Recent Comments

Prev  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  Next

Comments 63501 to 63550:

63501. JMurphy at 07:35 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Having dragged my way through the first 40 'questions' in Adam's WUWT Monckton link, I'm astounded by the waffle, self-regard and posturing of the man. The only real substance there is word-play over things he actually said, but which he is now trying to backtrack from by delineating his meaning to a highly specific interpretation. For example : (In all the following, where Monckton states what he is being of accused of, the actuality is that Abrahams stated that if you were to believe Monckton you would have to accept that...) Monckton says he has been accused of saying "The world’s not warming". Monckton prevaricates by now saying said although he had actually said that the world had been cooling since 2001...he displayed a graph showing a longer-term warming. I.E. Monckton DID say "The world’s not warming". Monckton says he has been accused of saying "Sea levels are not rising at all". Monckton prevaricates by now saying said although he had actually said that there had been little or no sea-level rise for four years...he displayed a graph showing a longer-term rising. I.E. Monckton DID say "Sea levels are not rising at all". Monckton says he has been accused of saying "Ice is not melting". Monckton prevaricates by now saying said although he had actually said that stated that Arctic sea-ice had reached a 30-year low in 2007, from which it is recovering...well, he displayed some picture with a title stating that Arctic Summer sea ice area was "just fine". I.E. Monckton DID say "Ice is not melting". Monckton says he has been accused of saying "polar bears are not threatened". Monckton prevaricates by now saying that he said they "are doing fine". I.E. Monckton DID say "polar bears are not threatened". Next up comes his definition of what he actually meant by "no such thing as ocean acidification" but I lost the will to carry on...
63502. funglestrumpet at 07:28 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
       While it would be interesting to see the NIPCC’s ‘science’ tested in court, surely what should be tested in court is whether these people have the right to their freedom, considering the fact they are prepared to risk the lives of future generations.
63503. Eternal Sunshine at 07:20 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       No one has commented yet on the $610K to Operation Angry Badger - it exists to resist Republican state legislators in Wisconsin from being recalled, a consequence of their voting to strip public employees of their collective bargaining rights. That is a cause that is widely reported to be supported by the Koch brothers, who have funded the political career of Governor Walker, who has led in the attempt at disabling the public employee unions. In any case, though the climate connection appears to be non-existent, the overtly political donation would seem to be blatantly illegal.
63504. dhogaza at 07:10 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam: "Well, as one example of the errors in the video there is Abraham's claim regarding sea level rise. He basically claims that Al Gore was correct regarding his claim of a 6m sea level rise in AIT. But, as Monckton pointed out in his reply, the IPCC don't expect the Greenland ice sheet to disappear for a millenia yet Abraham made no reference to this in his presentation." Of course Abraham didn't, because Al Gore in AIT didn't give a timeframe. How does Monckton's claim that the Greenland ice sheet won't disappear for a long time refute AIT when AIT didn't give a timeframe? AIT: "If the greenland ice sheet melts, sea levels will rise 6m" Monckton: "The greenland ice sheet won't melt for a long time, therefore AIT is wrong". DIsconnect. This is typical of Monckton's technique of lying by refuting something not actually said by the person he claims was wrong. Strawman, in other words.
63505. funglestrumpet at 07:00 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       Surely this Heartland Institute has committed a far larger crime than footling tax infringements. The have to be aware of the dangers posed by not combating climate change. It would be an interesting spectacle to watch them defend their deliberate attempts to hinder action to reduce those dangers. Especially when their position is contradicted by 97% of all bone fide climate scientists. I just hope that the court concerned has the death penalty available to it. (And I disagree with capital punishment!) I sometimes wonder it these people think it is all a game, a game that their grandchildren are not going to be pawns in.
63506. John Russell at 06:50 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       Just came across this post about a press release from Republicans for Environmental Protection. Quote: "Let’s have a public debate that is based on truth, not truthiness, with a sound basis in science rather than the propagation of skewed “sound science”. This is a perspective that the vast majority of Americans would likely support." A timely reminder that global warming is -- or should be -- apolitical. Too many try to cast concern for the environment as left versus right (or vice versa).
