Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation

Posted on 19 February 2012 by John Cook

In 2010, John Abraham presented a lecture featuring an extensive examination of the arguments of Christopher Monckton. Abraham laboriously tracked down the references that Monckton cited and contacted the scientists who produced the research. The result was a litany of direct quotes from the scientists who in their own words explained how Monckton misrepresented their own work. St. Thomas University published a great background article on the whole history of Abraham's lecture just this week. Since that time, Abraham has added to the list of quotes from misrepresented scientists. Last July, Skeptical Science published a summary of quotes where scientists in their own words explain how Monckton has misrepresented their own work. I've now made these quotes available as a printable PDF so feel free to download and share with all your friends :-)

In July 2011 (yes, that long ago), Monckton debated Richard Denniss from The Australia Institute. Here at Skeptical Science, Dana Nuccitelli rigorously examined the many Monckton misrepresentations from the debate and critiqued them in several blog posts (see Part 1 and Part 2).

Recently, Monckton has responded to Dana's critique. A close examination of his critique reveals a mishmash of Monckton misrepresentations. There are some old classics, exposed and debunked long ago. But he's not resting on his laurels: there are a number of new misrepresentations also. Over the next week, Skeptical Science will be examining in close detail the many instances of misrepresentation by Monckton in his response to our critique. For example:

  • Monckton misprepresents scientists' and economists' own work. 
  • Monckton misprepresents situations such as how the IPCC functions and slanders swathes of scientists. 
  • Monckton misrepresents the reality of IPCC projections, of how runaway warming works and transient warming.
  • Monckton misrepresents me! He repeatedly refers to me as the author of the Skeptical Science critique. While I would be happy to put my name on those posts, they were actually written by Dana Nuccitelli (dana1981). But then you just don't get the same wordplay options with the name Nuccitelli.

Stay tuned over the next week as we unpack Monckton's misrepresentations.

0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 54 out of 54:

  1. Adam droned at 40:

    "Yes, the IPCC didn't give an exact time frame, but the science is clear that the ice sheets are not going to disappear any time in the near future."

    You still get the target wrong; and you try the same Monctonite spin where a nearby revision is true (even when untrue)... so the original wrong is right. It's a pathetic attempt to defend your original error. AR4 gave no timeframe and no forecast of complete meltdown. Your claim of clear science is false, and your vague context is useless.

    It's the same with your word defence - there is no 'a millenia'. It doesn't exist; 1k is 'a millennium' and multiples is 'milennia'.

    It's the same spin as your shabby response to the other critiques - weak, misdirected and erroneous claims; and claim of corroborating documentation that isn't justified.

    This real surprise after your weak attempt at a response is realizing that if Abraham chose to let his one rebuttal stand on its merits - he's the smartest guy in the room. Everyone else got the "nya nya can't make me on the Net" maneuvre.

    (if the Mod wants to scrub this, that's okay with me ... this was the fork in the bird response).
    0 0
  2. Adam, you may be a brave man, but you are missing the point here. No-one can be wrong 100% of the time, any more than anyone can be 100% right. This thread is about undermining Moncktons credibility in climate science by pointing out his dodgy statements. It’s not meant to be even handed any more than Monckton himself is even handed, it’s about showing how dodgy a lot of his statements are. You are making the mistake of trying to debate that on a basis of the idea that he is not always wrong This is not the thread or site to do that any more than trying to debate on WUWT what a plonker Monckton really is.
    A golden rule with SkS in my books is to read the articles and appreciate the site, but if it says something you don’t agree with don’t worry about it, above all don’t challenge! The site will never be in agreement with everyone, but it is a mistake to try and debate a point when the presenter of an article may also be a moderator and a poster of responses at the same time. There are many people who are firm in their beliefs that Monckton is largely wrong (including myself) and most of those who post on this site are not likely to be to be sympathetic to any argument that he is occasionally correct. So chill out and don’t worry about it.
    0 0
  3. That Monckton is largely wrong the majority of the time is not a matter of belief, it is a verifiable fact. When that fact becomes a little too difficult to manage, Monckton starts contradicting his earlier statements/versions whatever. Peter Hadfield showed that in great detail, see the links I posted earlier.

    I disagree that it is a mistake to debate on SkS when the author of a post is also moderator and poster. They manage these roles quite well. More often than not, multiple warnings are necessary for those who ignore the comment policy. All who respect it see their posts showing up. It does not necessarily prevent anyone from enduring dismissing statements if they are not contributing usefully or disgorgeing plain nonsense. If rethorical tactics or intellectual dishonesty is being used that will also be adressed, by mods if nobody else does so before. Most of the time someone does. Nothing wrong with that
    0 0
  4. see below
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Can I suggest that we ignore Adam until he has given an adequate response to the Huang issue? Adam asked for specific examples where Abraham was right and Monckton wrong in his reply; this was only one of them, but it is clear and unambiguous and there are references that allow the truth to be determined. If Adam is a genuine skeptic he will investigate the issue and report back, if not, then it is an indication that the science is not the issue, in which case we should not allow the discussion to be hijacked.
  5. garethman - That was an interesting post on your part. Skipping over the implied moderation complaints, can you point out any Monckton arguments that actually hold water?

    The man is amazingly consistent - I have yet to see a single argument from him that is supportable.
    0 0
  6. KR, to be honest I’m not aware of anything Monckton has said which holds water, however, I’m sure he must get something right sometime, even if it’s just his name , if not his title. To be honest I am also influenced by his hard right wing politics which seem to undermine much of his philosophy, a stance I find distasteful. It’s a bit like believing all snowflakes are different, I believe it, but to be honest I have never checked.
    0 0
  7. Chris, 29

    I've had a look at Huang's 2008 paper, and I agree with you that their 1997 paper was not the best choice of study to include as evidence of a MWP. Although I do not believe that there was anything nefarious about Monckton including it in his talk. It was probably just an honest mistake. And might I once again point out that it is only one paper. Monckton showed graphs from eight other studies showing MWP temps were the same/higher than today. You can't just pick out one single study from his talk, and then just act like everything he said was wrong. And might I also point out in their 2008 paper, they clearly state Holocene temps were warmer than today (which Abraham left out of his presentation) Also, in Hunag's 2008 paper, they are vague about what data they are using for 20th century temps. It's likely surface data was spliced onto the graph, although I don't know for sure. But nowhere in their paper do they mention satellite data over the past three decades,, which show less warming than the other datasets. They state that “the maximum of the MWP is at or slightly below the reference level”. However, their conclusion might have changed if they had chosen to use satellite temps in their study.

    Tom Curtis, 42

    “Because an adequate rebuttal already existed in the form of his pre-existing presentation (duh). “

    Might I once again ask if you have actually read Monckton's reply to Abraham?

    Chris, 43

    “he asserted (with zero evidence) that 700 scientists supported the interpretation that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures. “

    He was referring to the Co2science MWP project.

    “The pictures he showed to accompany this assertion turn out not to support it at all. In fact in the case of Huang's borehole data that include much of the 20th century, the latter indicate that that current temperatures are warmer than during the MWP.”

