-effective than heavy spending on attempted mitigation today.

Predictions of doom have failed. Envisat data show sea level rising in the eight years 2004-2012 at a rate equivalent to 3 cm/century. Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years. Greenland’s land-based ice grew by a net 0.5 m in thickness from 1993-2008. Antarctica has cooled for 30 years, and has gained land ice. Northern-hemisphere snow cover reached a 30-year maximum in 2010/11. Tropical-cyclone activity worldwide was at a 30-year low over the past two years.

Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half. The post-1950 warming rate, as the least-squares trend on the Hadley/CRU surface temperature series (HadCRUt3, 2011), is just 1.2 K/century. Yet IPCC (2007, table SPM.3, taken with fig. 10.26) implicitly predicts as the mean of all six emissions scenarios that Man’s influence, including an increase in CO2 concentration from 368 ppmv in 2000 to 713 ppmv by 2100, will cause 2.8 K warming by 2100 – 0.6 K previously committed, 1.5 K from CO2 emitted in this century, and 0.7 K from other greenhouse gases. This predicted (though unalarming) more-than-doubling of the post-1950 warming rate depends upon at least three implausible assumptions: that other gases augment CO2’s contribution to warming by as much as 43%; that as much as half of the warming caused by our past sins of emission has not yet come through the pipeline; and, above all, that unmeasured and unmeasurable temperature feedbacks will near-triple the small direct warming from greenhouse gases: thus, two-thirds of predicted consensus warming is guesswork.

The first assumption lacks credibility now that methane, the most significant non-CO2 greenhouse gas we emit, has stabilized: its concentration grew by only 20 parts by billion over the past decade. The second and third assumptions imply a volatility in surface temperatures that is belied by the paleoclimate record, which – allowing for great uncertainties –indicates that absolute temperature has not fluctuated by more than 3% or 8 K either side of the mean in the past 64 million years (Scotese, 1999; Zachos et al., 2001). That is enough to cause an ice age at one era and a hothouse Earth at another: but it is far too small to permit the closed-loop feedback gains of as much as 0.64[0.42, 0.74] that are implicit in the projected warming of 3.26[2, 4.5] K per CO2 doubling (IPCC, 2007, p. 798, box 10.2). In process engineering, where the mathematics of feedbacks adopted by climate science has its origins (see Bode, 1945; Roe, 2009), electronic circuits intended to be stable are designed to permit closed-loop gains of no more than 0.1. Given the Earth’s formidable temperature stability, the IPCC’s implicit interval of loop gains is far too close to the singularity in the feedback-amplification equation to be credible. For across that singularity, at a loop gain of 1, strongly net-positive feedback becomes as strongly net-negative: yet the inferred paleo-temperature record shows no such pattern of violent oscillation. Empirical evidence (e.g. Lindzen and Choi, 2009, 2011; Spencer and Braswell, 2010, 2011), though hotly contested (e.g. Trenberth et al., 2010; Dessler et al., 2010, 2011), indeed suggests what process-engineering theory would lead us to expect: that feedbacks in the temperature-stable climate system, like those in a well-designed circuit, are at most barely net-positive and are more likely to be somewhat net-negative, consistent with a harmless continuance of the observed warming rate of the past 60 years but inconsistent with the substantially greater (though not necessarily harmful) warming rate predicted by the IPCC.