63507. owl905 at 06:35 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam wrote: "the IPCC don't expect the Greenland ice sheet to disappear for a millenia " 'the IPCC doesn't (gr sic) expect' ... is vague misrepresentation, and misdirected. The forecast for Greenland was the responsibility of the scientists contributing to the Projections Section of AR4. What is a 'a millenia'? Do you mean 'a millenium' or 'millennia? Or is that "irrelevent" as well? In fact, AR4 makes no timeframe statement, or even a projection of complete disappearance. "If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html Additionally, AR4's shortcomings on an evaluation of the stability of both the Greenland icecap and the Antarctica shelves was and is a major source of uncertainty. Not only do you miss the actual statements and conclusion, you falsely attribute claims to the wrong group. And like the criticism A made of M, you threw down a bogus accusation without a valid source for that claim.
63508. chris at 06:30 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam, I'm curious about your thoughts on Monckton's slide #24 (a selection of 9 assorted graphs purportedly suggesting a warmer Medieval Warm Period (MWP) compared to now). Monckton asserts (with zero evidence) that 700 scientists agree that the MWP was real (no one disputes this by the way) and that it was warmer than now. Abraham has contacted several of the authors who point out that Monckton's presentaton is a misrepresentation of their work. The graph in the top left corner of Monckton's slide which Monckton erroneously labels Huang 1998 (it's actually Huang et al 1997) is known not to include any 20th century temperature data since Huang et al did not use the top 100 metres of borehole data to avoid non-climatic artefacts. Therefore this work clearly has nothing to say about temperatures in the MWP compared to now since it omits the entire warming of the 20th century and beyond. In fact if one reads Huang et al.'s later work, they not only reiterate this explicitly but also present their full borehore data that indicates that current temperatures are warmer than temperatures during the MWP. That's pretty straightforward isn't it Adam? Monckton is using as one of his pet examples of a supposed evidence base for a "warmer-than-now" MWP, a piece of data that says no such thing. There's no getting away from that reality. Monckton says a lot of irrelevant stuff about his incorrect slide without at any point rebutting this very simple and straightforward reality.
63509. John Russell at 06:29 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       actually thoughtful & nealjking I'd suggest writing to the CUNA and just tell them that you're a member of a credit union and want them to know what you think of their funding of the Heartland Institute. Ask them to confirm that they've terminated the sponsorship. You don't need to tell them whether your union is one of their members or not: they'll probably just jump to the conclusion it is.
63510. Philippe Chantreau at 06:15 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam does not get to decide what the subject at hand is. The OP determines that. It includes mention of Monckton saying the opposite or different from the sources he quotes, it mentions Abraham, Dennis, Dana, and calls on future posts with more details. All of this is the subject at hand. Since Mr Hadfield summed up quite well numerous instances of Monckton contradicting his sources and himself on quite a few occasions, I will repost here links to Hadfield's excellent presentations, which are very much on topic. I'm sure a casual reader wondering about that Mr Monckton will find them enlightening. The part where Monckton talks about Dr Pinker as if he knew "him" well is especially enjoyable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K74fzNAUq4&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1xx5h1KNMAA
63511. John Russell at 06:10 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam I have just read this post and the thread down to this point. It appears that you tried to change the subject of this thread starting at your first comment, #1. The post is about specific examples of where C.Monckton has misrepresented the science; and what the science actually says. It's not about what you seem to want it to be about: C.Monckton's attempts to create a smokescreen in order to divert attention away from what John Abraham had uncovered in 2010. Two years before John Abraham first rebutted a lecture, I too went through the start of a lecture by C.Monckton which had been posted on You Tube. Every one of his slides -- which he races through at a hell of a lick -- I froze and transcribed his spoken words. I then hunted through the literature to find the facts for myself. In every case Monckton had either misunderstood the science, or cherry-picked data in order to prove that there was no warming; sea ice was not melting; CO2 was plant food; it was the sun... or any number of denialist memes, many of them even being contradictory; most being the opposite of reality. After about ten slides I gave up because I'd proved the point to myself and to the friend who'd sent me the original link to convince me that my concern for global warming was misplaced. Can I suggest that rather than hero-worship this charismatic speaker, you take what he's said in one of the recordings of his lectures and investigate it with a truly sceptical mindset. If you can do that I think you'll surprise yourself.