    Read my paragraph above.

    Jmurphy, 44

    “That is a disgraceful, cheap accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality. You have shown your true colours and I'm sure Monckton would be proud of your dissembling. “

    Jmurphy have you read Monckton's reply? He gives numerous examples of Abraham misrepresenting his arguments, when contacting the scientists.

    Read questions 66 -77 (page 12)
    Abraham makes out Monckton had misrepresented the work of a paper showing 4 polar bears died in a storm. Yet Monckton clearly stated what that paper said accurately and, didn't even mention any possible predictions regarding polar bears.

    “77: Though you say, “Chris Monckton doesn’t agree with that author, even though he used the citation in his presentation” (15), is it not in fact correct that I correctly reported what the authors said about the cause of death of the four polar bears, and that I did not even mention, still less attempt in any way to challenge, the prediction by them that you say I disagree with? Again, are you bearing in mind the difference between the evidence that I relied upon in Dr. Monnett’s paper and the predictions that he made. It is on the evidence that I spoke, not on the predictions. Would you not agree with me that there are too many predictions in climate science today, and not enough in the way of evidence to give those predictions some real-world credibility.”

    On Pages 13 – 15
    Abraham claims that Monckton misrepresented the work of Barber et al, 2009. Yet, as Monckton pointed out in his reply (Q.84), he didn't even mention Barbers paper in his talk.

    On page 15
    Abraham claims Monckton misrepresented the work of Norris and Rosenstrato. Even though as Monckton pointed out, their graph did indeed show polar bear populations increasing

    He claims Monckton misrepresented the work of Dr Keigwin. He provides no evidence for this. In Abraham's email he didn't even mention the MWP.

    He claims Monckton misrepresented Caillon 2002. Yet as Monckton pointed out he didn't even mention that paper.

    There are numerous examples of Abraham misleading authors throughout the whole rebuttal. (And might I once again point out Abraham has not responded to the letter) So your claim that “That is a disgraceful, cheap accusation with no basis whatsoever in reality.” is false. And you would know this if you had actually read Monckton's reply.

    Dhogaza, 45

    “Oh, we know all about poptech, alright:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=poptech&x=0&y=0”

    Might I point out that nobody here has responded to Poptech's rebuttal to one of your articles.

    Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

    Not only that, but as Andrew (Poptech) has pointed out, every single comment he has ever written on skeptical science has been deleted. Care to explain that away?


    “Right, he didn't give a timeframe, therefore Monckton's lying when he suggest he did.”

    Did Al Gore state that the ice sheets weren't going to disappear for a millenia? Like I said before, the fact that he showed those images clearly implied that the 6 metre sea level rise was going to be happening in the near future.

    “A strong Medieval Warm Period = HIGH climate sensitivity. “

    Please provide one peer reviewed paper supporting that assertion?

    But your statement is also a bit contradictory don't you think. Your argument works both ways. This website has repeatedly claimed that the hockey stick graph is correct, and that temperatures are warmer than it was in the MWP. So surely, by your own logic, if the hockey stick was correct, then climate sensitivity would also be low.

    Chriskoz, 49

    “You are clearly dilluting any depth of arguments here and running into Monckton gish-gallop, as emphasized text indicates.”

    Read the numerous examples I gave above of Abraham's misleading claims.

    Owl905, 51

    “Adam droned at 40:

    "Yes, the IPCC didn't give an exact time frame, but the science is clear that the ice sheets are not going to disappear any time in the near future."

    You still get the target wrong; and you try the same Monctonite spin where a nearby revision is true (even when untrue)... so the original wrong is right. It's a pathetic attempt to defend your original error. AR4 gave no timeframe and no forecast of complete meltdown. Your claim of clear science is false, and your vague context is useless.”

    If you believe that I was wrong on the subject of the ice sheets, please provide me one peer reviewed paper providing credible evidence that the the Greenland ice sheet will completely disappear within the next 100 years. I have seen zero evidence for the idea that the Greenland ice sheet will melt in the near future. Therefore I stand by my statement that the science is clear on it. Once again, if you think I am wrong please provide a peer reviewed study supporting the claims that were made in AIT about sea level rise due to the collapse of the ice sheets.

    Phillipe Chantreau, 53

    “That Monckton is largely wrong the majority of the time is not a matter of belief, it is a verifiable fact. “

    KR, 55

    “The man is amazingly consistent - I have yet to see a single argument from him that is supportable. “

    Might I remind you that I gave a list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting the arguments made by skeptics.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The next time one of your posts contains a complaint regarding moderation, the whole post will be delete, rather than edited as I have just done. This is your final warning on this subject.
  8. KR:

    "Skipping over the implied moderation complaints, can you point out any Monckton arguments that actually hold water? "

    I can think of one, i.e. his argument that mocking his appearance because he has Graves' disease is unkind and insensitive.

    Though in making that argument he is guilting of throwing stones from a very glassy house, given his track record.

    Still, the bug-eyed fella's right, it is unkind and insensitive :)
    0 0
  9. Adam:

    "Not only that, but as Andrew (Poptech) has pointed out, every single comment he has ever written on skeptical science has been deleted. Care to explain that away?"

    He was allowed to post here for quite a long time. He would attempt to hijack every thread with his personal agenda. I'm not a moderator and do not know exactly what happened, but the moderators here are quite clear that refusal to follow the posting guidelines clearly stated here will lead to one's being kicked out. He refused to follow posting guidelines.

    What's to explain away? You visit John Cook's house, you follow John Cook's house rules. If he asks you to quit traipsing about the carpets with your muddy boots and you refuse, he's perfectly justified in showing you the door.
    0 0
  10. Adam:

    "Might I remind you that I gave a list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting the arguments made by skeptics."

    It's obvious you've not taken a look, because the list includes many things that aren't peer reviewed papers in any scholarly sense (poptech has his own definition).

    But I see I've fallen prey to Adam's attempt to hijack the thread rather than deal with the original post ...

    So I shall shut up now :)
    0 0
  11. Adam:

    "If you believe that I was wrong on the subject of the ice sheets, please provide me one peer reviewed paper providing credible evidence that the the Greenland ice sheet will completely disappear within the next 100 years. I have seen zero evidence for the idea that the Greenland ice sheet will melt in the near future. Therefore I stand by my statement that the science is clear on it. Once again, if you think I am wrong please provide a peer reviewed study supporting the claims that were made in AIT about sea level rise due to the collapse of the ice sheets."

    Once again, Adam makes a strawman claim that was not made by AIT ("next 100 years" "near future").

    How often does he get to repeat this falsehood?
    0 0
  12. dhogaza - You are correct, Monckton has on occasion made truthful statements. I will therefore qualify my comment to: Monckton has yet to make a single supportable statement on contradiction to established climate science.

    Adam - It's quite clear that Huang's data and conclusions do not support Monckton's statements. I am glad to see that you understand that; he should not have claimed that Huang supported his presentation.

    Again, Monckton is the one making extraordinary claims (that all of climate science is incorrect) - hence he has the burden of proof. Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable?

