Monckton: At Last, the Climate Extremists Try to Debate Us! (PJM Exclusive)
One of the numerous Goebbelian propaganda artifices deployed by the now-retreating climate extremist movement has been the careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics.
As the extremists lose the argument and become more desperate, that is changing.
John Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at a Bible college in Minnesota, has recently issued — and widely disseminated — a hilariously mendacious 83-minute attempted rebuttal of a speech I delivered about the climate last October in St. Paul, Minnesota.
So unusual is this attempt actually to meet us in argument, and so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn), that climate-extremist bloggers everywhere have circulated them and praised them to the warming skies.
As usual though, none of these silly bloggers make any attempt actually to verify whether what poor Abraham is saying actually has the slightest contact with reality.
One such is George Monbiot, a scribbler for the the Guardian, the British Marxist daily propaganda sheet. What is Monbiot’s qualification to write about climate science? Well, like Abraham, he’s a “scientist.” Trouble is, he’s a fourteenth-rate zoologist, so his specialty has even less to do with climate science than that of Abraham, who nevertheless presents himself as having scientific knowledge relevant “in the area.”
Here’s the thing. All of the sciences are becoming increasingly specialized. So most scientists — the snake-like Abraham and, a fortiori, the accident-prone Monbiot among them — have no more expertise in predicting or even understanding the strange behavior of the complex, non-linear, chaotic object that is the Earth’s climate than the man on the Clapham omnibus.
They pretend otherwise, of course. Almost four years ago, when I wrote a 2500-word article in the Sunday Telegraph pointing out that the notion of a very large climate warming attributable to future increases in CO2 concentration was scientifically ill-founded, Monbiot wrote a scathing 1800-word response in the Daily Kommissar, in which he made a dozen laughably elementary scientific errors.
Monbiot made the mistake of pretending that he understood the fundamental equation of radiative transfer, of which he had plainly not previously heard.
Here it was I who had the advantage: before writing the article in the Telegraph I had spent three months tracking the equation down, because — though it converts changes in the flow of radiation at a planetary surface to changes in temperature, and is therefore essential to discovering how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will deliver — the IPCC’s 2001 and 2007 climate assessment reports do not mention it once.
And why not? Well, put simply, the equation shows that at the temperatures prevailing on Earth you need a very large increase in radiative flux to achieve a pathetically small increase in temperature. That’s not the sort of thing the climate extremists want known, so they carefully don’t mention it, which is one reason why puir wee Moonbat hadn’t heard of it.
Ever since I compelled the Daily Apparatchik to publish a letter from me correcting Monbiot’s invincible ignorance of elementary planetary physics and undergrad math, Monbiot has seized every chance to have a go at me whenever one of his climate extremist comrades asserted that I’d gotten something wrong.
And how he crows at the news of Abraham’s “evisceration” of my Minnesota speech.
Abraham’s approach is novel. He’s saying not that I got one thing wrong, but that I got just about everything wrong. A couple of pointers: first, it’s now June 2010, and I spoke in October 2009, almost eight months ago. I’ve made a lot of speeches since. Why has it taken Abraham so long to cobble together his ramblings?
The answer — and, as I shall show, it is the right one — is that his deliberately dishonest personal attack on my integrity and reputation is an ingenious fiction. He knows it, and he has therefore had to go to some elaborate and time-consuming lengths to do his inept and socially inadequate best to conceal the steps he has taken to hide the truth and make his nonsense look plausible.
Secondly, during the eight months of “investigation” (Abraham’s word) that he carried out, at no single point did he ever contact me to ask me to clarify one of the numerous references which, he said over and over again, were not clear in my slides.
That failure on his part to check with me when he could not find the sources of my data was clearly deliberate. He didn’t want to give me any advance notice that he was planning to launch a widely disseminated attack on me, because otherwise I might have pointed out his errors to him in advance, and that would have made it a great deal more difficult for him to get away with publishing them.
In a short space I won’t have time to cover more than a representative selection of Abraham’s errors (but a comprehensive rebuttal will be coming, I assure you). Let’s begin, though, with the question of sources.
Lord Monckton is doing more than just debunking the planet fever myth, he is also teaching us the art of rethoric, by example.
My heart goes out to Monckton as he confronts a phenomenon that has become nothing short of religious fanaticism. As the “warmers” go from the ridiculous to the absurd, one feels the need to respond with biting satire. Allow me to point readers to the following effort in this area:
http://awolcivilization.com/?p=1623
I wouldn’t worry too much about Monckton. Anyone with the wherewithal to compare a warming zealot to an overcooked prawn is doing juuuust fine!
Too true. The problem with warmists is they use such vitriolic language and indulge in ad hominem arguements.
I suggest that thru Americans “actions”, that approaching zero Americans believe in global warming or that it is even a small problem.
Environmentalists are invariably people that want others to use less energy!
If Obama/Gore really believed global warming, they would talk non stop about lowering speed limits to 50 and demand that Americans stop jack rabbit starts and stop racing to lights that are red.
Virtually no Americans believe it either; just look at the fuel wasting driving habits; that also fund the other sides war against us! If you believe the hurricane may kill you/your family: you leave. The driving habits prove no one believes it.
The congress/press are selling a scam, for profit, not seen since the middle ages; The cap and trade scam is a variation of the “indulgences scam” used, among other things, to man the crusades/get bad people to go somewhere else!
Post the data showing the randomly selected locations where temperature and snow pack are documented for 1 million years and that will tell the tale. Select locations that meet your agenda: liars figure but figures do not lie!
Earth wobbles, sun spots, ocean currents/temperature, volcanoes, solar storms/winds et al;
EPA Superfund Enforcement to sue crude oil producers to clean the environment?(yes I posted this suggestion on PJ in March)
To your point about driving habits – I live in a part of California that is fairly hilly. As in most non-flat places, roads tend to be built in the troughs and houses on higher terrain. In this way, road construction costs are minimized while home views and vistas are maximized. As a result, most intersections (and therefore signals) are approached downhill and exited going uphill. Therefore, every vehicle that must stop at an intersection burns up in incredible amount of energy as waste heat in the braking system. And when the light changes, they require a great deal of energy to get moving again against gravity.
Please bear with me for the point. It seems to me that there are millions of unnecessary vehicle stops every day in California and just a little bit of effort in this area would deliver more impact on energy consumption than the sum total of all of the draconian, business killing restrictions that our regulation happy politicians and eco-extremists are proposing.
Most intersections have a “signal change on demand” kind of strategy where a timed light strategy would work much better. But this puts the burden on government to be creative and effective. It’s much easier for them just to tighten the screws on ordinary citizens and their pocketbooks knowing that we will obediently adjust and comply.
I have read Lord Moncton’s writings on ‘climate change’ for a couple of years now, and generally agree with and applaud and admire him for the clear and well-sourced arguments he makes.
This one deserves some criticism. He’s somehow gotten off on a personal tirade against John Abraham and George Monbiot in this article, and he damages his authority by doing so. Yes, his arguments on the climate data appear convincing and well-sourced as always, but the first six or eight paragraphs needed some heavy rewriting to excise the catty personal insults. They add nothing to the science, nor to his logical case against their arguments.
We are not amused.
bear in mind that here Monckton is responding to even more catty and personal attacks on HIM, and I think his catty and personal responses are entirely appropriate.
dave in dallas:
It is common for victimizers to play the persecuted martyr. Please tell me what is so appropriate about accusing those who believe in Global Warming of the genocide of millions of starvation victims in Africa. Or blaming environmentalists of the deaths of 40 million African children from malaria?
Face it, he initiated his irrational attacks against his opponents and is now crying foul because he’s getting exposed. Examples:
1. No citations (to prevent Google checks).
2. Falsified charts, including the ones he mentioned in the above article.
He actually had the gall to justify the fact that these charts came
from his own organization, SPPI, instead of NOAA!
3. Having a resume padded with false accomplishments. Claiming he was
“science adviser” to Margaret Thatcher when in fact he was “policy
adviser”. Inventor of a “broad spectrum” treatment for several diseases
such as Grave’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Herpes Simplex VI and AIDS
http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-talentsl.
Are we beginning to realize that we’re dealing with a charlatan?
Uh, trust me, you are quite sufficiently sensitive.
Dare I say grossly oversensitive.
Monkton’s been personally attacked, he is responding in kind. And I, for one, say “bravo”.
Were Lord Monckton merely hurling back “yo mama” smears in response to Abraham’s attacks, I would agree with you. However, what he is doing here is showing that scientists peddling unsubstantiated claims in the name of their global climate crusade will not be tolerated or ignored. He is insisting that these “scientists” be held accountable for their claims, both by the institutions that patronize them and by the public at large. In this, he does a valuable service and I commend him.