63512. MarkR at 06:06 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam @ 18. Take a look at point 154 for example. What Monckton labels the 'IPCC' projection with suggested errors is not, in fact, the IPCC projection. It's one he made up. Would you call making up a projection and attributing it to someone a straw man, fraud, or is this justified if Chris does it? Around that point is full of moved goalposts and the classic hoofprints of a gish gallop. In 149-150, for example, he swaps between global trends, and central England. The entire section from 150-158 is just desperate skipping around trying to avoid physics and statistics. And that's just a page worth. We see in this SkS post that Monckton also regularly misrepresents elsewhere.
63513. kampmannpeine at 06:04 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       the only think to debunk all those myths - be them from whoever - is to kind of attack each individual personally. this requires a lot of investigation ... from the scientific community ... here in Germany there is a new article in the "Süddeutsche Zeitung" about financial support of IDSO (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/vertrauliche-akten-veroeffentlicht-die-geldquellen-der-klimaskeptiker-1.1287309) by some US-companies ... even Microsoft is amongst them, however they said they only gave a piece of software and are fully aware of AGW ... therefore possibly a misfortune ... :)
63514. chris at 05:38 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam, a lot of the stuff that Monckton states in his presentations are deliberately vague with cherrypicking of tiny bits of a subject or citing old papers that have subsequently been shown to be wrong or incorrectly interpreted (even by the authors themselves). However the direct accusation by Monckton of lying and presentation of a fabricated quotation by Monckton in the example I gave just above, is quite typical of Monckton's style of misrepresentation and is a rather blatant falsehood. I can see why Monckton would be unable to "rebut" this! However can we assume that you condone Monckton's false accusations? It would be helpful to understand you're odd support of a clearly deficient presentation if you could be clear on this...
63515. Adam at 05:28 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       chris the example you state has nothing to do with the science presented in Monckton's rebuttal. Therefore it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
63516. Adam at 05:25 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       "if you think Abraham has not adequately responded to Monckton's criticisms, may I suggest you to Abraham's response, so that there is no question that it is on topic " Tom Curtis you seem to have missed what I said in my previous comment. Abraham's reply was in response to Monckton's CFACT article http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/ not his 84 page rebuttal Abraham has never even acknowledged Monckton's letter (unless you can give me a link to where he does) "go through the criticisms one at a time, and one slide at a time." "So, again I specify, one supposed misrepresentation or factual error by Abraham at a time." Well, as one example of the errors in the video there is Abraham's claim regarding sea level rise. He basically claims that Al Gore was correct regarding his claim of a 6m sea level rise in AIT. But, as Monckton pointed out in his reply, the IPCC don't expect the Greenland ice sheet to disappear for a millenia yet Abraham made no reference to this in his presentation. There are many more errors and misrepresentations like this in Abraham's presenation. Once again, I suggest that you actually read Monckton's reply.
63517. chris at 05:20 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam - have to say I find it astonishing that anyone reading Monckton's appallingly non-scientific and unpleasant mish-mash (the thing you linked to) would consider it a valid response to Professor Abraham's lecture. I decided to have a look at the first thing that Abraham said in his lecture. He pointed out that Monckton's third slide showed a picture of Sir John Houghton wth the bold statement "We're all going to lie" (i.e. a direct implication that Houghton tells lies or promotes lies or advocates lies or is otherwise associated with lying). This is accompanied with a fabricated quotation that Monckton ascribes to Sir Houghton. Abraham very straightforwardly highlights the fact that Monckton's nasty and false insinuation about lying is based on a fabricated quotation. That could hardly be clearer. Adam, please show me where (in the Monckton thing you linked to) Abrahams's straightforward setting of the record straight is "rebutted". If you give us the page number of the pdf that would do fine...