Even if we assume ad argumentum (and per impossibile) that our unmitigated emissions will greatly accelerate the observed warming rate, the very high cost of measures intended to mitigate CO2 emissions exceeds the likely cost of climate-related damage arising from our failure to act now. To take a single topical and typical example, carbon trading in Australia will cost $10.1 bn/year, plus $1.6 bn/year for administration (Wong, 2010, p. 5), plus $1.2 bn/year for renewables and other costs, a total of $13 bn/year, rising at 5%/year, or $130 bn by 2020 at n.p.v., to abate 5% of current emissions, which represent 1.2% of world emissions (derived from Boden et al., 2010ab). Thus the Australian measure, if it succeeded as fully as its promoters intend, would abate no more than 0.06% of global emissions over its 10-year term. CO2 concentration would fall from a business-as-usual 410 to 409.988 ppmv by the end of the term. Forcing abated is 0.0002 W m–2; warming consequently abated is 0.00006 K; mitigation cost-effectiveness, which is the cost of abating 1 K global warming by measures of equivalent cost-effectiveness, is $2,000 trillion/K. On the same basis, the cost of abating all projected warming over the ten-year life of the policy is $300 trillion, or $44,000/head, or 58% of global GDP over the period. The cost of mitigation by such measures would exceed the cost of climate-related damage consequent upon inaction by a factor of approximately 50.

The very high costs of CO2 mitigation policies and the undetectable returns in warming abated imply that focused adaptation to any adverse consequences of such warming as may occur will be far more cost-effective than attempted mitigation today. CO2 mitigation strategies inexpensive enough to be affordable will be ineffective: strategies costly enough to be effective will be unaffordable. The question arises whether CO2 mitigation should any longer be attempted at all.

Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.

References

Bode, H.W. (1945), Network analysis and feedback amplifier design, Van Nostrand, New York, USA, 551 pp.

Boden and Marland (2010a), Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring, 1751-2007, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.

Boden et al. (2010b), Ranking of the world’s countries by 2007 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.

Dessler, A.E. (2010), A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science 220, 1523-1527.

Dessler, A.E. (2011), Cloud Variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett.

HadCRUt3 (2011), Monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, 1850-2011, http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt.

IPCC (1990), Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment (1990): Report prepared for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Working Group I, J. T. Houghton, G.J. Jenkins and J.J. Ephraums (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, and Melbourne, Australia.

IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Avery, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2009), On the determination of feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705.

Lindzen, R.S., and Y.-S. Choi (2011), On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications, Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x.

Monckton of Brenchley, C.W. (2010), Response to John Abraham, SPPI Reprint Series, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC, USA, July 12, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/response_to_john_abraham.pdf.

Popper, K (1934), Logik der Forschung, rewritten by the author in English as The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson, London, 1959.

Roe, G. ( 2009), Feedbacks, Timescales, and Seeing Red, Ann. Rev. Earth & Planet. Sci. 37, 93-115.

Scotese, C.R., A.J. Boucot, and W.S. McKerrow (1999), Gondwanan paleogeography and paleoclimatology, J. Afr. Earth Sci. 28(1), 99-114.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2010), On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res, 115, D16109.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2011), On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth’s radiant-energy balance, Remote Sensing 3, 1603-1613, doi:10.3390/rs3081603.

Trenberth, K.E., J.T. Fasullo, C. O’Dell, and T. Wong (2010), Relationships between tropical sea-surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett, 37, L03702.

Wong, P. (2010), Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11: Budget-Related Paper No. 1.4. Climate Change and Energy Efficiency Portfolio, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.

Zachos, J., M. Pagani, L. Sloan, E. Thomas, and K. Billups (2001), Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to Present, Science 292, 686-693.

─ CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY, Chief Policy Advisor, Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA; monckton@mail.com.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

…”True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.”
Then Eos has lost all.

J.Hansford

Well no wonder Eos didn’t want to publish Monckton’s right of reply….. It’s got facts in it.

The thieves er scientists promoting anthropogenic global warming mitigation can not refute Christopher Moncktons facts so they render him voiceless by denying him responce space and time in their venues for spouting their idiocy. Cowards , charlatans , fraudsters , liars , etc.. They will fall that is sure because you only get away with lieing for awhile and their time is almost up. You can not beleive a word any of the government related or university related climate people say. They have been sucking at the easy teat of corruption and it will end.

Truthseeker

Erudite and logicial, as usual, from the good lord.

noaaprogrammer

One could reason with them ad naseum in perpetuum and they would still be immotus.