While the personal attacks (overcooked prawn and the like) do little to further his thesis, they do make the essay more interesting and entertaining to read.
Insufficiently Sensitive, Lord Monckton has a history of defamatory remarks against those who believe in Global Warming. It is NORMAL for him to go into tirades like the following:
He has accused them in General of being responsible for the genocide of millions of Africans who have died from starvation.
He has also accused Environmentalists of being responsible for the genocide of 40 million African children throughout a 40 year time period from malaria. This supposedly because they somehow twisted the arms of African nations and made them ban DDT. He says that DDT is the only pesticide that is effective against the malaria carrying mosquito and that it is so safe, that not only will it not harm your pets or other animals but it won’t kill you if you drink it by the Tablespoon.
Those who believe in Global Warming are also the dupes of an evil secret cabal that intends to exterminate the world’s population down to 500 million and place it under a One World Communist government.
As far as his Science is concerned, I’ve seen him in his presentations give alleged evidence of “Global Cooling” based on a temperature chart that I was familiar with. It had been cut off one one particular year, 1998 even though the chart started in 1979. Had the chart not been altered, it would have been obvious proof of Global Warming, but being cut in that ingeniously manner it gave the false impression of cooling.
He has also stated, in the video where he calls a Jewish student a “Hitler Youth”, that 5 temperature data sets proved Global Cooling. I have actually seen those 5 graphs from their primary source, NOAA. One of those charts was the one that had been altered. I can tell you that he is, not so much mistaken or confused, he is lying through his teeth.
I suggest,Insufficiently Sensitive, that you use the same gut instinct that turned you off to his tirades and investigate the very substance of his arguments.
Sometimes the appropriate response to a liar is to call that person a liar. If the lies are spectacular enough, emphasis as to the depths of the qualities of that liar have to be conveyed through the use of comparisons which are unkind.
I am more than amused.
Lord Monckton, thank you for this piece. You always put on display your utmost decorum, professionalism to those who slander, lie to you and the public.
Always a pleasure, Sir.
Mr. Monckton:
“That’s not the sort of thing the climate extremists want known, so they carefully don’t mention it, which is one reason why puir wee Moonbat hadn’t heard of it.”
I was wondering how long it would take you to invoke this odious person’s most lasting legacy, and you did not disappoint.
As for the Warmists and other assorted neo-Luddites and their running-dog lackeys, I should expect that they might have seen the wisdom soft-pedalling their discredited busted flush.
Especially in light of those gob-smacking volcanic eruptions in Iceland, which has likely belched forth more carbon emissions and greenhouse gases at one go than all of mankind has been able to piddle forth since the invention of the steam engine.
If one cannot see the mirth of the Almighty in this occurrence, one is just truly trying not to.
We who would be so clever as to be worried about man-made global warming that we get blind-sided by a God-made Ice Age…truly, too funny!
It looks like Mr. Abraham teaches at University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. It’s a Catholic unversity. The references in this article to it as a “Bible college” are misleading — that phrase suggests that he teaches at a seminary or divinity school. Certainly, Mr. Monckton is using the phrase derisively — he wants his readers to think that Mr. Abraham teaches at an unserious institution. Of course where Mr. Abraham teaches doesn’t matter very much — it’s the substance of his argument that matters. Mr. Monckton does a nice job with the substance. The repeated snide, inaccurate references to “Bible college” are the only sour notes in what seems to be a very nice rebuttal to Mr. Abraham.
#4: John Abraham may have thought his rebuttal would go unchallenged. Lord Monckton clearly welcomes a debate just not the intellectually dishonest type.
I disagree with you #4. The insults are a direct challenge to the targets to prove that they are libelous and not accurate characterizations. I think it is a fantastic slap in the face for these charlatans.
Bible college student are you, CSR?
I have a neighbor – a Law Professor – who seems to believe that an individual 100 feet away smoking a cigarette, is “polluting her air” grievously, but will then get into her automobile and drive to destinations that are only minutes away on foot. And feels (note I said “feels” not “understands”) that however, the pollution her vehicle creates is “different” and of no real consequence.
P.T. Barnum was an optimist…
Why are Hillary’s views on this not known? A cover-up?
I am a Christian and I do not think a reference to “bible college ” is a derisive term since the words St. Thomas or Catholic do not infer any particular reverential protection in a discussion on global warming.
A man is allowed to defend himself and frequently using the same weapons the left uses are deemed allowable in the intellectual realm.
The real matter is the truth and the substance, which are the only things relavent to this argument and Monckton defends his case very well.
Lord Monckton cannot win this debate because whoever shouts the loudest, wins. Any radical collectivist knows this and that is why they are trying to amplify the rhetoric. Good luck, Mr Monckton, you will need a big megaphone to win this one. By the way, the lowly un-scientific observation is that global warming is like the guy who lights up a cigarette on a hot day and then gets told to put out his cigarette because he is creating too much heat.
Interesting – always happy to see the moonbot brought to earth, but humbly, I think I actually came up with the St. Regis / Gore thing. Happy to help.
http://cbltoo.blogspot.com/2009/05/proof-that-al-gore-doesn-even-believe.html
I’m generally with you on this subject, but in order to have your legitimate points taken seriously you can’t call somone out on their ad hominem attacks and then follow it up with ad hominem attacks. This is especially true at the beginning of an article. It invites honestly interested but skeptical reader to quit reading. I think the actual content of this debate paints a clear enough picture of Mr. Abraham. Otherwise I applaud your efforts to get the whole story out in the open.
The argument of personal attack—the argumentum ad hominem—is, generally, a logically fallacious argument; but ad hominem invective, used rhetorically, does not invalidate a speaker’s argument though it may be distasteful to some. Lord Monckton’s classical use of invective seems to be one of, “you attacked me personally as part of your fallacious logic; so, since you started it, I shall expose your erroneous logic, and I shall also demonstrate that I can employ rhetorical figures such as anticategoria, apodioxis and bdelygmia better than you can.”
Point taken. And you’re right, I should not have said “you can’t” counter attack. Like you state, when it’s used as THE argument it renders your argument void. Obviously that is not the case here, but to start an article in such a way will render it less appealing to some (or distasteful, as you say) and therefore less effective no matter the content. Enough said on that though, the article made good points and Mr. Monckton does his research.
Talk about political correctness! I couldn’t remember the definition of bdelygmia, so I attempted to look it up on Wikipedia. The entry has been deleted! Must be the censoring of “hate” speech; although it is Greek for justified hatred. What a bunch of self-righteous twits!
I concur that not only is this article an articulate piece of scientific journalism, but a fine piece of rhetoric. As far the snippy remarks and deriding commentary concerning his adversaries, they brought it upon themselves by way of intellectual dishonesty, selective facts, and an underlying political agenda. Mr. Moncton is being kind by just calling them what they are… liars.
As far as getting his message out, good luck on that. Facts and reality do not matter to the radical left.
Case in point: A round table discussion on one of the Sunday morning shows during the health care debate concerned abortion. The left commentator unequivocally said that the bill did not fund abortion. The conservative commentator pulls the bill out, reads verbatim from the text of the bill that not only does the bill provide funding for abortion, in plain English the bill specifies penalties for NOT providing abortions. The left wing radical commentator then starts screaming that the conservative commentator is taking the wording of the bill out of context and attacks them on the basis that they cannot understand plain English.
So good luck Mr. Moncton.
Things would be much better in general in American society if the schools taught basic civil discourse. Debating and critical thinking simply are not part of education anymore. Which is why idiots like Al Gore are able to run their scams past a public that has been brainwashed into thinking they can pick up a turd by the clean end.
Well before I knew much about the “science” of AGW, I was appalled at the obvious distorted rubbish being spouted by Moonbat and his ilk. I spent a fruitless 2 years looking for evidence to support AGW before coming to the conclusion it was some kind of quasi-religious scam. I’m older and wiser now, and my conclusion has been confirmed by my far better knowledge of the real science behind the earth’s complex climate.
Seeing Lord Monckton’s impish phizzog always makes me smile. A warning to those who would debate with him – don’t. He’ll tear your paper-thin argument to shreds with sharp rhetoric, simple logic and a razor-edged wit. He should have his own TV chat show, though the trouble is he’d have difficulty getting anyone to appear that wasn’t a supporter or like-minded. Oh well, he’ll just have to continue as before, skewering the clueless and shredding the witless. He’s charming and entertaining, and telling the truth.
Is this the same Lord Monckton who lies about being a member of the House of Lords, lies about being a “science advisor” to Margareth Thatcher, whose only academic credentials is a degree in journalism, has absolutely no background in science, and claims he invented a cure for the common cold? Or is this a different Lord Monckton?