63518. Tom Curtis at 04:57 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam @18, we know exactly how much Monckton's apology is worth from his ignoble performance just prior to, and during his last trip to Australia. The answer is nothing because it is never sincere.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can everybody involved keep the discussion to the science and avoid the topic of motives. We can have a productive discussion of whether the claims and counter claims are correct, but any discussion of the latter will inevitably be speculative and probably not very productive.
63519. nealjking at 04:57 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       actually thoughtful: I contacted the CEO of one of my credit unions. Unfortunately (?), she said they had not been a member of CUNA since 1999, so she didn't have a clue. Maybe it's worth writing CUNA directly.
63520. Tom Curtis at 04:56 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam @12, if you think Abraham has not adequately responded to Monckton's criticisms, may I suggest you to Abraham's response, so that there is no question that it is on topic, and go through the criticisms one at a time, and one slide at a time. If you just drop a gish gallop on us, I will take that as clear evidence that you do not want to discuss the merits of the case, but only to create a false impression that Monckton has valid points. So, again I specify, one supposed misrepresentation or factual error by Abraham at a time. It will be very entertaining exposing Monckton's squidding* maneuvers when they are exposed step by step so that there is nowhere to hide. *squidding = disappearing in a cloud of ink, ie, spouting so much empty verbiage that your debate opponents do not have time to discuss and rebut all your comments. Monckton's original lecture was a Gish Gallop. His various responses to Abraham have been squidding in that he is trying to cover his tracks.
63521. Adam at 04:55 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       "Monckton's replies and Gish Gallop of questions shifted the goalposts (in almost every question), presented yet more myths, misrepresentations, and other 'm's, many along the "when did you stop beating your wife" lines.....And that is for every single Monckton response and question I looked at." Please give direct examples of this. And might I once again point out that it has been nearly two years, and Abraham has still not replied to any of the points Monckton raised in his letter. "Monckton's verbiage is littered with them (as in "he looks like an overcooked prawn")" Monckton apologised for that statement in his letter.
63522. r.pauli at 04:50 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       Heartland is paid to do the dirty work that these companies and individuals do not want to do themselves. Secrecy means that their contributions go for actions that they might not want to be seen doing. Now they are caught and named in funding anti-science curricula and distractionist science. It is just business... and this means they have to spend lots more on PR to recover in the future. Or find another organization with information thugs.
63523. jsam at 04:50 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       If Monckton's claims held any water he'd be published and win the Nobel.
63524. KR at 04:48 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam - Monckton is making some extraordinary claims, namely that all of the data and conclusions of climate science are incorrect. Extraordinary claims require, if not extraordinary evidence, at least some evidence. The burden of proof therefore rests with Monckton. So: can you point to a Monckton claim that you feel is actually supported? If so, I for one would be more than willing to discuss it - although I haven't seen a Monckton claim of that nature so far. But I'm certainly not going to waste my time chasing 400+ throw-away questions lacking evidential support.
63525. Tom Curtis at 04:46 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam @12, SkS has a strict comments policy in order to keep discussions on topic. As part of policy, moderation complaints are deleted so that discussion does not become bogged down debating the merits of moderators decisions. Consequently, your last paragraph is of topic and is likely to be snipped (and the post is likely to be deleted on the same grounds). However, when you make a post and then include of topic discussion, you place it entirely within the moderators discretion as to whether the take the trouble to snip the offending section, or the much easier path (as it involves just one mouse click) of deleting the whole post. The do not owe it to you to take the more onerous route. Therefore, a word to the wise, do not give them reason to make that decision. Keep the snarky remarks and out, and keep the comment on moderation policy of any sort out unless you are happy to have your post deleted. Alternatively put, if you include such comments, it is reasonable to assume you want your post deleted and you should not complain about it.
63526. Dikran Marsupial at 04:42 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam, I didn't say that Monckton is wrong, I just pointed out that he was using rhetorical devices. Now if you want to discuss his questions, then as I said, pick a thread and I will happily discuss them with you.