Excellent work as always, which would be quite compelling, IF this was a scientific discourse…but its not, its religious/political polemic. They are not likely to be listening…hands over ears shouting blah blah blah to block it out. But thanks for the facts.

Onion

ad magnifico

John Blake

As Moncton et al. well know, because AGW catastrophism is at root an extreme-left radical political agenda, under no circumstances will its Green Gang of junk-science propagandists pay the slightest heed to objective or even rational presentation of mere facts. To those dismissing Briffa, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Trenberth etc. as well-meaning but misguided “researchers”, we answer: Read Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, Keith Farnish, above all Kentti Linkola– not just doom-sayers but true totalitarian Luddite sociopaths. Warmists’ brutal anti-humanism is no laughing matter.

Jon

If Eos was a scientific magazine they would not print the ad hom attack on “deniers” in the first place?(give the dog a bad name and let it hang)
Since they did that and at the same time deny the “deniers” the right of reply are all strong signs of Eos being agenda or policy driven? Another social magazine?

Just how people who defame others, and then refuse to publish their response — how do they look in the mirror? How glad I am that I am not like them. This is why I left the Soviet Union 25 years ago. But that endemic Soviet brain rot, it spread all over the globe now. There is nowhere to run, we’ve got to exterminate the bug of cowardice before it kills us all.

dennisambler

“catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate”
faux pas, it has not been occurring at all.

Monckton, also publish this reply on arxiv.org so it will show us a citation for the original article.

If only Chris M would write his stuff in plain English and leave out all that Latin he might get to be published more often!

trccurtin

If Chris M would cut out the Latin and write more concisely in plain English he would stand more chance of getting published.

Monckton says
Above all, in the generation since 1990, the observed warming rate has turned out below the least estimate projected by the IPCC in that year. The models agreed with one another, but events have proven the consensus wrong. Despite rapidly-increasing CO2 concentration, there has been no statistically-significant warming for a decade and a half.
Henry says
Surprise. Surprise. As looked at from the development in maxima – which are not plotted by the honorable dr’s and prof’s and which more directly tells us what energy is coming in – we actually started on a cooling cycle, since 1995.
Though it all looks like natural processes at work, concerning the UV-O2-O3 cycle, I would still be a bit worried about how much cooling we can expect the future, exactly.
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

trccurtin, dumbing down for the sake of readability will only dilute the effect of this quite lucid response. “All that Latin” happens to permeate scientific discourse to its base, it is inescapable. May I suggest a dictionary as an antidote to incomprehension.

Ian H

My advice is to lose the latin and get to the point quicker.

Paul Martin

“If Chris M would cut out the Latin…”
They’re not Latin for the sake of confounding readers but they’re the proper names of logical fallacies which just happen to be best known by Latin phrases which describe them.
I, on the other hand, have no compunction against writing: condemnant quod non intellegunt. So there! 😉

Kohl

Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:14 pm
“But that endemic Soviet brain rot, it spread all over the globe now. There is nowhere to run, we’ve got to exterminate the bug of cowardice before it kills us all.”
I could not agree more – ‘the bug of cowardice’ is an excellent way to describe at least one of the problems. Folk are too frightened to rock the boat, any boat. But it seems that it is not that they cannot swim but that they do not wish to get wet!
They run from controversy, seeking solace in the illusory shield of consensus. They do their utmost to avoid standing out from the crowd. They are loathe to act in defence of what is right.
The health of the polity is most clearly at risk when we see wrong and yet do nothing.

Myrrh

Readers of Eos may now decide for themselves to what extent the unsupported attack upon our reputations by Corbin and Katz was justifiable. True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.
Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.
When his cherished unproven science is questioned he becomes exactly like those he rants against here – demanding that we be sent into ghettos and not allowed to take part in any discussions which have the Greenhouse Effect as a given. Unable to give any real science to back this claim he to resorts to viscious ad homs and arguments from authority.
And it seems that is the ethos of this site. While proclaiming itself open to science views it ends up censoring anything it can’t handle which challenges its own entrenched unproven science.
So don’t be fooled by his appeal to objective science analysis and emotional angst about being censored, he’s just the same kind of sh*t.