Can you not even bother to Google him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley
Dont be silly Eric when did a moonbat ever engage his brain when a stupid Ad Hominem attack would do.
How many of you actually watched Abraham’s presentation? All 84 minutes? I’m willing to bet – none.
I watched the whole thing (Abraham’s). I think he scores some solid hits against Monckton that he will likely “skip over” in his next (more detailed) rebuttal. BUT, funny that “Bible College” is mentioned because the exchange reminds me of two guys Bible-bashing and neither one is open-minded enough to establish any credibility if there were to be a “neutral” observer. At least Monckton is quoting a lot of studies performed by scientists who are “believers”, or who are at least afraid to disagree with the “believers”. Abraham (aptly named for a “believer”) repeatedly sent E-mails to the authors who sided with him. He never consulted with *any* scientists who *disagree* with him – only those funded by government and liberal organizations. Then he spends *way* too much time citing the funding sources for Willie Soon. Gee, where *can* a scientist go for funding if he has serious doubts about AGW Groupthink ?
Yeah John… He didn’t watch it. It’s laughable.
BrentW
I watched the whole thing (Abraham’s). …… At least Monckton is quoting a lot of studies performed by scientists who are “believers”, or who are at least afraid to disagree with the “believers”. Abraham (aptly named for a “believer”) repeatedly sent E-mails to the authors who sided with him. He never consulted with *any* scientists who *disagree* with him
No he sent email to those scientists who Mr Monkton quoted. If you watched the whole thing you would know that the purpose of the recording was to present “evidence” to show how Monkton misuses data. I thought he did a pretty good job of destroying Monkton’s presentation.
No, this is the same Lord Monkton. I find it astonishing that there are so many posts here that indicate support for someone whose credibility should have long ago been in tatters simply due to his insistence on claiming that he is a Member of the House of Lords, when he is not, and has never been one.
Someone who has no qualms about lying about such a thing will clearly have no qualms about lying about other matters.
Lord Monkton: you are a liar, sir. Kindly go and crawl back into whichever hole it is you crawled out of.
Playstation V?!!!!! When did that system come out and what happened to Playstation IV?!!!! I demand to see the sources of Lord Monckton’s work so that I might ridicule them as being factually without merit!!!!!
“Well done, old chap” as the Brits say.
Thank you Lord Monckton. Unlike some, you understand better that liars and cheats must be called out for what they are. To say nothing of your willingness to confront evil head on. And that is surely what Abraham represents.
Amusing and informative. And, a very properly placed rebuttal to a certain snide, presumptuous, thoroughly dishonest NPR presentation.
what if his lordship is wrong?
israel after the flood
if israel must be secured from global warming and sea level rise before its american protector runs out of gas, then would that have given israelis a motive to participate in the 9-11/PNAC project?
is that why the most prominent deniers of global warming are the israeli americans of PNAC/AEI and their exxon allies?
What if you had a brain?
i mean, “might makes right” is a good deal so long as you’re mighty enough to enforce it… once you run out of gas, it gets harder to maintain your might… know what i mean?
and if israelis have to move to high ground, now occupied by palestinians, to escape sea level rise, and america’s run out of gas and can no longer protect israelis, then what?
looks to me like the israeli land acquisition project has to be completed before america goes tits up.
and the project needed a little kickstart, which the boys and girls at PNAC said in their paper of september, 2000… hopefully peak oil (as motive for 9/11) wont become undeniably obvious until it’s no longer convenient to connect the dots –peak oil, 9/11, and high ground for israel.
too bad the logic and science of the overall situation are working against his lordship…
he’s a cute little feller, no doubt, but geology and physics are most likely gonna kick the shit out of him, eventually… and he probably knows it.
but there’s a fool born every minute, so his lordship will never run out of audience… and some people are content with their fifteen minutes of fame, nevermind what they’re famous for.
Flickervertigo, I think your pin-headed buddies over at Stormfront are looking for you.
Two words – Bakken Oilfield
where’s the beef?
Flickervertigo. Perfect name to describe a Truther/Warmther.
There is no science behind the AGW myth.
I’m not sure I understand the point about the 6cm increase in sealevel. Currently the sea level is rising at 3mm/annum which if it continues until 2100 at that rate will be a rise of 27cm. It isn’t clear from your explanation how you got to the IPCC saying it’s 6cm. Would appreciate some clarification if you have the time.
Even if sea levels rise at 3 mm/year, that is much less than the historical rate of sea level rise, even since the Little Ice Age in the 1600′s-1700′s.
Sea level rise has been moderating since the end of the last great Ice Age: click
This chart shows more recent sea level rise and moderation: click
And this chart shows an even more recent sea level decline: click
Lord Monckton is correct, as we can see from the alarmist crowd’s resorting to character assassination in place of facts – which they lack. Monckton thrashes his debate opponents, which is why the hit piece he is responding to is used in place of a face-to-face debate.
I have little use for cowards like John Abraham, who scurries away from any fair and honest debate – but instead, takes drive-by pot shots from the sidelines.
Man up, Mr. Abraham! No one has respect for cowards issuing hit pieces from the safety of their ivory tower. Losing a debate fair and square is more manly than your limp attempt to keep your tenured pals smiling at you. Truth be told, they know you’re a coward, too.
Monckton complained about being called a ‘popinjay’ in the Telegraph and yet refers to Abrahams as looking like “an overcooked prawn”, calls Monbiot “Moonbat”, calls the Guardian the “Daily Kommissar”… Great way to lead by example. If you like to insult others, don’t complain when someone insults you.
As I used to tell my mom, “HE started it!”
Yes, such fighting fire with fire seems a little childish. Yet . . . I enjoyed it. And if anyone deserves it it’s the climate extremists. I DO believe they’re trying to destroy our economy–and capitalism & free enterprise–as are most extreme environmentalists nowadays, which makes all of them dangerous.
Don’t forget, part of Saul Alinsky’s advice includes holding your opponents up to ridicule. Just because The Left ALWAYS does it doesn’t mean The Not-Left shouldn’t avail themselves of the tactic, too.
I’m guessing you enjoyed it because you agree with him. For people on the fence or who disagree with his views, I suspect it just makes him look preposterous (certainly true for me, on the fence). So if you are interested in Monckton’s agenda gaining traction, you should be concerned that he expresses himself in such a childish manner.
If and when the “The-Science-Is-Settled Global Warmists” are finally viewed as buffoons, just as The Left is trying to portray the tea partiers, the “deniers,” and Sarah Palin (each with varying degrees of success), then the Not-Left will have achieved what Saul predicted: the Warmists will cease to be taken seriously.
Since I’m not on the fence and since I think Cap & Tax, w/redistribution to the poor to compensate for “skyrocketing” energy costs (as Obama promised), will hurt America and won’t matter a whit to the climate, the more the Warmists are viewed with disdain, the happier I will be. Sorry.
However, I notice that Obama and the Dems are proceeding just as if The Science Is Settled and planning to push Cap and Tax without even referencing CO2-as-greenhouse-gas (in order to avoid any denier arguments, I suppose). My hurt-America hypothesis will either be proved or disproved, though the effect on climate change certainly won’t be known during my lifetime.
And for years to come, the chaotic economy will be blamed on Bush, never on the destructively high cost of energy brought about by Cap and Tax.
If and when the “The-Science-Is-Settled Global Warmists” are finally viewed as buffoons, just as The Left is trying to portray the tea partiers, the “deniers,” and Sarah Palin (each with varying degrees of success), then the Not-Left will have achieved what Saul predicted: the Warmists will cease to be taken seriously.
Since I’m not on the fence and since I think Cap & Tax, w/redistribution to the poor to compensate for “skyrocketing” energy costs (as Obama promised), will hurt America and won’t matter a whit to the climate, the more the Warmists are viewed with disdain, the happier I will be. Sorry.
However, I notice that Obama and the Dems are proceeding just as if The Science Is Settled and planning to push Cap and Tax without even referencing CO2-as-greenhouse-gas (in order to avoid any denier arguments, I suppose). My hurt-America hypothesis will either be proved or disproved, though the effect on climate change certainly won’t be known during my lifetime.
Those who have invested in the Global Warming/Cap & Tax industry will become quite wealthy. And for years to come, the chaotic economy will be blamed on Bush, never on the destructively-high cost of energy brought about by Cap and Tax.
The point is that when Monckton says such intemperate things it is only himself who looks the idiot. Does Abraham look like an overcooked prawn to you? It simply reinforces the idea that climate sceptics/realists are the kooky ones. I doubt that’s what you want.
Bless you, Lord Monckton, for your good natured skewering of the radical environmental leftists. They deserve every syllable, plus some.