63527. KR at 04:42 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam - I've looked through both Abraham's and Monckton's presentations. I'll admit I did not go line-by-line, as I have a Real Life (TM) outside the blogs, but I looked over a representative sampling of each. From my reading and research: Abraham clearly found multiple misquotes, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations in Monckton's work, as supported by asking the scientists who Monckton quoted. Monckton's replies and Gish Gallop of questions shifted the goalposts (in almost every question), presented yet more myths, misrepresentations, and other 'm's, many along the "when did you stop beating your wife" lines. In addition, while claiming Abraham had engaged in ad hominen's (which he did not), Monckton's verbiage is littered with them (as in "he looks like an overcooked prawn"). And that is for every single Monckton response and question I looked at. --- Abraham supported his arguments and criticisms - Monckton did not. Abraham is a scientist, and approached the matter in that fashion, Monckton is a rhetoritician depending on verbal tricks. It's as plain as that.
63528. WheelsOC at 04:25 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
       Yeah, I'm not counting on a Kitzmiller-style outcome for this. ID got its day in court because of the violation of the Establishment Clause. I don't see how the HI's curriculum could be challenged in court on constitutional grounds. Pretty much the only hope we have is that the bad publicity and attention that's been drawn to the plan on account of the leak will cause most decision-makers to shun it. Given the blatant politicization of policy in cases like the Texas Board of Education recently, that's nowhere near as secure a hope.
63529. Adam at 04:25 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Mark R, Bernard J, Dikran, Alexandre, Enginerd, Stephen Baines, pbjam Have any of you actually read Monckton's reply to Abraham? He clearly went through point by point every single one of Abraham's claims and showed they were wrong. If Abraham's presentation was entirely correct, then he should have engaged with Monckton on the points he raised. Dikran "Adam, a "84-page letter and 466 questions", sounds very much like a Gish Gallop to me, which is a well known rhetorical device that is intended to evade topics that one does not want to discuss by presenting a profusion of other topics in the hopes that said opponent will either be distracted by one of them or not have the energy to address them all and as a result not bother to reply." I'm sorry Dikran, but that's a strawman argument. You can't simply 'assume' that Monckton is wrong, simply because of that statement. If you genuinely believe that Abraham was correct and that Monckton was wrong, please give specific examples of where Monckton is wrong in his reply. "Note also that if Abraham has retracted statements that he couldn't substantiate, then that doesn't necessarily present him in a bad light. One of Monckton's greatest problems is an inability to concede when he is in error, again this is something associated with rhetoric rather than science. " First of all, there is no "if". Abraham cut his whole presenation by 10 minutes this is basically acknowledging that Monckton was right about those issues. And you can't just claim that Abraham is 'good' simply because he acknowledged the errors. Many times in his talk Abraham knew full well he was wrong, yet stated it in anyway. He didn't really have any choice, but to admit he was wrong after Monckton's reply. Alexandre, how about actually confronting the arguments, rather than just saying demeaning insults. Tom Curtis Abraham's reply was not in response to the link I gave above, but to this article here http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/ The link I gave above was a much more detailed and extremely thorough critique of Abraham's presentation. Abraham has not responded (or even acknowledged) Monckton's 84 page letter. It's not good enough that he simply acknowledged those particular errors. Abraham has never explicitly acknowledged the numerous major errors pointed out to him in Monckton's reply. "The expectation that Dr. Abraham should respond to 466 questions is comical." Enginerd, 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. He stated himself at the beginning of the video that if anybody had any questions regarding his presentation they should contact him. But moderators thanks for letting my comment stay, as this hasn't always been the case for SkS http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please do not try to provoke the moderators into deleting your post, as you did in the last paragraph. Comments directed towards the moderators are off-topic and as such are deleted (after being read). Please acquaint yourself with the comments policy.
63530. Stephen Baines at 04:19 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       I noticed that too. My guess is that the contributions were in kind services of some sort, like the microsoft ones. But I have a hard time imagining what those services would be.
63531. John Hartz at 04:19 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       @ RyanStarr #9: The funding provided to arch-conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute is not the only money spent by "Big Oil" to influence public policy and public opinion in the US and Canada. "Big Oil" spends big bucks on: 1. lobbying the federal governments of both the US and Canada, 2. donations to candidates for offices, PACs, and super-PACs, and, 3. "sublimibal messaging" about the benefits of maintaining "business as usual" thorough purchased advertising on the mainstream media. Of course, "Big Oil" is only one copmponent of the fossil fuel industry making these expenditures.