J.Hansford

dennisambler says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:15 pm
“catastrophic manmade global warming has not been occurring at anything like the predicted rate”
faux pas, it has not been occurring at all.
=========================================================================
LOL… I think you have misinterpreted Lord Monckton’s British penchant for grand understatement….;-)

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
WUWT is the ‘guru’ blog representing the Global Warming skeptic consensus, so to speak. As they display, “the world’s most viewed climate website”, 120 million site views, 12 thousand followers, a site to be respected, I suggest.
The important thing is that there is more scientific evidence, data, claims and assessments presented by WUWT than all the IPCC publications and CAGW supporter papers. If not in quantity, certainly in quality.
This article by Christopher Monckton is an outstanding example of sound “skeptic” debate, covering a range of typical CAGW issues convincingly.
1. censoring information.
2. arguing solely from consensus
3. serially cite politicized websites and tendentious non-peer-reviewed presentations
4. failure to advance a single scientific or economic argument
5. Predictions of doom have failed
6. events have proven the consensus wrong
I agree with Christpher’s end statement “True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.”

Terri Jackson

I call for a boycott of AGU by all scientists who value the scientific method until the AGU leadership is replaced by those who do value scientific facts in the climate debate.

P. Solar

I fear his lordship has gone far beyond his claimed “rigth to reply” in making this into an essay on global warming. That unfortunately gives them a good excuse not to publish it.
Also his latin is more impressive than his use of English.
“attack on Dr. Giaever and me ” should be “Dr. Giaever and myself”.
“invective and illogic” , my dictionary is having trouble finding the word “illogic”.
While, as a member of the english aristocracy, he clearly is a superior being, he is probably only alienating his audience rather than impressing them with all the latin.
Dubious claims like “Growth in Antarctic sea-ice extent almost matches the decline in the Arctic over the past 30 years” are not likey to gain much credibility with anyone at EOS.
He would have done better stick to right to reply rather than try to use it a platform for a one page climate resumé.

“yet the inferred paleo-temperature record shows no such pattern of violent oscillation. ”
JK—-Some temperature charts show a series of ice ages of varying depths interspersed with warm periods that all reach similar peak temperatures. It is as if temperature were a random event, with a limit on the maximum temperature. (This is a well known occurrence in electronic circuits described as soft positive peak clipping.)
Thanks
JK

Stuart B

I read this with the usual dismay, then realised something of which I had not been clearly aware. Of course, the totalitarian programme makes me very angry, sometimes gasping with disbelief that they are getting away with it – it must have been like this in 1930’s Germany or early Soviet Russia, before the avalanches hit and the great silences began. But what hurts – what really hurts – is the perversion and corruption of science. For those of us – which is to say, all of us – whose lives depend on the truthfulness and morality of the scientific enterprise, this is a poisoning of the wells on an unprecedented scale. It is a crime against humanity, and I do mean this in a literal sense – many lives will be lost. It may be that people will learn to live under a global regime of extreme and enduring secular tyranny – we know that people can survive under such conditions, albeit in physical and spiritual misery.
However, to systematically dismantle the processes and results of true science is an attempt to condemn all of us to a kind of hell, a place where there is no hope. We should not only be angry, but very afraid. It may be asking too much of the courage of most scientists to stand up against what is happening now. In the past, I believe the only way these oppressive regimes have crumbled has been the pressures of internal contradictions making them unworkable. However, ‘pressure’ in this sense only arises when there is an outside world to exert that pressure, either by force or by competition. If the regime we are contemplating here is truly global, where is its Nemesis? Martians?