The proponents of Global Warming would help themselves if they sent apologists out with related credentials. Fluid mechanics? But no doubt the faithful will listen. Paul Erhlich was an entomologist specializing in butterflies, yet his “Population Bomb” which is wrong on many more counts than it is right, is still widely acclaimed by the true believers. Environmentalism has truly become a religion. I used to be a adherent, 40 years ago, but turned heretic when it became apparent that dissent is not tolerated.
“Population Bomb” got something right? I must have missed it.
Wait a minute.
“…so venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities, delivered in a nasal and irritatingly matey tone (at least we are spared his face — he looks like an overcooked prawn)…”
You just bashed his use of ad hominem arguments and then made one yourself IN THE SAME SENTENCE.
Good Good man.
I had the pleasure of attending Lord Monkton’s talk in Newcastle, Australia. He is as witty and eloquent ‘live’ as he is in print.
The single most damning point is that Abraham never contacted Monkton, even though he found some things in Monkton’s presentation ‘unclear’. That demonstrates conclusively how unserious and tribal the alarmists are.
“…..the careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics.”
I do observe Monckton’s “careful avoidance” of any mention of the readily available talks (available on Youtube) that demonstrate how Monckton falsifies – whether deliberately or through ignorance you can decide for yourself. They’re part of a series “Climate Denial Crock of the Week”, so you can understand why Monckton would like to pretend to you that they don’t exist.
Do yourselves a favor, and inform yourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o (and that’s just Part 1)
A you tube video is debate?
The alarmist grow more pathetic by the month.
Wot so you tube isn’t debate? And, what, the video says is wrong? And you crazy people keep demanding debate like it hasn’t been going on for 50 years? IN SCIENCE you debate by collecting your proof and publishing in PEER REVIEWED journals. The reason that Monckton wont do this and instead appeals to the tin foil hat brigade is because he can’t! And just take a look down these posts they are STUNNINGLY ignorant and just dripping with ad hominem excluding anything even vaguely representing proof. So, science has the answers lets hear you and all the nuts on this site answer the following:
1)WHAT HAS CAUSED THE WARMING OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS – WITH PROOF. Yeah, you lot are hypocrites of the most stunning kind. Demand PERFECTION from the other side – every bone picked over for the slightest mistake or pointer to conspiracy YET OFF NOTHING – absolutely NOTHING in way of evidence on you side. Just why might that be?
2) What caused the paleocene eocene themal maximum – the last time the earth warmed to terrifying levels?
3) Why is Venus warmer than Mercury in spite of being further from the sun?
4) Why is most of the warming at night and in the winter – when it would be day and summer if it was the sun – EXACTLY as predicted by the GW hypothesis.
5) Why is the stratosphere cooling and the troposphere warming? Again pointing clearly to the greenhouse effect!
6) why do ALL of the worlds TOP SCIENTIFIC institutions agree – and not a single one is on the denialist crazy side?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
‘With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.’
Kindly get a list like this of SCIENTIFIC institutions (not bonkers right wing anti science andti reality think tanks) that agree with your insanity.
7) More than 97% of CLIMATOLOGISTS:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php
Are AGAINST you! Against get a list of CLIMATOLOGISTS (not stupid poles of people with degrees out of 20 MILLION (i.e. 0.06%) who, 12 years ago, didn’t think the warming would be CATASTROPHIC (no mention of if they though it would be say, very bad) as the VERY dishonest ’30,000′ of the Oregon petition claimed. )
8) Or the overwhelming – possibly unanimous – consensus in the PEER REVIEWED science (yes there have been a few doubters that made is through peer review that have been blown out of the water). See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
9) Why was periods of the Cretacous warmer than now IN SPITE of the fact that the sun was COOLER than now?
10) Monckton [dishonestly] claims that 600 million years ago the CO2 concerntrations were much higher yet it was much colder. Ok so how does he/you claim Earth got out of that situation? I’ll help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG5_ufWfbuk
11) Can you point to SCIENTIFIC information that shows that Peter Ward is wrong:
And that the oceans wont be poisoned (as has happened in the past). That the ozone layer wont be destroyed. That the air wont kill us and the sky wont turn green!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lYN_lXU9PA
12) That the complete collapse of the biosphere wont happen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scm9DyAMN3g
13) That the clathrate gun hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region “boils over,” ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years; the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict
With peer reviewed reference. Which can cause THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25BE42PzZZc
More info here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G19Vg24motc
10,000 times the explosive power OF ALL THE WORLDS NUCLEAR ARSENAL!
Now, tin foil hatters, its time to wake up and understand that [and this will come as a STUNNING shock to all right wingers] reality happens IN SPITE of what you think not because of what you think. No matter how much you deny that the sea will come in because you have spent hours building a sand castle and have a potty stunningly arrogant pretend peer telling you otherwise – your castle will still be destroyed!
We are heading towards the 6th mass extinction of multi cellular life which will be CATASTROPHIC for us all (it has already started):
http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
It will take nature between 10-100 MILLION years to fully recover the biological diversity after a mass extinction. This because of out stunning numbers and greed – so we have to change our lives any way and finally CO2 is acidifying the oceans:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Now for the one or two who really are searching for truth. Thanks for checking out the links. For the OVERWHELMING rest of you. Stick your heads further in the sand throw an insult and do not what ever you do find out about anything that will steer you closer to reality, just like (the conservative) Robert Alermeyer has been documenting for the last 40 years:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Your stunning bigotry, double standards and rejection of reality has been SCIENTIFICALLY documented for all to see (and so VERY VERY VERY obviously displayed in the stunningly crazy replies to Monckton’s post).
This is THE greatest threat to life on earth for at least 50 MILLION years – for just once in your live don;t assume you know everything AND READ SOME BOOKS!
Yo Wayne!
Calm down and take your blood pressure meds!
Out of dozens of claims investigated by Abraham, Monckton addressed 3!
The first one was a confused attribution. For anyone who has watched a Monckton lecture, this is his stock-in-trade. Perhaps Abraham should have checked with him, but the source of the suspect graph is, well, suspect. The SPPI is not an organization I would take as scientifically neutral, unlike NOAA.
The second one involves search terms used by a paper which has been, to put it politely, debunked. There are thousands of papers published each year on the subject of climate change, but, as Schulte showed, precious few with the exact keyword phrase “global climate change”. Given what I understand about publication rates, I would guess that in the period 2004 to 2007 inclusive there would have been between 8,000 and 10,000 papers published on the general topic +/-2,000. Only a fraction of those would have dealt with the impacts of “global climate change”, and not knowing what Monckton’s (or Schultes’) standards of “proof” are one would have to take this statement with a mine full of salt.
Finally he goes off into a rant about the expected rate of sea level rise. Unfortunately he completely mischaracterizes what the IPCC say on this topic in AR4. In particular the IPCC only account for thermal expansion and glacial (as opposed to ice sheet) melt. Thus the very conservative estimate of 20mm – 50mm sea level rise by the end of the century. Even this estimate has come under heavy scientific attack recently in a series of papers, most notably Rahmstorf and Vermeer (Science, 2009). The IPCC estimate specifically excludes influences due to ice sheet dynamics which are, admittedly, poorly understood but which necessarily lie all on the upside because the current known effects are incorporated into the, mostly statistical, models of current sea level rise processes. His discussion is entirely wrong and Al Gore was much closer to being correct. Admittedly, Gore did not specify a timeframe for the melting of the GIS (Greenland Ice Sheet), but given our lack of knowledge about how ice sheets react to climate changes we really cannot specify one.
So Mr. Discount Viscount Monckton, care to actually mount an attack which actually undermines Abraham’s argument? Remember the main gist of his argument was that when we read the literature which you cited it tended to not support your argument, and that when he contacted the researchers to clarify the difference between your claims and their research the answer was unanimous: “Monckton is wrong”.
Actually, I believe that Monckton made over 450 challenges to Abraham’s hit-piece. The PDF is easily found with a quick Google search. It is entitled “response_to_john_abraham.pdf”.
I hope that you were merely unaware of this fact, and not attempting to manipulate the opinions of the readership of this website.
Come now Rattus. His lordship did not have enough space to cover every claim – after all it was much more important to spend the first half of his post on invective.
And another Monckton falsification: that he is a member of the House of Lords. (True, he is an hereditary peer, but only a limited number of hereditary peers are members of the House of Lords: Monckton is not one of them.)
In April this year BYU scientist Barry Bickmore asked the House of Lords about this false claim.
( http://www.sltrib.com/ci_14856887 )
“…. the information office at the British House of Lords responded to Bickmore’s inquiry about a question that had been dogging him: Why does Monckton, the 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, describe himself as a member of the House of Lords? He’d made the claim to members of the U.S. Congress and also in an April 1 e-mail to Bickmore, where Monckton asserted: “I am a member of the House of Lords, though without the right to sit or vote, and I have never suggested otherwise.” *
The official response on Thursday said: “Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”
* Oh, but he has suggested otherwise. For instance, in his December 2006 open letter to Sens. Rockefeller and Snowe, he referred to himself as ” a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature”.