63532. KR at 04:04 AM on 19 February 2012
       Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
       skept.fr - My apologies, there is a terminology issue involved. When you said "dissipation", I interpreted that as heat energy leaving the climate system. The D'Araso paper you reference is speaking of dissipation in terms of energy shifts between various scales, from mass movements of the ocean currents to centimeter level turbulence (~9 orders of magnitude). Note from the D'Araso paper that wind is the primary energy input for mixing, upwelling and downwelling: "Although the basic characteristics of ocean circulation have been well known for many decades, a detailed understanding of its energetics has emerged only recently. The energy sources are well understood: Wind stress acting on surface currents (or “wind-work”), particularly in the Southern Ocean, is the dominant energy source, with little net input from heating/cooling or precipitation/evaporation. " D'Araso is primarily discussing how that energy of circulation moves from large-scale (10-100km) ocean movement into small-scale turbulence, the fluid dynamics of turbulence generation. One reason it's an interesting question is that a first-pass naive look at the dynamics seems to indicate that large scale kinetic movements are self-stabilizing, whereas as observed large scale movements cascade down into small scale turbulence - and that's the process D'Araso is exploring. This has implications in mixing ratios and heat distribution, which should be helpful for improving ocean circulation and energy distribution models.
63533. actually thoughtful at 03:51 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       Credit Union National Association?! Why? I am a member of a couple of credit unions. What is the best way for me to protest the use of MY money to fund the Heartland Institute (I just got a little sick thinking about it).
63534. dana1981 at 03:42 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       pbjamm - worse yet, this time we did specifically email Monckton asking for clarification about a number of his comments (he's very bad about making his sources clear and seems to expect his audience to simply trust him, even though that trust has obviously not been earned, given his history of misrepresentations); Monckton did not reply to our request. Moreover, it's a sad excuse because his audience isn't going to email him asking for his sources. If somebody has to contact you to ask where you got information from in a presentation, the presentation is incomplete and unsatisfactory. Besides which, when he finally provides the sources for his comments, they still don't say what Monckton claims they do.
63535. Camburn at 03:18 AM on 19 February 2012
       Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
       Dikran Marsupial: I shall do so in the future. I was pressed for time yesterday, and had reviewed the papers I posted not to long ago. They do add to the disucssion. Thank you for explaining the policy.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem. If in doubt, this format ought to be safe: (i) make an assertion, (ii) provide link, (iii) explain how the link supports assertion.
63536. owl905 at 03:16 AM on 19 February 2012
       Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
       @sky 47 Dutch org called DEOS tracks the Gulf Stream Current tracking http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/index.shtml Historical charts http://rads.tudelft.nl/gulfstream/gif/ A slowing around 2005 gave up some headlines (it didn't stop), and the fringe dragged it out in 2010 during the Macondo oil spill disaster.
       Moderator Response: links fixed
63537. Ian Forrester at 03:03 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       MarkR#11, it is all described in the link. There is no money going to the scientists, they are, in effect "peer reviewing" (at no cost) articles sent in by citizens who have seen the effects of global warming in their area. The nonsense put out by Laframboise and other deniers is just more slander and smearing of climate scientists. Please check the link I gave. To claim that it is a conflict of interest for scientists to be on the Advisory Panel and also to be affiliated with the IPCC is just nonsense plus there is no attempt to hide their associations unlike the way deniers do.
63538. pbjamm at 03:00 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Tom Curtis@7 This Monkton quote makes me chuckle: "he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me." As though he were the ultimate authority rather than the peer reviewed scientific literature.