Myrrh says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:46 am
Whoops, someone forgot to take their meds.
/sarc

trccurtin says: July 12, 2012 at 11:37 pm
If Chris M would cut out the Latin and write more concisely in plain English he would stand more chance of getting published.

If that were the problem!
We all know the real problem is that Climate Science, and its outlets in “science” journals, has been usurped by brigands, and taken right out of being anything to do with real science. As Monckton says:

True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.

The Latin shows two things. First, it shows a breadth and depth of education, ergo, humanity. Second, especially in Latin, it reminds us of the serial faults of the brigands and usurpers; reminds us all, to pass the message on to others; reminds us all of the real key issues and lack of debate, over which the warmists are truly in denial.

Alan the Brit

Excellent logic as usual. You only have to ask two questions……….”What is the final solution to manmade global warming”……………………..”what is the ultimate ideological obkjcctive of Marxist Socialism”? The answer……..Global Government! Jaque Chirac President of France was observed to have said it after Kyoto was signed, “This is the first step towards Global Government!” A concept I find utterly abhorrent, undemocratic, anti-freedom, anti-free-enterprise capitaliam, & these people of dubious parentage love & are obsessed with the whole idea! Yet they comprise the WEKNOWWHATSBESTFOREVERYONEs, Neo-Socialists, Neo-Communists, Neo-Feudalists, Neo-Racists, Neo-bureaucrats, Obsessive-Compulsives, & just plane weirdos, war does indeed make strange bedfellows!!!!!

Pete Olson

Myrrh: You are funny, funny, funny… Your comment will stand forever here without censorship, unlike Monckton’s at Eos, where they would not even post it… M cites fact after fact from cited sources – peer-reviewed papers, government statistics, IPCC publications, satellite data, etc. You obviously don’t read this site: opinions from all over the spectrum are expressed here, just as you were able to do. The only thing censored is over-the-top rudeness or profanity. Stick around a while – you might actually observe how science used to work…back when it worked.

Steve C

“electronic circuits intended to be stable are designed to permit closed-loop gains of no more than 0.1”

Eh? If this is saying what it seems to be saying, I beg to differ. Negative feedback around a circuit reduces its gain, for sure, but only relative to its gain without feedback (its ‘open-loop’ gain, i.e. before the feedback loop is closed). I wonder whether this should read ‘gains of no more than 0.1 of the open-loop value‘, which does indeed represent a practical safety margin in most circuits. It’s quite true, of course, that positive feedback puts a circuit into a less-stable state and, if sufficient, makes it oscillate between its extremes.
Given that most practical op-amp chips have open-loop gains of 100,000 or so, this still allows a circuit to have a very useful gain of (say) 1000 by allowing negative feedback to maintain gain at around 0.01 of open-loop – in fact, as long as the open-loop gain is generally ‘high’ it doesn’t enter into the basic design equations at all. I’ve built plenty of circuits with that sort of gain, and they were perfectly stable, thanks. (With real-world components, of course, you also need to allow for parameter variation with frequency, noise, etc., which is where the design skill comes in.) But every hifi amplifier out there demonstrates that you can have an awful lot more than a gain of 0.1; if you couldn’t, rock’n’roll would be a very different animal …
But let not my nitpicking detract from another elegantly worded riposte to (yet) another insult from those who seem not to appreciate that civilised discourse is more than mere rant. Well said, sir. It’s a sad thing that we all know it won’t be the last time.

Peter Miller

AGU is clearly a quasi-government organisation and its supporters fall mainly into the categories of government employees and/or grant addicts.
As I think most readers know, nearly every geologist in the private sector dismisses the concept of CAGW for being the crock it is, while those in the public sector tend to believe what they are told to believe, for reasons of job security etc.
The refusal of EOS to let Moncton respond to their diatribe is no more than the typical machinations of the CAGW cult trying to stifle all dissent and discussion on the non-problem of climate change.

