04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Monckton: At Last, the Climate Extremists Try to Debate Us! (PJM Exclusive)

“Monckton’s data don’t even agree with themselves”

Abraham says I displayed two graphs, both citing NOAA as the source, showing the downward global mean surface temperature trend since 2001, but -- by an elaborate point-by-point comparison -- he shows that the two graphs are slightly different from one another. Why, he asks, can’t I even make sure that my own data agree with themselves? His implication is that presenting temperature data is something that laymen really can’t be expected to get right.

What Abraham has done, here as elsewhere, is to wrench my data deliberately out of the context in which I actually (and accurately) presented then, and then to lie about it.

The truth is that the first graph, plainly labeled “scienceandpublicpolicy.org,” is the SPPI’s well-known global temperature index, compiled monthly from four separate global temperature datasets, as Abraham well knew because I explained in my talk. It was not a NOAA graph, and was not labeled as such. Naturally, therefore, it differed at some points from the NOAA graph.

Abraham went on and on about how a graph shouldn’t have been labeled with the name of an institution such as “scienceandpublicpolicy.org” unless it was that institution that had compiled the graph. That, of course, as he could have discovered if he had bothered -- or rather, dared -- to check, was indeed the institution that had compiled the graph, taking the arithmetic mean of the global temperature anomalies from the HadCRUt, NCDC, RSS, and UAH datasets.

But -- and this was the point I made, though Abraham was remarkably careful not to say so -- I had showed the SPPI’s four sources graph in testimony before Congress, to show that there had been global cooling for seven or eight years. Tom Karl, the director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, who had been present, had failed to admit after questioning from a leading congressman that global temperatures had indeed been falling for the best part of a decade. He had wriggled and waffled.

So the congressman had asked me to write proving my result, and I had done so by intentionally preparing the second graph from Tom Karl’s own NCDC -- as he was the subject of the questioning. The graph was labeled as such, and also showed a pronounced downtrend in global temperatures.

Abraham knew this, because I had said so in my talk.

But he also knew that practically no one watching his 83-minute presentation would go to the lengths of looking up what I had actually said. He knew he could get away with a flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation -- provided that at all points he was careful never to consult me while planning and circulating his attack.

“Monckton’s data are not properly sourced”

Even when the source is in fact plainly stated on my slides, Abraham is prone to say I have not provided the source. I had shown a graph, which I had said was compiled by satellite, of temperatures at the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro, where there has been no warming for 30 years.

The graph was plainly labeled “UAH.”

Which, as a mere Bible college lecturer in fluid mechanics might not know, but anyone with any real knowledge of climate science would of course know -- is the University of Alabama at Huntsville, one of only two organizations producing regularly published satellite-based global temperature records.

Another instance: Abraham said I had done a search because I was bored, and had found that between the beginning of 2004 and the beginning of 2007 just 539 papers containing the search phrase “global climate change” had been published, and that not one of them had provided any evidence for any catastrophic consequence of any anthropogenic warming anywhere. However, he had searched Google Scholar and had found 628,000 references, a few of which, he said, showed catastrophic consequences of “global warming.”

The truth is entirely different. First, I am never bored when I am present. What I actually said in my talk -- and Abraham knows this, because he spent eight months trying to take it apart -- was that “I’m boring that way -- I check things.” And I had checked the climate extremists’ claims of catastrophe by consulting a paper by Klaus-Martin Schulte, published in 2008. The extract from the paper was labeled “Schulte, 2008” on my slide -- in quite large letters.

It was not I, but Schulte, who had done the search, as I had said in my talk.

It was not Google Scholar (most of whose sources are not peer-reviewed papers), but the ISI Web of Science database of peer-reviewed, learned journals that Schulte searched, as I had said in my talk.

It was not the “containing all of the words” search option that Schulte had used -- though that is the option Abraham used! -- but the “exact phrase” option, which returned only 539 papers.

If Abraham had had the courtesy to check with me or to look up Mr. Schulte’s paper on the Web of Science database -- to which his Bible college subscribes -- he would have found that Mr. Schulte used this phrase because Naomi Oreskes, a science historian, had previously used the same phrase in researching climate papers up to the end of 2003. Schulte had carried her research forward to mid-February 2007, and his paper had been published in 2008.

Abraham then trots out various papers he found in his Google Scholar search, one of which says that the world is warming because of human activities: but that was not the point made in my slide.

My point was that not a single one of the 539 papers searched by Schulte had provided evidence for catastrophe.

Abraham also mentions a paper he found that talks about extinctions that are predicted as a result of “global warming.” But -- though he may perhaps not have understood this, for many of his political stamp do not -- prediction is not the same thing as evidence. The fact is that most of the predictions of the climate extremists and their overworked X-Box 360s and Playstation Vs have proven to be spectacular exaggerations.