Why do people pay ANY attention to this self-aggrandizing charlatan?
“Self aggrandizing”? Maybe. That does not invalidate his arguments. Yes he “pushes himself forward”. And perhaps he challenges the warmists because he likes the limelight. But separate the man from the arguments. Overall he is correct, and the warmists are wrong.
“That does not invalidate his arguments.”
(Sigh) I guess you skipped over my preceding post (intentionally or carelessly?) that pointed you to a couple of talks that do indeed “invalidate his arguments”.
While the talks I refer to may be a little overdone on the rhetorical side in using clips from movies to ridicule Monckton(appropriately, if heavy handedly), you will learn how Monckton pulls out parts of research studies to bolster his spurious claims, and ignores the rest of the same studies that undercut those claims.
And here are another series of short talks that show how Monckton falsifies: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/238816_Monckton_Bunkum-_Global_coolin
Yes, it’s on Little Green Footballs, the site run by Charles Johnson, who co-founded Pajamas Media, but left when it descended into the kind of unreality based site that would welcome the likes of Christopher Monckton.
Monckton frequently claims that his opponents are about to be sued, charged by the police, investigated by academic authorities, or things along those lines. He does it again here. The supposed action is always imminent. In no case has the claimed investigation ever subsequently happened.
We should remember that this isn’t the first time Monckton pseudo-science has been eviscerated. In 2008 Arthur Smith wrote a response to Monckton’s non-peer reviewed paper ‘Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered’ that identified a whapping 125 errors:
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
The usual Monckton rodomontade.
Monckton claims that there has been a “careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics”.
Monckton, you know very well that your claim is NOT TRUE.
A populist book written by your fellow denier Ian Plimer has been the subject of careful analyses by up-to-date scientists including highly regarded climate scientists.
These scientists have taken the time and trouble to go through Plimer’s book and have identified countless errors (some at the level of schoolboy howlers), fabrications, misrepresentations of research/quotes from other scientists inferring that they have said the opposite of their true views (this has been confirmed by those misrepresented scientists themselves), etc, etc.
The scientists who have carefully analysed Plimer’s book include people like Michael Ashley, Barry Brook, Ian Enting (some 50 pages of individually identified errors etc), David Karoly, Kurt Lambeck, Tim Lambert, etc. You can find their analyses on the Internet.
And where is the response from Plimer addressing the scores of specific points identified by these scientists?
I can answer that in one word.
Nowhere!
Plimer has not even admitted the blatant errors and blatant misrepresentations which even he would be unable to deny.
He just ignores it all.
Nor, of course, has Plimer ever apologised to the scientists whose views he has unquestionably misrepresented.
There has been plenty of trying to blind with science (totally irrelevant science), and plenty of ducking, weaving, bluff and bluster – things which seem to be a feature of the deniers.
But Plimer has not once, to my knowledge, made any attempt to provide a specific and detailed response to his well-qualified critics.
Until and unless he does so, his book remains thoroughly discredited.
And your false claim, Monckton, is patently UNTRUE.
“Monckton claims that there has been a “careful avoidance of any debate with anyone on the skeptical side of the case who happens to know anything about climate science or economics”.
Monckton, you know very well that your claim is NOT TRUE.”
Oh, I think Monckton could easily refute your statement that his claim is not true, if you’re basing your statement on the refutation of Plimer. All Monckton would need to do is point out (correctly) that Plimer DOESN’T “happen to know anything about climate science or economics”.
I think showing that Monckton himself is the ignorant or mendacious one would be a better response.
I took as a prime example the extensive debate and demolition of his fellow denier, Ian Plimer. I gave chapter and verse.
You gave a couple who’s, but no what or where. Let’s be specific please.
I can get “scientists say X is caused by global warming” type stories, sans details, studies, or names, any day of the week from the local snotrag.
Comments without trackback to particular refutations of specific claims are a dime a dozen.
Why here’s one now. Scientists launch air study in Sacramento – studying aerosols finally.
“The study will look at particle size, chemical properties and, in particular, how the particles mix in the air to form clouds. As effective deflectors of sunlight, clouds make the climate cooler.
It’s possible that aerosols actually mask the warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the global climate, said Beat Schmid, technical director of the study’s aerial facility at McClellan Air Force Base.
Schmid said aerosols may have no effect on temperature, but “scientists agree that likely the effect is cooling on a global average.” The study may help erase such uncertainty.”
These particular scientists sound rather uncertain. Much more so then the writer of the article. About clouds no less. I thought it was all settled about clouds, aerosols, and “cooling on a global average”.
Live and learn huh.
To James Mayeau,
Paul A 7:27 pm 6 Jun drew attention to a very detailed demolition of Monckton on climate science.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
Re demolition of Plimer, I wrote:
The scientists who have carefully analysed Plimer’s book include people like Michael Ashley, Barry Brook, Ian Enting (some 50 pages of individually identified errors etc), David Karoly, Kurt Lambeck, Tim Lambert, etc. You can find their analyses on the Internet.
You should have no difficulty in locating these detailed analyses if you use Google.
That is, if you are willing to a) open your mind, and b) do your homework.
If you do have difficulty in finding them, let me know and I will try to help you.
Like most sensible people (including most current climate scientists), I am interested in the science and its accuracy.
In my view, the whole topic of global warming (i.e. whether or not it is happening; and whether or not it is in whole or in part anthropogenic) is far too important to be treated as a jolly school boy debate a la Monckton & his team of deniers – where the only aim is to win the debate, and where the truth or otherwise of the proposition is irrelevant.
Unless and until the deniers take the non-deniers seriously and
- enter into co-operative and polite discussions with them, and
- address the detailed analyses & criticisms by up-to-date expert climate scientists,
it is hard to see the deniers as other than on a par with flat earthers and creationists.
The main mode of argument of deniers such as Monckton & Delingpole is as follows:
38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.
http://www.indiauncut.com/iublog/article/38-ways-to-win-an-argument-arthur-schopenhauer/
I see. You are interested in science and accuracy, just not enough to show understanding of the topic, or a specific case of inaccuracy (or lack there of) from Plimer or Monckton.
Global warming is important to you, just not important enough to debate specifics or make a case based on evidence.
Insults are a bad thing, just not enough that you would avoid their use in every single sentence in every single post you put up.
One of the favorite methods warmers use to avoid discussion of topics they have a shaky grasp of is to post a link to the IPCC AR4, Real Climate dot org, or some other omnibus of supposed knowledge, like for instance Judy’s link to some blog’s Monckton tab.
This way they hide their own personal stupidities behind someone else’s thicket of stupidities, and avoid talking about things they don’t understand.
I don’t know half of the people in your list. The ones I am familiar with, Brook, Karoly, and Lambert, do not recommend the rest to me as fair minded seekers of knowledge.
This is why I ask for the what and where, because names of supposed experts without evidence or specific claims that I can weigh the true or false of, is no better than claiming global warming is true because God in Heaven said so.
Do you understand even a smidgeon of the science Judy? Can you make a convincing argument based on evidence?
Prove it here. Be specific.
The reason(s) you believe in global warming would be a good place to start.
Insults are optional.
To James Mayeau
You ask me to provide the reason(s) I believe in global warming.
This reveals that you have failed to read my posts.
Let me spell out yet again what I have been trying to convey.
I don’t “believe in” global warming.
I simply don’t know whether or not global warming is happening.
And, if it is, I simply don’t know whether the cause is anthropogenic (in whole or in part).
I am not a climate scientist so I have no intention of entering into assessment of the science.
What I can assess is the truth or otherwise of the sweeping assertion with which Monckton begins his diatribe above.
That is what I have addressed in my posts.
Monckton’s sweeping assertion is completely untrue.
Far from there being a complete avoidance of debate, there have been detailed point-by-point published analyses of the flaws in material presented by Monckton and his fellow deniers.
Just to take two examples:
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91
Sadly, what we have not seen are detailed point-by-point responses to those analyses from Monckton and his fellow deniers.
Unless and until such responses are forthcoming, the credibility of Monckton and his fellow deniers is, in my view, non-existent.
And lies such as the sweeping generalization which starts his article above do nothing to help.
Nor do his childish insults of John Abraham.
Everybody who is posting here should watch and hear the full presentation by John Abraham at:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
At least watch say 10 minutes or so if you don’t have time for the whole presentation.