    In the meantime, folks, DNFTT.
    0 0
  13. >>Might I point out that nobody here has responded to Poptech's rebuttal to one of your articles.

    Good grief! None of the articles presented by Poptech refute global warming. Look at the actual thread presented here at SS. Instead of actually addressing that issue, you link to yet another rebuttal by poptech, which does nothing to address the outright fabrication of poptech's claims.

    Adam, you are continually engaging in a moving target argument. You were asked to bring up one paper from CO2 science to bolster your claim that the MWP was global. You have not done so.

    Let me give you another challenge to bring up one article from poptech that actually bolsters your claim that the peer reviewed science supports Mockton. Specifically, show a peer reviewed article that undermines a specific claim made by the IPCC in a significant way.

    Stop dodging and filling up these boards with BS.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [JH] Please use "SkS' when referring to Skeptical Science.
  14. I believe poptart's posts were deleted by mistake actually. A shame because they were very revealing - including the admission that no conceivable data could convince him that climate science was right. However, to substance, he refuses to remove papers that the authors themselves are wrongly on the list, includes letter, reviews etc. that are not peer-reviewed and journals (esp E&E) that are not peer-reviewed in the sense normally understood by that. However, the challenge is the same as for CO2"science" - find something that you find convincing - any paper on that list - and then discuss it on the appropriate thread
    0 0
  15. Adam:"But your statement is also a bit contradictory don't you think. Your argument works both ways. This website has repeatedly claimed that the hockey stick graph is correct, and that temperatures are warmer than it was in the MWP. So surely, by your own logic, if the hockey stick was correct, then climate sensitivity would also be low."

    That is incorrect. First, the MWP was not global, so it would not give any information on climate sensitivity. Accounting for its local variations and the overall Global temperature does not contradict any of the models of climate sensitivity. If you believe otherwise, can you please be specific?
    0 0
  16. The deletion of all poptech's posts was unintentional.

    He had been allowed 250+ posts till that point and given a lot of opportunity to make a coherent argument.

    When an attempt to delete one post deleted all of them he probably should have been notified of the mistake. That said, all they showed was that after a pointless exercise in rhetoric he admitted that his definition of peer-reviewed meant 'something that someone could review'.
    0 0
  17. #65 paulhtremblay - perhaps a clarification required, as using the climate of the past 750 years (admittedly not right through the MWP), Hegerl et al 2006 show climate sensitivity comparable to IPCC projections. The variations of the past millennium do provide us with some indications of climate sensitivity, but they still rule out very low values, and don't rule out values high enough to be really scared of (Hegerl's 5-95% is 1.5-6.2C per doubling). A more bent hockey stick will probably increase Hegerl's 5% boundary. Though the MWP and LIA were dominantly regional events, they were strong enough and widespread to have some effect on global temperature, even if it was only 0.3C here and there.

    BTW, is Adam actually Monckton in disguise? He's Gish Galloping with the best of them!
    0 0
  18. We must make sure that all of Monckton’s misrepresentations are properly documented in the event that the authorities decide to prosecute him for deliberately trying to thwart attempts to combat climate change. He can have no defence regarding the potential dangers seeing as he is not a scientist and his views are in direct conflict with those of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, as this post clearly gives some evidence of.

    When the public eventually catches up with the risks that Monckton is exposing their children and grand-children too, I imagine he might be glad to be safely locked away.

    Can there be any doubt regarding the need to ditch the idea of hereditary peerages? It is a mystery to me that someone can be ennobled just because some dim, distant ancestor pissed up the same tree as the king. Even offering to hold it for him hardly qualifies.
    0 0
  19. Given the conscerns expressed about Adam's posting habits, I posed the following question in the Issue of the Week section of the 2012 SkS Weekly Digest #7.

    "Should the SkS Comment Policy be amended to explicitly prohibit the hi-jacking of a comment thread by an individual commentator?"

    Please respond to this question in the comment thread to Weekly Digest #7.
    0 0
  20. Funglestrumpet, a wide range of Monckton's BS is addressed by Peter Hadfield and very well documented. See this SkS post and watch the videos, they are very informative. I really mean that: take the time to watch. I find it far more damning than anything done by Abraham, Dennis or SkS.

    As I said earlier, the part where Monckton does that little speech about how Dr Pinker is a great guy is really funny and says everything one needs to know about the individual. Used car salesman, snake oil merchant, take your pick for the stereotype that best matches his methods.
    0 0
  21. Adam @57, very briefly:

    1) The other graphs shown by Monckton all appear to be local, not global temperatures, and therefore cannot show a global event;

    2) Those graphs differ from each other about the timing of peak warming, with some graphs showing significant cooling where others show peak warming. This is most obvious with the graph purported to be from Dansgaard and from Schonweise (diferent papers) which shows a MWP preceding 1000 AD and a LIA that finishes around 1500 AD. Therefore if you constructed a global proxy form the data in those graphs, the periods of peak warming would be significantly reduced compared to that shown on the individual graphs, and hence significantly reduced relative to today (which truly is a global warming).

    3) One of the proxies (Esper and Schweingruber) shows not temperatures but altitudes of the tree line. Using the standard lapse rate to convert the altitude difference to a temperature difference shows a temperature difference of 0.23 degrees C above the reference for the MWP. As this is much less than the difference in Mean Global Surface Temperatures between 1980 (the apparent termination of the graph data) and the present, the graph does not show what Monckton purports.

    4) Monckton's errors are too frequent and too persistent to be considered accidental. Further, when his attention was drawn to them, he did not resile from any of his claims with regard to these temperature graphs (see his response to Abraham). Therefore by his own standard (also stated in his response to Abraham) these are not mistakes, but lies.

    5) It is evident that people viewing this collection of graphs from the audience of the presentation would not have been in a position to make these detailed comparisons. Therefore Monckton's presentation of these graphs had the likely and probably calculated effect of deceiving the audience.

    6) And leaving aside the MWP, there is little point in your persistently asking me to read something that I have already read.

    7) I notice you declined my request to discuss Abraham (or Monckton's) presentation slide by slide. Your response to that request was to cite the entire discussion of sea level rise, which occupies three slides in Monkcton's presentation, and five slides in Abraham's original presentation. Your disinclination to discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the dispute is duly noted.

    8) I note that you persist in misrepresenting Al Gore as claiming that sea levels would rise by six meters in a century. In this you follow Monckton who "quotes" Al Gore as saying:

    " “Right, the melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are going to raise sea level by 20 feet imminently.”

    (25 minutes, 41 seconds on the tape)

    Would you kindly point out where in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says that? (Hint: He doesn't)

    Why is it that Monckton seems reticent to quote anybodies exact words? Why does he present his "paraphrases" as though they were exact quotations? And why do his paraphrases change the original meanings of the quotes repeatedly?
    0 0
  22. "Your disinclination to discuss the actual nuts and bolts of the dispute is duly noted."

    I am trying to encourage Adam to do just that. Adam, how many things from say Monckton, CO2"science" etc need to be shown to you as misrepresentations before you would stop relying on such sources?
    0 0
  23. This is only marginally on topic, in that it is an example Monckton's misrepresentation of (easily determined) facts rather than of scientists per se. However it is certainly relevant to Adam's threadjack.