63539. Tom Curtis at 02:58 AM on 19 February 2012
       Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
       Camburn @37, I have often noticed that you have a modus operandi of providing a small link or undefended disparaging comment on the topic of any given post, thereby imposing a significant argumentative burden on those who wish show that the evidence in your links is irrelevant/off topic/ or just plain wrong. I do not have time to waste on those games of yours. Consequently I will simply point out where those comments or links violate the comment policy. If you actually want to discuss the topic, do so in good faith and take up the burden of explaining your sources, and showing the relevance to the topic. If in your opinion the sources are not worth that effort, I will take you opinion of their worth at face value and treat them as irrelevant to the discussion.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The point has been made, please lets go back to the science. I am sure that Camburn is now aware of the comments policy on this issue and will conform to it in future. Any further contravention of the comments policy will result in posts being deleted.
63540. John Russell at 02:50 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       I note that Fred Singer has pretty much confirmed receipt of the money and it has been used to "...hire students whose job it is to review current papers in the literature and these are reviewed and get published in the NIPCC reports."
63541. Camburn at 02:42 AM on 19 February 2012
       Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data
       Tom@35: Instead of discussing my posting skills, why not discuss the findings of the papers. nuoncounter@36: I will try to do so in the future. I have not noted any papers since the two that I posted that have changed the conclussions of the above papers. Do you know of any that disagree with the findings?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The comments policy does indeed forbid link only posts, and a substantive description of the content provided by the link is required. In future, please provide your interpretation of the evidence provided by the referenced material and explain how it is relevant to the discussion. This will encourage others to discuss the findings of the paper.
63542. muoncounter at 02:21 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       RyanStarr#9: "And where's the 'Big Oil' we keep hearing about?" Right here: Based on this Heartland statement, in 2007 foundations provided approximately $3.69 million, corporations contributed $832,000 and approximately 1,600 individuals. Energy companies -- "coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear" -- contributed approximately 5% or around $260,000.)
63543. logicman at 02:13 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
       "John Mashey, a retired computer scientist and Silicon Valley executive, said he filed a complaint to the IRS this week that said Heartland's public relations and lobbying efforts violated its non-profit status. Mashey said he sent off his audit, the product of three months' research, just a few hours before the unauthorised release of the Heartland documents." "I believe there was a massive abuse of 501c(3)," Mashey said. "My extensive study of these think anks showed numerous specific actions that violated the rules – such as that their work is supposed to be factually based. Such as there was a whole lot of behaviour that sure looked like lobbying and sending money to foreign organisations that are not charities." Source: Heartland Institute faces fresh scrutiny over tax status The U.S. charity laws appear to share our U.K. common law base of charity law. What is held in common is that falsehoods, bias and insufficiently researched studies all count against an organization being able to call itself a charity. Again in common, a charitable organization must be primarily engaged in a permitted activity, or what the tax authorities describe as an exempt purpose. "Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations." "To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), ..." IRS exemption requirements. caveat: I am not a lawyer. More info from John Mashey: Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax
63544. muoncounter at 02:07 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
       Bernard J#32: "there would be an immediate and overwhelming testing of the material in court, a la Kitzmiller v. Dover " The grounds for Kitzmiller were based on the argument that ID is creationism in disguise. There is hardly an analogous argument to be made over the low quality of HI's so-called science. The teaching of bad science is still rampant: Interviews with Harvard graduates in the late 1980s illustrate how widespread these misconceptions about the seasons are. When asked what causes the seasons, most of the newly graduated students gave the same wrong answer that many people give: the seasons are caused by earth getting closer (or farther) from the sun. Given the amount of money the other side is willing to throw around, this would not be pretty.
63545. Stephen Baines at 01:57 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Good grief. I'd like someone to explain to me how anyone can take Monckton seriously after what Abraham and Hadfield have revealed? It's clear as day he is willing do engage in any misrepresentation or fabrication as long as its suits his purpose. How can anyone trust an iota of what the guy says? BTW John and Dana, that graphic is cool. It's too bad the scientists are faceless however.
       Response: [JC] Stephen, help me track down photos of all the scientists and I'll happily update it. There are only so many hours in the day.