I feel that anyone who listens to the presentation with an open mind could not fail to be shocked on learning of Monckton’s fabrications and distortions.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people who are taking seriously what people like Monckton and Plimer say. And, unfortunately, there is plenty of money behind the deniers so they will no doubt continue peddling their discredited material with all its errors, fabrications and distortions.
And people will continue to believe Monckton because he has a compelling style, and his audience is not to know that much of what he confidently presents as fact is actually fiction.
Ok then. If that’s all you want, here is Lord Monckton’s Response to Author Smith’s Critique of “Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered”.
Although I can’t figure how it will help Judy.
This is getting weird.
Criticizing Monckton by attacking a book written by someone else. Huh?
Yep, all the criticisms of Monkton above fail to show his critics actually debating the real, live Monkton, even though he makes himself available for real debate (most famously to Al Gore, these many years).
Instead they’re debating their own concocted straw man version of Monkton. A not very impressive bunch of cowards, in other words.
Nice one, JohnQ! ;- )
And of course that applies to Monckton too – he DOESN’T “happen to know anything about climate science or economics” either.
To tom swift & Brett Mc_S, You might have done me the courtesy of reading what I had written before leaping in. I was not addressing Monckton’s climate science (I am no climate change expert); what I was addressing was the dishonesty of the specific claim with which he started out his diatribe above.
Monckton’s claim (“Goebbelian propaganda” to borrow his words) was that, until John Abraham, there had been CAREFUL AVOIDANCE of debate with ANYONE on the “skeptics” (I find the word “deniers” more appropriate) side who “happens to know anything about climate science or economics” (I believe that the word “happens” would more appropriately be replaced by the word “claims”).
Monckton’s claim is BLATANTLY FALSE even where he himself is concerned.
- JohnQ 7:51 5 Jun has drawn attention to some YouTube clips which demolish Monckton on climate science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o (that’s Part 1; there’s also a Part 2)
- Paul A 7:27 6 Jun has drawn attention to a very detailed demolition of Monckton on climate science.
http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html
My post then addressed the fact that Monckton’s BLATANTLY FALSE claim covered not only himself but ANYONE on his “side”.
I took as a prime example the extensive debate and demolition of his fellow denier, Ian Plimer. I gave chapter and verse.
So now Monckton’s claim has clearly been shown to be FALSE – both as it applies to himself, and as it applies in general to his “side”.
Monckton is a master of false claims.
Posters here have used various words to describe Monckton including entertaining. Personally, I don’t find ridicule, insults and mangling of names remotely entertaining. I am always gratified to find that George Monbiot is unfailingly polite – both in written and verbal exchanges. As are climate scientists and others who have analysed and identified the deniers’ errors.
Other words which have been used about Monckton include charming, witty, eloquent, etc. Well, yes (I perceive him as a snake-oil salesman – and those are pretty essential qualities for a snake-oil salesman). He has also been described as a self-aggrandizing charlatan.
But discussing his personal characteristics (positive or negative) is completely irrelevant to whether or not his statements on climate science are correct.
Like most sensible people (including most current climate scientists), I am interested in the science and its accuracy.
In my view, the whole topic of global warming (i.e. whether or not it is happening; and whether or not it is in whole or in part anthropogenic) is far too important to be treated as a jolly school boy debate a la Monckton & his team of deniers. Unless and until they take the non-deniers seriously and enter into co-operative and polite discussions with them, I can only see them as on a par with flat earthers and creationists.
Most excellent, Lord Monckton. On to the next!
Since the Press Complaints Commission (more of those Kommissars) recently refused to uphold the standards of decency to which Monckton usually so unstintingly adheres, one imagines the gloves have come off. It’s a pity to see him having to confront such diminution in journalistic standards, but which he still does so eloquently.
I graduated in physics and went down the path to save the planet from the dreaded “greenhouse effect” in graduate school. I left mid-flight due to the amount of political angling rather than scientific approach. As a person educated in physics, we are taught that the laws of science are conservative and cannot be broken. When you are watching a professor setup a problem and neglect one of the laws, say the second law of Thermodynamics, because in not doing so, the “desired” answer cannot be arrived at, you notice that there is a problem. This is why I left and went into the real world.
These people purposely neglect specific portions of physics necessary to determine the outcome. That is why none of the “models” ever work against real data, and why many of the groups modify the real data to “fit” the “models”.
Rutherford said it right, “if your experiment needs statistics, then perhaps you ought to have done a better experiment”.
I’d like to hear details of these episodes of neglecting, for example, the second law of thermodynamics to achieve some desired result. My degree is in mathematics but the B.S. required 24 units of physics, 6 units of which were lab. I never saw such a thing and, without details, don’t believe you did either.
With respect to the Rutherford quote, ALL experiments involve measurement, measurement involves error, and analysis of these errors involves statistics. Understanding the distribution applicable to the measurements involves statistics. Characterizing the central tendency of the measurements involves statistics. Lots of scientists make quotable statements to make a point that, when analyzed for accuracy, even they would concede weren’t speaking factually. Did Einstein really think he could explain general relativity to his grandmother?
Wow he actually plays the Nazi card within the first sentence. That’s quick. Then he swiftly moves on to call Abraham’s careful and well sourced critique – artful puerility? I’d reccomend actually watching Abraham’s talk here:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
In it he looks at Monckton’s assertions and his data, and often goes on to compare what Monckton reports from these sources with what is clearly the main conclusion within the text itself, often from the abstract which is a clear summary of the thrust of a paper. He even goes on to check with the author whether his or Moncktons reading is correct. How is this childish or artful in any way?
He is then immediately rude about the appearance of Abraham, which is clearly childish in itself. Many of the responses here basically assign Monckton the playground excuse – HE started it! But Abraham is never rude about Monckton in his talk but instead measured and reasonable, so Monckton is infact initiating the insults.
It’s very depressing how people actually take this man seriously.
To Alister – UK
I strongly endorse your recommendation to everyone posting here to listen to the presentation by John Abraham at:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
As you say, it is very depressing that people take Monckton seriously.
But they do.
And, unfortunately, Monckton – without a trace of shame – continues to peddle fabrications and distortions which have been thoroughly discredited.
And there is plenty of money behind him to allow him to travel the world peddling his fabrications and distortions.
He has a compelling speaking style and appears to back his claims with facts; his audiences are not to know that what he presents as facts are all too often fabrications and distortions.
The man could sell ice to the Eskimos.
Not just money, also a shrieking horde of wingnuts.
earlier
Important to keep in mind as Judy tosses around assessments like
“fabrications and distortions which have been thoroughly discredited”.
So venomously ad hominem are Abraham’s artful puerilities … he looks like an overcooked prawn
Hilarious.
Personally I’m quite beyond caring who is right or wrong in terms of the science. What we DO need to worry about is that the effects of the measures the warmists would have us take are far worse than any climate changes that may occur! So as far as I’m concerned, even if the warmists are completely right (which is impossible anyway) they can stick all their carbon taxes, energy rationing and other rubbish where the sun don’t shine.
Is this really a piece written by Monckton.
Or is this a piece written by a very good satirist?
I’m in England and live in a rather isolated place. That’s Devon. You Yanks probably know about Devon as it;s where Plymouth is, and has something to do with your history, so I am told.
Anyway, my point is who is this bloke called Gore? People keep bringing him up, but I’m blowed if I know what he is all about.
Can some good Americam help me there?
Ta.
Monckton’s presentation was shown to contain example after example of gross misrepresentations of the science by an associate professor from a “bible college”, and all Monckton can do is spew pure venom and ad hom attacks. Ha! Good job, John Abraham.
“… deliberate lying on this scale and with this amount of public circulation is just not acceptable and will not be tolerated.” – Yes indeed, “Lord” Monckton. Yes indeed.
Monckton is many things, but a scientist he ain’t!
What absolute twaddle! Who are the people who belive this ranting? Did you never learn to form your own opinions?
Monckton is surely made up by climate change believers. No-one can really be so consistently lacking in any self-awareness or intellectual(!) consistency. I think, though, they’ve taken the joke too far. Or maybe not, given the responses on this site.
I’d like to ask him, or his fans, a few questions, knowing that any response will be abuse;
1) Why does he lambast other scientists and commentators for not being what he considers a leading practitioner in the field, when he just has a degree in Classics?
2) He is offended by what he sees as “ad Hominim” attacks on him, and so replies with a tirade of dull-witted abuse. But can he or his baying friends point to ANY genuine abuse in the article he responds to?
3)Why does he, and many of the strange folk on this site, accuse anyone who quotes scientific sources of “hiding behind the opinions of others? Does that mean all the “deniers” do their own field research? Or does it mean they just make it up as they go along? If they do all their own research, I think they should publish it.
4) What do his fans think of his claims to have discovered cures for HIV and the common cold?