    In Monckton's St Paul Lecture he says:

    "[26:46] “... Gore knew the judge was right because in the year he made that movie he spent four million dollars buying – yes, some of you have got there already – buying a condo in the St Regis Tower, San Fancisco just feet from the ocean at Fisherman's wharf.

    [27:09] “So how many of you think, that as you went in through twenty feet of sea level rise, through the doors of that building he would not find himself going glug glug glug?"

    (Numbers in square brackets are times on the tape.)

    When I first heard this comment, I was immediately suspicious. One of the few things I know about San Francisco is that it is very hilly, so that a few feet of difference can make a large difference in height above sea level. The map on Monckton's slide reinforced that suspicion. The hotel was apparently close to the Golden Gate Bridge, and as large bridges are placed at elevated locations near the shore, likely to be at an elevated location. So I did some checking.

    The first thing I found out is that St Regis Tower is indeed just feet from Fisherman's Warf. Nine thousand feet, give or take. That is a fact as easily ascertained as looking at a map which marks both locations. You have to wonder why Monckton chose words that suggest St Regis Tower is on the fore shore rather than over one and a half miles from Fisherman's Wharf, and three quarters of a mile to the nearest shore.

    Next I checked Robert Rohde's handy Sea Level Rise Explorer:



    As you can sea, I have marked the location of St Regis Tower with the red diamond. As you can also see, the shading in that area is a yellowish green, indicating an altitude above sea level of between 12 and 20 meters.

    So, do I think patrons of the St Regis Towers, San Fancisco will be going "Glug, Glug, Glug" as they enter the lobby if sea level should rise 6 meters? Not a bit of it.

    Bearing in mind that Monckton is using the supposed altitude of the St Regis Towers lobby to make an accusation of fraud. You should assume therefore, that he has checked his facts, a task as easy as emailing the St Regis Tower and making inquiries. I do not know whether he did that, and deliberately lied, or whether he just has so complete disregard of truth that he didn't even bother. What I do know is that this is a complete misrepresentation of the facts, and a misrepresentation on which he built a slander.
    0 0
  24. What I think happens with people like Monkton is that they read maliciously. They skim through a document looking for the bits that they can see as supporting their position. And they seize on them and do not try to understand the whole context. They try to win, not to understand.

    I've had online discussions with denialists and have often had them ridiculously misunderstand a point I made. And I've asked myself, "Did I explain things unclearly?", And sometime I did. And sometimes there was no way that they could have misunderstood if they had tried to understand.

    Scientist try to fit things together into a coherent overall picture. Denialists are not interested in doing this. But in climate science it is the overall picture where the proof is. Lacking intellectual integrity, denialists cannot recognize it in others. They assume that others have to have their judgment ruled by politics the way that theirs is.

    How to get them to step back and reconsider? Difficult on the Internet, especially on a climate oriented site. Sometimes you can gradually get them to reconsider. One on one, face to face I think you can stop them evading, mostly by making them realize that they are doing that, But you can't do that on the Internet. All you can to is to stop them from misleading others.
    0 0
  25. Lloyd "What I think happens with people like Monkton is that they read maliciously. They skim through a document looking for the bits that they can see as supporting their position. And they seize on them and do not try to understand the whole context."

    I think that also fits neatly with the salesman persona. They don't listen to what you are saying. They're only listening for clues and hooks for their next point and ignore the rest. Which means that very often their next statement can easily be directly contrary to the intent of yours. And their own, if they've been doing that nodding and agreeing thing.
    0 0
  26. I've done a lot of responses to Monckton's various Gish Gallops, and in my experience, it's hard to find a single argument he's made that's not a gross distortion of reality. Any point he makes, if you actually take the time to research it for yourself, you find that he's misrepresented his sources and/or reality in general. In responding to Monckton's latest response to SkS, we had to break it into a three-part series because his post contained so many distortions.

    Tom's latest example is a good one. I remember doing the same check myself when reading that claim about Al Gore's new SF home. I checked the address for myself and saw that both it's nowhere near the shoreline and well above sea level. Doing this check took me about 30 seconds on Google Earth. That's the basic level of Monckton's errors - he doesn't even make the simplest effort to make accurate claims. He simply has no interest in reality, and anyone who takes him seriously is being duped.
    0 0
  27. We in the UK felt the full benefit of Moncktons understanding of complex subjects when he and like minded colleagues were part of Thatchers government. As a nation we have never really recovered from that disastrous experiment in basing action on what a truth is believed to be, as opposed to what it actually is. The thought of the same political philosophies transferred to climate science fills me with horror.
    0 0
  28. Yes, when you engage Monckton you must understand you are engaging in a political agenda.