Disko Troop

Myrrh. Thank you for your fact filled rebuttal of Lord Moncktons letter. I, for one. was immediately converted to your cause and henceforth will change my name to Disko warmy Troop.

P. Solar

Myrr says: “And it seems that is the ethos of this site. While proclaiming itself open to science views it ends up censoring anything it can’t handle which challenges its own entrenched unproven science.”
Oh yeah, examples? I don’t recall seeing any such censorship going on here. (Oh of course, I wouldn’t see it would I , it was censored, LOL).
“So don’t be fooled by his appeal to objective science analysis and emotional angst about being censored, he’s just the same kind of sh*t.”
I don’t see him showing angst about being censored, defamed maybe.
There is plenty of unproven science in this field, that is probably the key message of WUWT. However, I don’t seen anyone forcing an alternative entrenched unproven science here. There is open discussion of alternatives that is very varied, not “entrenched”. That adjective would better be applied to your twisted hand show that is supposed to replace the scientific method.
Between all the name calling and bad language we understand your belief system is being challenged. What else can you tell us?

Max Hugoson

http://www.glennbeck.com/bookczar/
Above weblink to “Arguing with Idiots”…Although politically oriented, the concept is the same.
Then, point to be taken…why bother? I dropped my long time associations with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the American Association of Chemical Engineers…as BOTH groups are run by “environmental idiots” these days. (Degrees in both fields.)
Alas, we may have to pray that the Chinese, the Indians and the Russians “take over”. As they do not “tolerate fools lightly”. More and more, we have become a “Ship of Fools”. (With apologies to Micheal Dunn). Please note what the time period of the action in that film was, and what it was a prelude to.

FrankK

They have been sending EOS to me until recently for many years. I used to just wrap up my vegetable scraps in it and chuck it in the bin (trash can).

AndyG55

trccurtin says:
If only Chris M would write his stuff in plain English and leave out all that Latin he might get to be published more often!
Ahh. Google can be useful for some things .
and ignorance is really no excuse for non-publication…. oh wait.. methinks I probably is !!!! ;-))

I wouldn’t publish Monkton’s writings either–mainly because his writing style is pompous, ornamented, and seemingly designed to exhibit his knowledge of classical languages more than his knowledge of the facts. He desperately needs and editor. Until he can present his message to someone like me, who is generally symathetic, he has no hope at all of reaching anyone else. No one should assume his response was rejected because of an agenda. It’s just bad writing.

Peter Stroud

Excellent stuff, as always. But also, as always, it is unlikely to be read by politicians, and even if it is, it will be dismissed out of hand.

Snotrocket

Myrrh says: July 13, 2012 at 12:46 am:

“When his cherished unproven science is questioned he becomes exactly like those he rants against here…not allowed to take part in any discussions which have the Greenhouse Effect as a given.”

Myrrh: Please show evidence of any occasion, written or verbal, when Lord Monckton has said he does not believe in a Greenhouse Effect (sic). I leave it to others on this blog to point out the many more idiotic statements in you comment…

Myrrh says: July 13, 2012 at 12:46 am
????????????????????????
Explain.
Could you, by any chance, be projecting your own unacknowledged tendencies? This is a common issue with fact-free rebuttals like yours.
I don’t agree with all the science set out here. And neither do I agree with all the handling of the discussion, either. Though I applaud the general courtesy, reasonableness and openness of dialogue here, I feel it has failed on some occasions, particularly when dealing with frontier material, Nilolov and Zeller, or electric u****e, for instance. But frontiers need a very different mindset and it’s asking the impossible of Anthony who does a job that is so second to none I cannot fault its limitations. Same applies to Monckton.

David

I know some Latin..
‘Nil illegitemi carborundum.’
(Never let the b*stards grind you down – which should be the battle cry of us ‘skeptics’….!)