Monckton will rip into Abraham’s presentation in full soon, which is littered with sleight of hand. Notably, using coarse graphs to depict the Arctic shrinking, when the truth can be seen here:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_4CE_PolarIceCaps.htm
Abraham also lists studies from 2007 and 2008, which are grossly out of date as the Arctic has rebounded since. Abraham also lies about CO2 causing warming, as CO2 has a logarithmic effect:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/log-co2/log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif
Further, he avoids mentioning that temperature change PRECEDES CO2 level change by some 800 years. Abraham probably doesn’t know that CO2 was some 10-15x higher in the Jurassic some 100Mya, where life clearly thrived and delicate aragonite corals evolved in non-acid oceans, the proof of which are the un-dissolved fossils of corals and shellfish in our museums.
Abraham also cleverly avoids showing the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1800, the starting point for his graphs. Mankind couldn’t possibly have influenced the climate back to initiate the current warm cycle. He probably doesn’t know that CO2 is used by farmers in their greenhouses to max plant growth.
Abraham also conveniently fails to mention ice ages with many times higher CO2 than today, and warmer periods with less CO2. Climate change is natural and the ice core data from both poles proves that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DWB5yid3PA
I could go on and on, but I’ll give Monckton that pleasure.
Monckton shouldn’t have stooped to name-calling, even if Abraham does sound a bit snide in his comments while cleverly avoiding facts.
PS: I forgot to thank NASA GISS’ James Hansen for falsifying the figures to “prove” warming:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980-sml.gif
There’s just so much fraud going on in the CAGWist camp, it’s hard to keep up..
Reading all this stuff makes me realise that the American right-wing has become, essentially, insane. There is a constant shrieking that the “extreme left”, i.e. anyone
to the left of Jim Crow, lies and has no interest in facts. Yet when they “debate”, say, the health care reform bill,hysterical claims are made about euthenasia and “death tribunals” that are, simply, disgusting lies attempting to frighten the ignorant. But that, I suppose, is ok. My favourite was the Republican monkey who claimed that if Steven Hawkings was British he’d have been killed by now. On a slghtly different subject, I’m so glad you’re campaigning to maintain the right of convicted terrorists to carry guns. That really is beyond parody.
The simple fact is, the right-wing jokers on this site have no serious knowledge of science, in fact they see ignorance as a sign of authenticity. They don’t like global warming as an idea, or it’s implications, so they repeat anything that contradicts it, whether it’s correct, incorrect or just plain stupid. It’s hilarious that all these people drone on about CO2 levels in the ice ages, and temperatures in the “little ice age” without any idea what they’re talking about, contradicting leading scientists because they once read something on a blog somewhere.
So what have YOU read on a blog somewhere, John Holland? Was it a blog on realclimate dot org (wishfulclimate dot org) or some other alarmist site?
I like global warming as an idea, since warming always leads to flourishing life. I wonder if any of you AGW alarmists have seen the article by the National Geographic Society published not long ago. The magazine reported that due to global warming and its accompanying increase in water vapor, the Sahara desert has shrunk at a remarkable rate. Is it any wonder that 99% of species live around the equator?
Do you or any of your alarmist buddies actually understand that even using the IPCC’s bloated figures, to reduce global temperatures by 1C, would require a complete global shutdown of industry. No planes, cars, factories or campfires, for 30 YEARS!! Back to the stone age. Using the correct figures would blow that out to 200 years. Thankfully that won’t happen, as China and India will never get aboard that train.
You and your alarmist buddies, John Holland, would be shivering in a cave somewhere wondering what the hell went wrong, all the while nature continues to spew out CO2 and do what it likes. How do YOU intend to control nature? Surely you’re not that arrogant to think you can. CO2 is just 0.03% of the atmosphere, and man’s contribution is just 3% of THAT! That’s a grain of sugar in the middle of an atmospheric dinner table. You’re crying over 0.0009% of the atmosphere and, as I’ve already shown due to the logarithmic effect, has no measurable impact – none.
Not surprisingly, John Holland, you haven’t been able to debunk my evidence, because it’s the truth. Alarmist claims never stack up. All you’ve managed to do, like all CAGWists, is to retort some rubbish regarding politics. Bet you haven’t even consulted the ice core data or bothered to click the links I supplied. Naturally, in doing so you would actually educate yourself and for once become an autodidact (look it up). Something I hope shall happen someday..
Boy this is a VERY silly arrogant reply. First you claim that sites like real climate are unreliable. Well, the denier sites are almost all run by NON CLIMATOLOGISTS many of which have fossil fuel connections. They never play the evidence straight and try desperately to spin silly irrelevances, often lying outright.
Real climate by the way is regularly referenced by New Scientist and has won acclaim from Scientific America, Science and Nature – the worlds top PEER REVIEWED journals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate
Now if you wouldn’t mind showing the same for say (the propagandistic) junkscience.com…
‘always’ leads to flourishing life? What complete nonsense. Rapid warming cases mass death. See ‘paleocene eocene thermal maximum’ or ‘end permian’ or get a VERY big eye opener by reading Peter Wards ‘Under a green sky’. MOST of the mass die offs in the last 600 million years are caused by warming events.
The Sahara was (not that long ago) very green and there is debate about whether it is one of the few places that might benefit from warming. However warm the planet by 2oC and just about all the coral dies (500 million people rely on it for a living) and the Amazon dries out and burns destroying the largest concentration of lifeforms on the planet oh and we head into runaway global warming (maybe al the way upto 4-7oC – i.e. CATASTROPHIC).
http://www.sling.com/video/show/143814/03/Six-Degrees-Could-Change-the-World
And you CO2 thing is bizarre. We are not trying to control nature we are trying to control our emissions of CO2. The quantity of something is not equivalent to its effects. There is way less ozone than CO2 and you would have an awful time without that! Also take in a few spores of ebola a vanishingly small quantity compared to your bodies mass and see what the effects are. And nitrogen makes up 78% of the atmosphere and takes no part in the greenhouse effect! The quantities by humans is NOT 3% but more than 30% of what is there BTW!
You also post some stunningly stupid posts that have been debunked years ago (you do realize that big business have been paying people for years to deny science?) In fact some of the same names denied CFCs, Acid Rain, Smoking harms and global warming!
And just for the record ozone and plastics have NOTHING to do with the reality of global warming even if those business propaganda sites claim they are not a problem.
And finally scroll up and see my other post! We ARE in a biodiversity crisis and you can offer no proof what so ever for what is causing the warming! This isn’t a game BILLIONS of people will be killed and displaced over the coming century if even the middle most likely scenarios are realized!
I wouldn’t normally suggest this but because this is so VERY VERY VERY important. Go get a torrent program for example utorrent and install it. Now goto ‘pirate bay’ and in the search box type: ‘New Scientist – 28th February 2009′ and download the pdf of the new scientist magazine.
Now, goto page 26/45. And note the opening a 4oC warmer world. Note that 90% of humanity are missing – i.e. DEAD (yeah that is very likely to include you and your family). Then goto the next 2 pages and take a look at that map. ALL the yellow and brown areas are UNINHABITABLE. That’s almost all of Africa (930 million). All of India (1000 million) BTW one study of even a 2oC world would reduce India’s food production by 25%, that’s 250 MILLION people either displaced or dead! All of China (1.2 BILLION). All of Indonesia (200 million) just about all the US (300 million. Wars, famines mass migrations and species loss will just dwarf the imagination!
The costs are NOT what you have claimed (though to bring down CO2 to safe levels will be VERY painful but for every dollar spent you will SAVE 5-20 dollars over the long term and it will be money costs now v’s lives (ON A STUNNING LEVEL) later). BTW if someone said you had to live in a cave to save BILLIONS are you saying you wouldn’t? People died en mass in the 2nd world war ‘just’ for ‘freedom and democracy’ and you are saying giving up your flights and having to take public transport is too big a sacrifice? You are stunningly spoilt and selfish. BTW Stern (see the Stern review) puts the costs at 1-3% of GDP (by comparison the loss of forestry is put at 5-10% of GDP a year, the military costs around 5% and you have taken a 45% hit on your wages over the last 30 years to support the rich and their ‘free market’ capitalism oh and that bug bear Al Gore’s energy grid would have cost around $800 BILLION – Iraq and Afghanistan has just gone through the $1 TRILLION mark…). But you are a bonkers right winger and of course none of this will matter because it aint about truth its about bonkers conspiracy theories and the cold dark hate filled hearts you have…
The same bad science and political control is being used to scare us from CO2 as was with CFC’s:
http://www.junkscience.com/Ozone/ozone_seasonal.html
What’s the next big eco-scare? N2O (Nitrous Oxide) destroying the ozone layer. Wait – then why did we ban CFC’s? Were they wrong? Umm.. maybe not politically..