    He has made climate change the dominate part of his political platform so it’s extremely important to counter the destructive influence his bogus science and misinformation is having on the understanding of the scientific facts behind global warming and action to limit its effects.
    0 0
  29. Adam,
    I went through every one of Moncton's points when he came out with the rebuttal.
    I do remember three or four specific things that seemed to me to have been clearly valid points by Moncton. It was a long time ago, if you wants to pay me for my time, I would be happy to go through the while thing and find those places.
    the whole opening first pages of his response is rather self serving rubbish (meant in the English sense of the word).It is patently arrogant and obnoxious, and strangely silly, almost infantile in places. Of course that in itself is not reason to dismiss it. Can you tell me you actually read those first few pages and did not think it pretentious nonsense?
    Oh What the heck I will do it now for free. And I am no scientist, so it is pretty sad that someone with no rigorous background can so easily see through his supposedly brilliant rhetoric.
    the first 25 are meaningless snipping.
    26. Moncton quotes Abraham as saying that " And if you listen to what he said, you would come to the conclusion that the following things are true" then he lists ice melt, world not warming,scientists are lying, etc.
    27. The VERY NEXT point he CHANGES that "What evidence do you have for your assertion that I SAID, “The world’s not warming”. That is so obvious any intelligent person ( and certainly any judge would see are two different things.
    28. He goes on to point out that he acknowledged warming in the 20th century. Abraham never claimed that Moncton denied that.
    29. he then says that since 2001 has been a cooling trend. Which of course is a lie.
    30-33 is the exact same thing only with sea level. Nowhere does Abraham state that Moncton said there has been no sea level rise since 1990
    34-37 is exactly the same regarding sea ice melt. Of course Moncton does admit to talking about arctic recovery, for which he is of course absolutely wrong.
    38-39 is similar about Polar bears being threatened. As far as I know Moncton is distorting when he says Polar bear populations have increased "very substantially" since the middle of the 20th century. I think there was some recovery due to lack of hunting. But recent studies show a decline, but this is a pretty sketchy issue on both sides of the argument in my view, and not really pertinent to determining ACC. SO another lie by Moncton.
    40-42 is ocean acidification. And that one s a hoot, as he invents a series of fanciful myths about the changing nature of climate change by duplicitous climate extremists. But his argument, in my view totally supports Abrahams contention that one would get the impression that there is no such thing as ocean acidification. Is Moncton stupid or was he just pretty sure no one except an idiot (like me) would actually bother reading that far.
    43-49. is about scientists lying. Now here I do not know enough to pass judgement on the ethics of statistical use. though I think it rather laughable that Moncton is schooling Abraham about it. Still as an entertainer with an interest in climate change it is celar that the IPCC was not :lying" when they conclude that global temp has been increasing faster in late 20th-eary 21st century than from the early and mid 20th century. He would have a point for the past 10-13 years, but even that is disputable if one factors in mitigating issues, such as solar radiation and aerosols, etc.
    47-49 are one of the places where I thought he did have a point. Atlantic hurricane strength. But this is a case not of lying but of cherry picking. Again here is an issue that I do not think is germane to the question of climate change as there is no real consensus among experts on specific effects of storms at least not in the current time frame.
    50. Moncton conflates "Where I said conspiracy" with "one would come to the conclusion"
    51-61 is an amazing piece of rhetoric that is almost pure garbage
    52. Gore never said there was an imminent threat of a 20 feet rise in sea levels because of ice sheet melting. Now having seen the movie, i was not thrilled that he did not say it would take many hundreds of years. and there were probably some that took it as being in the relatively near future
    53-54. Moncton makes the nearly insane assertion that sea level rise from ice sheets in the coming century would be comparable to 20th century melting of the ice sheet.
    55. Irrelevant nonsense.
    56 Greenland ice sheet melting. flat out distortion of the science and a use of the word millennia, which, if we want to be picky means at LEAST 2 thousand years , and almost certainly flat out wrong. If Global temps go to a 3°C+ anomaly and stay there, I am pretty confident that any physicist would agree it will not take thousands of years for Greenland to have a nice luke-warm lake in it's center.
    57 pretty much the same thing as 56 and untrue.
    58 just blatantly untrue. IPCC is very clear that melting of ice sheets is a very difficult thing to determine with rising temps.
    59. Distorting the legal ruling on Al Gore's movie. Judge Basically said that Gore's movie could be interpreted to be in the near future and that it should be pointed out to students that complete melting would take a very long time. Quite reasonable on the judge's part. So this is basically a lie.
    60. Strawman argument about Gore's buying shorefront property.
    61. argument about lack of sea level rise in spite of accelerating ice melting. Moncton has no explanation or rebuttal to the cited reference, just asks a seemingly devastating rhetorical question. Pointless. the issue is more complicated.
    62. temperature of last interglacial. Minor point subject to interpretation. But at least this was not an outright lie or distortion. Big victory for Moncton here!
    63. Whining about scientists making unsubstantiated64 assertions in referenced citations? Who knows maybe there is some validity, but still rather meaningless.
    64-65. Something about IPCC projections and and doubling of CO2 and committment to future climate change. Need someone else to answer that one.
    66-77. About polar bears. Again I don't see this as being of particular relevance to determining the reality of ACC. Mostly ridiculous gobbledy gook that is rather lawyerly trying to establish reasonable doubt about Moncton's distortion. The fact is that he cited a paper by an expert on polar bears and only used the information that made it appear that ACC has nothing to do with polar bear survival. He totally ignores accepted views on polar bear evolution assuming they were the same as they are now during the last interglacial, and ignoring that species can be at the brink of extinction and survive to spread rapidly. So a major change in the arctic could very well be disastrous for polar bears But he might have a point here, who knows. his point that this was four polar bears that died from a storm is not unreasonable just one sided. Waste of time basically.

    Ok. I am up way past my bedtime. If you, Adam, or others want me to continue, let me know and I may be able to do so tomorrow. So far I agree with my hazy memory and the contentions of numerous commenters that this is mostly a gish gallop of the ridiculous, the sometimes plain wrong, and occasionally blatant lies from Moncton.
    0 0
  30. It's obvious that Monckton's claim about the St Regis Tower in San Fancisco being "just feet from the ocean at Fisherman's wharf" is blatently false as far as any normal person (i.e. the majority of rational human beings) would understand it.
    However, judging by the rest of Monckton's attempted justifications highlighted here by others, he will undoubtedly believe he is correct (and his followers will accept his justifications implicitly) because he said "feet", which, in his mind, encapsulates every number from two to the largest number you can think of.
    He plays with words and uses them so that he can create his own reality and never have to admit being wrong.

    No wonder Adam likes Poptech too - he has the same modus operandi.
    0 0
  31. Adam @ 57 says:

    "I've had a look at Huang's 2008 paper, and I agree with you that their 1997 paper was not the best choice of study to include as evidence of a MWP. Although I do not believe that there was anything nefarious about Monckton including it in his talk. It was probably just an honest mistake. And might I once again point out that it is only one paper. Monckton showed graphs from eight other studies showing MWP temps were the same/higher than today. You can't just pick out one single study from his talk, and then just act like everything he said was wrong..."

    "Probably just an honest mistake". Really Adam? Do you consider Monckton's insinuation that Sir Richard Houghton supports telling lies and Monckton's made up false quotation he ascribes to Houghton are also "honest mistakes". You seem to have an elastic concept of "honest"! I can't see how Monckton's extreme misrepresentation of Huang's borehole data can be an "honest mistake" when he's gone to the trouble of preparing or hunting down a made-up graph that isn't Huang's at all.

    Monckton's (misrepresentation of) Huang's borehole data is just one of 9 examples in that slide. But as Abraham shows Monckton's misrepresentions on that slide is more widespread. We could choose another example:

    e.g. Monckton cites Keigwin (1996). This data set refers specifically to a location in the Sargasso sea. If one was to address this particular data set scientifically, one would likely conclude that it was consistent with a growing consensus that the temperature variations during MWP (and to a lesser extent) during the LIA, were significantly related to ocean current and wind transport regime changes that changed the distribution of global heat, with a large contribution involving “Gulf Stream” heat transport to the high Northern latitudes. It’s not surprising that temperatures in the Sargasso sea are sensitive to these.

    So Keigwin and Pickart (1999) have shown that if one samples historical temperatures from cored proxies in the Laurentian Fan area to the NW of the Bermuda Rise, Sargasso Sea data, that sea surface temperatures were apparently much colder during the MWP compared to the LIA, and the temperatures of the Bermuda Rise-Laurentian Fan vary in “antiphase” as current regimes change.

    In other words if Monckton were to have selected Keigwin and Pickart (1999) rather than Keigwin (1996) he would have come to the opposite conclusion. Monckton has "cherry picked" one piece of Keigwin's work that seems to support his agenda. Another "honest mistake" Adam?

    It's easy to show (simply by doing the reading of the scientific literature that any honest scientist does in putting his work in context) that in addition to misreresenting the work of Huang, on that slide, and Kiegwin, Monckton also misrepresents the work of (at least) Schonwiese, Esper and Schweingruber since the analyses of all of these scientists indicates that in their study context late 20th century and contemporary temperatures are warmer than during the MWP.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The comments policy forbids accusations of dishonesty:

    No accusations of deception. Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. Stick to the science. You may criticise a person's methods but not their motives.