Gareth

Nitpicking:
Steve C points out that amplifiers do have a closed loop gain greater than 0.1 and says: “But let not my nitpicking detract from another elegantly worded riposte”.
This isn’t nitpicking – the statement as written is 100% wrong. Amplifiers by their nature need a gain of greater than unity, otherwise they wouldn’t be amplifiers – they would be attenuators. Anyone with electronics knowledge who reads this will immediately see the error and potentially dismiss the rest of the article too. So the statement needs correcting.
I also agree with the sentiment expressed several times in comments for using plain English and brevity, these would aid communication of Monkton’s valid points.

David Wright

Just one small correction to Lord Monckton’s remarks. I think that the observed rate of sea-level rise is 3mm per year. This gives a rise of 30 centimetres per century (approximately 1 foot per century). Greater tham 3 centimetres per century, but hardly catastrophic.

Myrrh

Snotrocket says:
July 13, 2012 at 3:23 am
Myrrh says: July 13, 2012 at 12:46 am:
“When his cherished unproven science is questioned he becomes exactly like those he rants against here…not allowed to take part in any discussions which have the Greenhouse Effect as a given.”
Myrrh: Please show evidence of any occasion, written or verbal, when Lord Monckton has said he does not believe in a Greenhouse Effect (sic). I leave it to others on this blog to point out the many more idiotic statements in you comment…
He does believe in the Greenhouse Effect – my point is that he brooks no arguments against it and goes so far as to demand those interrupting discussions where this is the basic premise be ghettoised. He demands censorship of opposing views, all the while ranting against those who want to censor him; he appeals to authority in proclaiming the Greenhouse Effect is true, all the while proclaiming that this is unscientific method. He is a hypocrite. Not only is he a hypocrite, he becomes just as nasty when challenged to give proof of the Greenhouse Effect.
Lucy Skywalker says:
July 13, 2012 at 3:29 am
Myrrh says: July 13, 2012 at 12:46 am
????????????????????????
Explain.
Could you, by any chance, be projecting your own unacknowledged tendencies? This is a common issue with fact-free rebuttals like yours.
I don’t agree with all the science set out here. And neither do I agree with all the handling of the discussion, either. Though I applaud the general courtesy, reasonableness and openness of dialogue here, I feel it has failed on some occasions, particularly when dealing with frontier material, Nilolov and Zeller, or electric u****e, for instance. But frontiers need a very different mindset and it’s asking the impossible of Anthony who does a job that is so second to none I cannot fault its limitations. Same applies to Monckton.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/#comment-919500
As an example. He is a hypocrite, he is basically as irrational and nasty to those who question his science claims as he objects to in his confrontations with CAGWs. He demands that we be isolated from any discussions in ghetto threads.
He makes very compelling arguments for rationality and objectivity in science, that it is science truth which much be defended, then, for some reason, he doesn’t accept this applies to him and his claims:
“True science is founded not upon invective and illogic but upon reason. Lose that: lose all.”
He’s lost it. Pointing this out enrages him.

commieBob

trccurtin says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:37 pm
If Chris M would cut out the Latin and write more concisely in plain English he would stand more chance of getting published.

Sadly, you may have a point. The trouble is that he is describing logical fallacies and many of those are most commonly referred to by their latin names. http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm It will be difficult for him to convey the same meaning without using those terms.
On the other hand … If one truly wishes to communicate, one will not trot out language that one knows will be unfamiliar to one’s audience. A good writer can impart sophisticated meaning without resorting to jargon.

C.M. Carmichael

Lord Monkton for Dictator!
He has more style and substance than anyone selected from any recent elections, anywhere.

Gail Combs

You are talking about this Eos Magazine right? A fine art photography magazine. After all a SCIENCE journal would encourage idea exchanges and rebuttal so it certainly can not be the ‘Transactions, American Geophysical Union.’ /sarc

Mat

Myrrh methinks you need to sit on the naughty step as throwing your toys out of the pram like that could have someones eye out !
‘Disko warmy Troop’
OK that’s a winner !!!

Curiousgeorge

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”— Robert A. Heinlein