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/laughing-gas-knocks-out-co2
Still, the IPCC now has its fingers poking into a “biodiversity crisis”, which is just as useless and unfounded as all the IPCC reports (including AR4):
http://climatequotes.com/2010/06/11/teeb-report-has-multiple-errors-in-first-chapter-alone-part-2
And another one – plastics:
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/07/now-plastic-waste-is-more-alarming-than.html
However, I agree that non-biodegradable plastics have become a BIG problem:
http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=plastic+in+the+ocean+the+size+of+texas&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=sV4TTObRCNKHkAWHjdmODA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQsAQwAw
I’m really looking forward to Mr Monkton’s step by step scientific response to Prof Abraham….. but I think we will wait a looooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggggg time for that. He prefers name calling to scientific accuracy.
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
This owns Monckton’s arguments. The arguments in the above lecture take evidence that Monckton uses and actually shows he lied completely.
Monckton is a well spoken Journalist, nothing more. Be careful of the charismatic types, that can either lead you into prosperity or lead you into to your doom.
Hmm. Cards on the table, I am sceptical about global warming, but I find Monckton a disappointment, for all the reasons already stated in this discussion thread. I would like to add that for us non-scientists the credentials of participants in this debate, both scientific AND personal, do matter, even though they shouldn’t. What I mean is that I might spend (if my work allowed me the time) hours, weeks, months, years, researching the scientific claims of both sides, but even if I did that my opinion would be worthless beside that of even the humblest holder of a degree in one of the relevant scientific disciplines. Let’s not kid ourselves that conscientiously reading and trying to half-understand all that the Web offers on the subject is going to turn any of us hapless Arts grads into scientists – it ain’t. So unfortunately, we have to look at credentials instead, while knowing full well that “authority”, or even “consensus” is no proof of anything. It’s a very frustrating position to be in. So naturally one would like to assume, as I used to, that the Scientific Community had some kind of immune system that preserved it against the propagation and magnification of error – that an untenable claim entering the system would be immediately surrounded by the phagocytes of peer review and neutralised. What shook that belief (and my former unquestioning belief in AGW) was Climategate. I don’t suppose I need to explain why, or the cataclysmic effect it had on my and many others’ thinking on this subject.
Now, when I say “credentials”, I don’t mean that I am more impressed when an argument is put forward by a peer-reviewed, bona fide Climate Scientist. Prior to Climategate, I would have been. Not now. Now, I am impressed when I come across someone who is able to present clear, cogent arguments without resorting to namecalling or innuendo, and even more if it comes with a biography that bespeaks objectivity, fairness and independence. This happens rarely. Saying that the opponent is a “right winger full of hate”, or that his sources are probably funded by Big Oil, is, well, a disappointment. On the other side, saying that someone has a face like an overcooked prawn… what can one say. And here, if it turns out that the person I am relying on for fair, objective information also routinely lies about his alleged membership of the House of Lords, well, sorry, but that does count for something, or rather, against someone. And all the more if he is on record as having said that all AIDS sufferers should be perpetually quarantined. If this were the best that Climate Scepticism had to offer, I wouldn’t give it the time of day.
Finally, to the purveyors of the “bonkers, hate filled right wing” pearls in this thread, I would remind them that scepticism about ANYTHING AT ALL is the default stance which any honest scientist worth his salt would recommend to anyone, and as I have already explained, to progress from scepticism to confident certainty on this topic would require, for some of us, the acquisition of extremely arcane and abstruse technical knowledge to which we cannot realistically aspire. So please, rethink your dismissal of fellow humans. I am certainly not hate filled, and for all his disqualifications, I don’t think Monckton is either.
Oh,Olaf. Are you for real? I think Wayne dealt with most of your stuff, but really, it’s pointless, because I don’t think you really believe what you say, for the simple reason that it makes no sense to anyone, never mind anyone with the tinyest knowledge of the science involved. Anyone who says something as self-evidently meaningless as “all warming leads to more life” or thinks that “alarmists” want to control the co2 emmissions of nature isn’t even trying. And whats with all this “buddie” stuff? Are you ten years old?
A vigorous open debate will eventually lead to the truth. Monckton’s prime value is in encouraging this debate. Occasionally he does over egg the pudding, but his use of the language always makes him a delightful read.
Well I have tried to listen to and read all of the debate and the situation seems to be this: Lord Monckton asked 500 mostly pertinant questions and Abraham attempted to answer a few of them.
Monckton gave Abraham the schedule for the debate – now he should put up or shut up. Just answer each of the questions the format is there.
I suspect that by the time he can think of answers to all of the questions we will know the reality and no-one will care about this debate.
62. Rob
“Well I have tried to listen to and read all of the debate and the situation seems to be this: Lord Monckton asked 500 mostly pertinant questions and Abraham attempted to answer a few of them.”
******************************
Of course Rob. Let me give you 500 pertinent questions that you can answer, no matter how right you may be, in a couple of hours. That comes out to ahhhh,. . . errrr, I get it! Fifteen seconds per question. Get real!
If you listen to Abraham’s delivery there is not a single personal attack on Monkton, only on his methods and data. By contrast Monkton’s personal attack on Abraham is abhorent and unjustified. Points go to the calm and collected messenger.
How many people here have actually seen John Abraham’s presentation? You can find it at http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/. I can’t see any personal or ad hominim attacks on Monckton in it, certainly nothing like “artful puerilities”, “unscientific, inaccurate, and deliberately mendacious” or “he looks like an overcooked prawn”. He talks about data, and data, and more data. He takes slides from Monckton’s presentation, tracks down the original author, and asks the original author if that’s what they actually said. And he tells you where you can check the answer (something Monckton doesn’t do very often.)
Neville, I understand your concern about climategate, but the Independent Climate Change Email Review just reported. It says,
“We find that CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data or tamper with it.”
“We demonstrated that any independent researcher can download station data directly from primary sources and undertake their own temperature trend analysis”.
In other words, the thieves managed to cast doubt on the work of a few scientists, but it turns out those scientists didn’t massage data and couldn’t have. There are hundreds of other climate scientists whose work has not been challenged. If the hackers managed to steal emails from 100 other scientists and found they were all behaving perfectly, do you think they’d tell us? I don’t.
I just watched it; I’m sympathetic to global warming issues, but willing to hear the other side. Like a couple others hear, I heard not a single personal attack on Abraham’s part–in fact, he did Monckton the courtesy, not returned, of avoiding ascribing motives to his work. I have to conclude that the defensiveness and prickliness with which Monckton replies here suggests that Abraham struck a nerve.
Your ~own~ policy states: “3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.”
Did you inform Messr. Monckton of this policy? Or is it OK from him to relentlessy cast nasty, vituperative aspersion after nasty ad hominem attack upon his superior (in terms of scientific reality), but no one else?
Just askin’…..
sorry lord monkton, but its you against the whole world. Abraham actually emailed a lot of the scientists who published the papers and investigations wich you use to disprove antropogenic climate change, and got a lot of feedback explicitly saying that your observations and conclusions are wrong and in fact, almost all of the times, entirely opposite to what the autors said and concluded. that is more than enough to show that you sir are the one biased one and wrong. of course that im just some guy, a nobody, throwing that outhere in a post in this website, and that you are LORD MONKTON, and by no means me saying and pointing out this would change anything. But, you will neither change anything because its you against the world. please show me one single cientific organization on a national or international level in the whole world that doesnt think antropogenic climate change is real.there is none, just some “scientific institutes” that say so, wich surprisingly dont publish peer-rewied paper, dont have nobel laureates and dont have the approvation of the international community. its all part of a big conspiracy theory right? its that it? if that´s the case, your statement arent based on logic and science, but instead base of BELEIVES which can´t be either proven or disproven. so you yap all you wan´t sir, but you´re in a deadend road.
Having carefully followed both Monckton and Abraham, my considered conclusion is that Abraham is trying to conduct a scientific debate while Monckton is trying to conduct a media circus. Monckton frames this as a “debate”, but it seems he’s imagining the kind of debate-as-sport where it doesn’t really matter who’s right as long as you can level enough witty insults at your opponent. Politicians have a tendency to confuse this kind of after-school-club debate with something that actually establishes truth or advances human interests. Rhetoric does not make one right. But then, Monckton’s rhetoric is almost as clumsy as his science, so perhaps he loses the debate on both counts…
Dear Lord Monkton, ‘Insufficiently Sensitive’ has it right and said it well. Do not demean yourself by stooping to bother with those so beneath you. You have much more important things to be done. The world is being crushed under the shear weight of the AGW politicians and industrial opportunists. Focus. We desperately need your help.
An ardent admirer.