    In order not to stray into dangerous waters, please everybody stick to the question of whether the science is correct or not, and avoid the issue of the motivation altogether.

  32. JMurphy #80

    The "feet from the ocean" quote is from a document published by a little known organisation called the Heartland Institute. Perhaps some of our readers have heard of them?

    "In 2005, the year [Al Gore] said sea level would imminently rise by 20 feet, he bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis tower, San Francisco--just feet from the ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf."
    Source: Great Is Truth, and Mighty Above All Things, Lord Christopher Monckton – March 12, 2009

    Anyone who cares to look at a map will see for themselves that the building in question is at least half a kilometer from the ocean.
    0 0
  33. From the same document of 82-logicman "When Hansen’s political ally and financial beneficiary Al Gore..."

    Over and above Hansen being in receipt of government funding and, at some point, Al being in a completely different part of government... is there any evidence for that?
    0 0
  34. les, you should be aware by now (if you have been listening carefully to the so-called skeptics, and Monckton) that Hansen and Gore are in on the big conspiracy, so that Hansen produces the 'goods' (the 'hansenised' data, as you will have read it from many of those in denial) which allow Gore to take advantage by buying properties virtually in the oceans (give or take a kilometre or two) and setting-up companies that can make a killing in the carbon-trading market - thereby increasing his wealth from billions to squiilions.
    (Just in case any Monckton fans are reading : I am joking)
    0 0
  35. 84 - JMurphy

    Thanks for the clarification. Only I had notice, in the deniosphere, that if any individual or organisation makes one statement that isn't 100% true for all eternity, they - and any statement they make or results they produce - can be considered, not only totally discredited, but eligible for prosecution for fraud... I am, of course, thinking of the IPCC, Mann etc. Such a situation couldn't be applied to TVMOB et al. of course. who can make as many errors as they like while still maintaining full credibility...
    0 0
  36. Look on the bright side, when Monckton makes high profile erroneous statements, it gives an opportunity to give high profile correction. After all if you can’t see the fox who is eating your chickens you can’t catch him. In some ways it’s better to have wrong information out in open where it can be challenged.
    0 0
  37. The Monckton response to Abraham (or, more accurately, the Monckton response to what Monckton creates as being from Abraham) also contains the following fallacy :

    "Santer who rewrote the IPCC’s 1995 report, on his own, so as to change its principal finding by 180 degrees"

    Completely made-up and shown to be wrong.
    The only 'difficulty' is deciding whether you believe the people actually involved, or those who believe in conspiracies.

    But I don't understand this Monckton claim :

    "What evidence do you have that I cited Caillon et al. (2003) in my talk?"

    Listening to the Abraham presentation again (especially slide 62), I couldn't hear or see any such claim, and certainly couldn't hear/see anything along the lines of what Monckton claims is a "papraphrase" of Abraham :

    "And what he says, ... temperatures always change first and CO2 follows, and he cites the paper which I’ve got the citation listed here, [Caillon et al., 2003], which deals with the timing of CO2 and Antarctic temperatures."

    Either that is a Monckton version of paraphrasing (i.e. not an actual paraphrase), or it is something that has been removed from the presentation.
    0 0
  38. Philippe Chantreau @ 70

    Thanks for the link! Unfortunately it is broken, but I did manage to find it anyway. I have to agree with you: "Damning" indeed. Will it stop him, or will his desperate need to be the centre of attention force him to carry on regardless of the facts? No prizes for guessing which!
    0 0
  39. dhogaza, 60

    “It's obvious you've not taken a look, because the list includes many things that aren't peer reviewed papers in any scholarly sense (poptech has his own definition).”

    Every single paper on the list is peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

    Dhogaza, 61

    “Once again, Adam makes a strawman claim that was not made by AIT ("next 100 years" "near future").

    How often does he get to repeat this falsehood? “

    You are again completely missing the point. I accept that AIT never gave an exact timeframe (and I have acknowledged this in this discussion) But the very fact that Al Gore showed these expensive computerised images of all these major cities being published Strongly implied that it was going to happen in the near future. People watching it would not think that the ice sheets were going to collapse in hundreds or thousands of years, they would think that it was going to happen in the near future. Yes, Al Gore didn't give an exact date for it, but it was very misleading the way it was presented in AIT

    KR, 61
    “Monckton is the one making extraordinary claims (that all of climate science is incorrect)”

    Please point out where Monckton has ever claimed the whole of climatre science is incorrect?

    “Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable?”

    KR might I once again remind you that I gave you a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments and you have completely ignored it.

    Paulhtremblay, 63

    “None of the articles presented by Poptech refute global warming. .... Instead of actually addressing that issue, you link to yet another rebuttal by poptech,”

    Did I claim that the articles presented by Poptech refute GW?
    I'm not sure how you can claim that “I'm not addressing the issue” since I never made that claim anyway. I was simply pointing out that this website had not responded to Poptech on his rebuttal.

    “Let me give you another challenge to bring up one article from poptech that actually bolsters your claim that the peer reviewed science supports Mockton. Specifically, show a peer reviewed article that undermines a specific claim made by the IPCC in a significant way.”

    Well, obviously you have not read any of the papers on the list, but as an example there is Douglass et al, 2007, which supports Moncktons claiims about troposheric temperature trends.

    Scaddenp, 64

    “However, to substance, he refuses to remove papers that the authors themselves are wrongly on the list, includes letter, reviews etc. that are not peer-reviewed and journals (esp E&E) that are not peer-reviewed in the sense normally understood by that. “

    The list clearly states:

    Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. While a minority of authors on the list cannot be labeled skeptics (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr., Roger Pielke Sr.) their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) can still support skeptic's arguments against ACC/AGW alarm. Various papers are mutually exclusive and should be considered independently. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

    The author's personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It is the actual scientific data that is presented in their papers that are relevant.

    And E&E is a peer reviewed journal

    Correcting Misinformation about the Journal Energy and Environment

    Paulhtremblay, 65

    “First, the MWP was not global”

    in your opinion

    “so it would not give any information on climate sensitivity. Accounting for its local variations and the overall Global temperature does not contradict any of the models of climate sensitivity.”

    I'm sorry but that's not a valid argument. It was claimed on this thread that if the MWP was warmer it would mean that climate sensitivity to co2 would he high. But now you're saying that it doesn't matter that (in your opinion) MWP wasn't warmer. That climate sensitivity would still be high. Look, either the MWP does tell us about climate sensitivity or it doesn't you can't have it both ways. I personally think that it is entirely plausible that the MWP temps were higher/the same as today and climate sensitivity is still low. I do not believe the claim that strong MWP means high climate sensitivity, is supported by convincing evidence.

    Skywatcher, 67

    “perhaps a clarification required, as using the climate of the past 750 years (admittedly not right through the MWP), Hegerl et al 2006 show climate sensitivity comparable to IPCC projections.”

    I was unable to find a PDF of that paper, so I only had the abstract. As you point out they only analyse climate of the past 750 years. I personally think that this is too short a time span. They may have got significantly different results if they had analysed say, the past 1500 years. Also, in their abstract they don't even mention what the implication would be for climate-sensitivity if the MWP was warmer. So it doesn't really do that much to support your argument. There have also been some references in the literature that the modelling data they used may have been unreliable. eg. Scafetta, 2009
    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta-JASP_1_2009.pdf

    “Some authors(North etal.,2004;Hegerletal.,2006,2007) use
    typical EBMs.The adoption of EBMs is particularly useful if the
    interest focuses on local temperature records,but becomesless
    useful if the interest is in the global average temperature.”

    funglestrumpet, 68

    I'm not sure how anybody can claim that somebody should be locked up, simply because their views on an issue differ from your own. Do you not believe that people have the right to freedom of speech?

    Tom Curtis, 71

    “1) The other graphs shown by Monckton all appear to be local, not global temperatures, and therefore cannot show a global event;”

    Monckton never claimed that his graphs represented global temperatures. The warmist argument is that MWP was a regional phenomenon located mainly in the UK and Greenaland. All Monckton was simply trying to show is that there is indeed evidence of a MWP outside of those areas.

    “Those graphs differ from each other about the timing of peak warming, with some graphs showing significant cooling where others show peak warming.”

    Well, you would expect there to be some difference in the timings of the warming and cooling periods in the graph, since they are all from entirely different independent studies.

    “One of the proxies (Esper and Schweingruber) shows not temperatures but altitudes of the tree line. “

    Monckton has never denied this he clearly mentions it in his reply

    “the conclusion in their graph that in the medieval warm period treelines in the polar Urals were considerably higher than they are today, suggesting that the weather was considerably warmer and wetter than today?”

    “I note that you persist in misrepresenting Al Gore as claiming that sea levels would rise by six meters in a century. Would you kindly point out where in An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says that? (Hint: He doesn't)”

    Once again read my previous comments, as well as the paragraph above on AIT. I don't deny that AIT never gave a timeframe. I never stated that Al Gore gave an exact timeframe. What I was saying is that because of the very expensive images he showed of modern cities getting flooded, it was heavily implied that it would happen in the next century. That's what anybody watching his film would come to the conclusion to.

    Tom Curtis, 73

    Now, you have obviously done a lot of research on that claim. And you make a good point. A lot of people don’t check things for themselves, when they should do so.
    Now, I’d just like you to know that I never agreed with Monckton’s argument about Al Gore’s mansion. I thought that it was a poor argument and should not have been included in his presentation. But that really was just a very minor point in his presentation. It has absolutely nothing to do with the science. Tom Curtis, you can’t just write long rebuttals to just a single very minor point, and act like you have shown everything Monckton has said to be completely wrong. Now, you obviously believe that Monckton was deliberately lying about Al Gore’s mansion. I know that what you pointed out about one argument, does look pretty bad, but think about it. Monckton included the reference to Gore’s mansion in his personal letter to Abraham. If Monckton really was deliberately lying, why would he have written it in a personal private letter to a professor whose views strongly opposed his own. I personally think it was simply a display of ignorance on Monckton’s part. I know you’re probably going to accuse me of being a “denier” and “defending my idol”, but I really do think you’re making too much of a big deal out of such a minor point. The Gore’s mansion argument was not a scientific argument, nor was it made out to be one. It has nothing to do with the science. It’s funny how people can spend a lot of time checking the actual science behind different issues, yet don’t bother to check very minor and unscientific points, simply because it’s not that important. I do believe this is what happened with Monckton. He was careless on an issue, and it has made him appear in a bad light. Tom Curtis I’m not saying that skeptics are right about everything. There are some arguments by skeptics I don’t agree with. Skeptics don’t have a single unified view. There is always going to be misinformation on both sides of a debate. But people need to learn the difference between a genuine error and deliberate disinformation. I think that people here’s personal feelings (hatred) for Monckton are clouding their judgement into thinking that everything he does is “evil”. But Monckton is human. Humans make mistakes. It happens. Simply stressing minor points, like you did above is irrelevant to the actual scientific debate. I really would be better if could just stick to the science.

    Tonydunc, 79

    Sorry Tony, but your very cursory dismissals of each point are not every convincing.

    Tonydunc Abraham listed those brief phrases, which he claimed summed up Monckton's arguments. I don't think you understand. Abraham is trying to make Monckton look like an average stereotypical “denier” whose arguments are weak and simplistic. What Monckton was trying to show is that his arguments were actually more complex than Abraham made them out to be, so therefore he was misrepresenting his position.

    I'm sorry, but I don't really have the time or energy to respond to every single one of the points you listed.

    Chris, 81

    I do not believe that Monckton was cherry picking. Dr Keigwin's own paper clearly showed that MWP was indeed warmer in that area than the present. There are always papers showing different interpretations of climate change data. Proxy data is a very complex issue. But there was nothing which directly refuted the conclusions made by their 1996 paper.

    Look, we're getting nowhere on this thread. I seem to have upset a lot of people who clearly have very strong personal beliefs regarding Monckton. How about we just agree to disagree. You have all made up your own minds on this issue. We are never going to come to a satisfactory conclusion. So, if any of you can provide me any reason otherwise, this will be my last comment on this thread.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Further discussion of 'things Al Gore may or may not have said' is off topic for this thread, as is any further reference to whatever Poptech may or may not say on his blog.

    Long rambling replies to multiple commenters tend to be very difficult to follow.

  40. Adam - “Can you point out a single statement of his contradictory to the consensus that is supportable?”

    KR might I once again remind you that I gave you a list of over 900 peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments and you have completely ignored it.


    PopTech's list of papers is not relevant to this discussion. I asked you to point out a single climate claim of Monckton's, contrary to the consensus on climate science, that is supportable.

    You have not. I'm of the opinion that you cannot. Instead - you repeat Gish Gallops, introduce red herrings such as the PopTech list, and (IMO) basically troll. The only science you have discussed (so far as I recall) is the MWP - where the evidence shows warm periods were not synchronous across the globe, and hence the temperature of the overall climate was not as warm as present.

    And in the process you somehow ignore the multiple documented instances of Monckton misrepresenting scientists works, misquoting, and overall presenting a misleading view of the the science.
    0 0
  41. Adam, if we want to assess whether the MWP was warmer or cooler than now, we need to put aside our preconceived agendas, and assess ALL of the evidence.

    If Kiegwin shows that temperatures in the Sargasso sea were warmer during the MWP than now, but the adjacent Laurentian Fan was much colder during the MWP than now, and that this is consistent with other evidence for a redistribution of heat due to ocean and wind currents, then we don't throw away all the inconvenient evidence that doesn't fit our agenda and cherry-pick a bit we like.

    Obviously if we want to assess whether the MWP was hemispherically or globally warmer or cooler than now we have to assess the data incorporating ALL of the paleoevidence. Every time this is done (there are more than a dozen studies multiproxy reconstructions published in the last decade), these always show that current temperatures are quite a bit warmer than during the MWP.

    You've shown an astonishing willingness to defend the indefensible. You consider it acceptable that:

    (i) Monckton uses a fabricated quotation to insinuate that Sir Richard Houghton supports falsehoods.

    (ii) Monckton uses a made-up graph to pretend that Huang's borehole data supports a cooler contemporary temperature than during the MWP even though Huang makes it very clear that the borehole data presented doesn't extend past the 19th century. When Huang presents a later full borehole data set that extends into the mid-late 20th century, the data indicates contemporary temperatures are warmer than during the MWP.

    (iii) Monckton cherry-picks one piece of Keigwin's sea temperature reconstruction, when assessment of all of Kiegwin's data gives zero evidence for a warmer
    MWP than now.

    (iv) Monckton misrepresents the work of Schonwiese, Esper and Schweingruber since the analyses of all of these scientists indicates that in their study context late 20th temperatures are warmer than during the MWP.

    ..you support all of those appalling and blatant misrepresentations...
    0 0
  42. Adam:
    @12 - "Abraham has had nearly two years to respond to Monckton, yet he has not done so. When Abraham did his presentation, he had the responsibility to reply to any critique."

    @89 - "I'm sorry, but I don't really have the time or energy to respond to every single one of the points you listed."

    So Abraham is obligated to respond to Monckton's gish-gallop of a reply but you are allowed to dismiss counter evidence because it is too much work to go through?
    Double Standard.
    0 0
  43. Defending Monckton with Poptech, with a healthy side of "E&E is legit!." Surely there's a mirthy analogy. This is like the anti-critical thinking trifecta.

    Imagine a world in which the science published in E&E was the best humanity had to offer. Talk about catastrophes.

    Adam, you're a curiosity. You have enough skill to understand a wide range of concepts, and you've done some reading. Yet you spend your time and energy defending goofy rhetorical games from Monckton, a wholly transparent and pathetic attempt to bandwagon the unwary (Poptech), and a journal that is a laughingstock for very obvious and well-documented reasons. I don't get it. I mean, I can come to several more probable conclusions from this small set of evidence, but moderation policy prevents me from listing them.
    0 0
  44. Fans of the great man may be pleased to hear that we have been promised a new instalment of His Sublime Fragrant Viscountness's wisdom, due to be lavished on a grateful peasantry some time soon...

    On 7 February, WUWT published the latest in their Monckton/potholer debate. After posting a quite pricelessly irrelevent critique Al Gore, Christopher has promised an actual reply to potholer's work "in a fortnight".

    Anthony Watts is refereeing this, so I expect that His Imperial (and Simultaneously Metric) Lordship may be allowed a little more time...

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/update-on-the-monckton-hadfield-debate/

    ...but even so, I can hardly wait. He is better than Wodehouse.
    0 0
  45. Adam:

    1)
    Accusing somebody of fraud on the basis of false, but easily checked information is never a small "minor point";

    2) I notice that you have not responded to my request that your check the validity of Monckton's purported direct quote of Al Gore. Please do so, and to not make ridiculous claims about my responding only to one "minor point" until you do so;

    3) While you are about it, would you care to indicate whether or not Monckton's purported direct quote of Justice Burton is accurate? (Hint: it is not.)

    You want to treat Monckton's claims about the St Regis tower as an aberration, when example after example shows that getting facts wrong is his modus operandi. The man is literally a conspiracy theorist. He is literally a promoter of a "miracle cure" in the fine tradition of snake oil salesmen everywhere. He is a self admitted liar. And yet you expect us to believe things because "Monckton said".

    Wake up and smell the coffee.
    0 0
  46. Adam, still waiting for you to pick something which you think convincing. Closest so far would be Douglass 2007, see here and then take it the appropriate thread.
    0 0
  47. With regard to Poptech's list, I am aware of a recent project that has found over 24,000 climate change related papers in peer reviewed journals. Not all of those papers are peer reviewed, but just the requirement to appear in a peer reviewed journal is already a far more restrictive criterion than that used by Poptech. That means that Poptech's list of papers shows at best that 3.7% of relevant peer reviewed literature is opposed to the consensus. That is, like climate scientists who disagree with the consensus, peer reviewed papers that disagree with the consensus, are a very small, unrepresentative rump.

    Unfortunately I cannot link to that list as yet. So as an alternative approach, I did a search for "global warming" on google scholar. I got 731,000 hits. Allowing for duplicate entries and non-peer reviewed papers on that list, that means poptech's list is still much less than 0.5% of all scholarly articles on global warming.

    Promoters of the Poptech list will now no doubt say that science is not decided by consensus. Exactly right! So why are you quoting x number of papers opposed to the consensus, and hence appealing to raw numbers. If don't believe science is decided by numbers, why do you quote a raw number from Poptech instead of discussing the specific details of the specific papers (in appropriate threads)?

    The answer, of course, is the papers do not stand up to detailed scrutiny. They seek the anonymity of the list because they know they won't survive in the spotlight.
    0 0
  48. Promoter so Poptech's list are looking for reassurances for their biases when they lack the skill or motivation to investigate the science themselves.
    0 0
    Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please, nothing more on the Poptech 'list.'
  49. Adam, Monckton's selecting individual papers that suggest a warm MWP (and misrepresenting others such as Keigwin) still fails the test of asking if the whole globe was at the same time warm. You construct a strawman by suggesting climate scientists only think Europe/Greenland was warm in the MCA. You might want to check Fig 2 of Mann et al 2009, where you'll find some little yellow, orange and red squares in Africa and China, for example. You'll also find some wide swathes of blue areas, such as central Russia and Alaska. Net result: globally a muted signal.

    For a strong MWP = high climate sensitivity argument, simple physics says so. Climate responds to forcings. Unless you have a mysterious hitherto undiscovered large forcing on the scale of modern CO2 forcing that drives the MWP, you need high sensitivity to drive such a change (as you do to drive the glacial cycles too). If the driver is merely slightly elevated solar + reduced volcanics, then sensitivity must be high to explain a warm MWP. You can try Hegerl et al 2006 for a discussion of forcing over the past 700 years. Also: "the pseudoskeptic's dilemma" (h/t muoncounter). Climate sensitivity, as presently understood, allows for climate change over the past millennium, as presently understood. It will be worrying for all of us if the MWP turns out to have been a hot, widespread event.

    Arguing for a strong MWP and low climate sensitivity is one of the many self-contradictory statements made by Monckton and other so-called 'skeptics'.
    0 0
  50. Adam,

    My "cursory dismissals" are based on reading comprehension, a general understanding of physics, and the use of google. They are very uncomplicated, and they are EXACTLY what you asked for. There were a couple of points that I was not qualified to comment on and I didn't, but the rest are all easily understandable and if read alongside Moncton's response, very clearly analyzed.
    They are certainly only slightly more cursory than Moncton's initial response to Abraham.
    You do not offer ANYTHING to contradict what I wrote. And there are actually a few things which are more a matter of opinion than anything else and a couple where he has a valid point.
    The issue at hand however is that in the first 77"points" Moncton shows Abraham's critique not only to be fairly accurate, but also that Moncton's refutations are themselves filled with distortions, errors and (if the moderator will allow) lies.

    I must say, I am disappointed in you Adam. So I am NOT going to go through the rest of the list. Too bad, maybe at 79 his arguments against Abraham start being valid.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us