63546. Ken Lambert at 01:33 AM on 19 February 2012
       The Year After McLean - A Review of 2011 Global Temperatures
       Suggest you have a look at my comment on Glenn's piece in "Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!" I can only get about 0.37W/sq.m of total OHC increase over the last 7 years. The latest Loeb paper quotes total global imbalance at 0.55+/-0.45W/sq.m: 1.0 or 0.1 confidence interval - pretty wide. Hansen quotes 0.6W/sq.m. I have never claimed that the warming imbalance has 'stopped' or even zeroed. I have claimed that it has reduced - much less on some analyses than the modelled 0.9 - 1.0W/sq.m. - or was never of that magnitude to start with - which poses a problem for the theory of *increasing* imbalance from steadily increasing human releases of CO2. [snip]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] I have stepped out of this discussion due to the need for moderation. Inflamatory content snipped. EVERYBODY involved in this discussion, please stick to the science; leave enforcement of the comments policy to the moderators.

       Also, please conduct any discussion of OHC on the other thread that Ken mentions so that we don't conduct the same discussion in parallel on both threads. I've added a link to Ken's earlier comment to make it easier to locate.
63547. Enginerd at 01:30 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Thanks for this post. It was very interesting to see scientists explaining how their work has been misrepresented. I especially enjoyed the quote from Tad Pfeffer. Adam: I followed the first link provided in your comment. The expectation that Dr. Abraham should respond to 466 questions is comical. And, for what it's worth, the assertion that Abraham is somehow "surrendering" to Monckton immediately reminded me of Charlie Sheen insisting that he is "winning."
63548. Ken Lambert at 01:17 AM on 19 February 2012
       Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
       Glenn The 0-2000m OHC chart shows a rise in OHC from roughly 12E22 Joules to 15E22 Joules over a period of 2005-2011 - 7 years. This is a rate of 3E22 Joules over 7 years or 0.43E22 Joules/year = 43E20 Joules/year. 145E20 Joules/year equates to a TOA imbalance of 0.9W/sq.m. So the 0-2000m OHC increase equates to 0.27W/sq.m at TOA. 2000m to the bottom is very uncertain. The last number I recall was around 0.1W/sq.m (Willis?) This makes a total OHC increase around 0.37W/sq.m TOA equivalent which is far short of the modelled 0.9-1.0W/sq.m - 10 year hiatus notwithstanding. What are you claiming is the OHC increase measured from 2000m to the bottom?
63549. Bernard J. at 01:16 AM on 19 February 2012
       DenialGate Highlights Heartland's Selective NIPCC Science
       

       The very public dissection of the Intelligent Design movement at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education trial was an enormous blow to the good PR that IDists had enjoyed until people got a close look at them.

       Stephen Baines at #29 pre-empted my response, but it merits a repetition of the basic notion. A part of me actually hopes that Heartland does try to put its K-12 material into schools, for exactly the outcome that would occur - there would be an immediate and overwhelming testing of the material in court, a la Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Board of Education. The queue of climate experts willing to testify would probably wrap around the block, and the likes of the Heartland rogues' gallery (and others such as Monckton and Watts) would either turn up to be scientifically emasculated in a legal test of their claims, or they would avoid the courtroom altogether and be conspicuously seen to be the flim-flam artists that they are. Frankly, I can't see that Heartland can in any way move on its schools plan now - not if they don't want to suffer an ignominious legal challenge. Further, I can't see that they or any of the other lobby groups could even attempt in their turn a legal challenge if, say, the AAAS helped to structure a K-12 program to enable in schools a greater scientific understanding of global warming: in any impartial courtroom testing of science, there would be only one possible outcome (yes, probably even in the States...). A corollary of this is that it's irrelevant whether of not that document is genuine - it's already done its job and the real scientific community will be carefully scrutinising the US school system for any sign of Heartland's plan, and the day that something appears on the radar there'll likely a complainant case ready to roll. I'd be surprised if such a case is not already being prepared somewhere, in anticipation. Heck, Skeptical Science represents the basic structure of such an effort, so if there isn't already a legal attack project running, a nacent one could do worse than to start here (...or at RealScience, of course!).
63550. Tom Curtis at 00:49 AM on 19 February 2012
       A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
       Adam @1, John Abraham has explicitly responded to Monckton's critique of his presentation here at Skeptical Science. In it he acknowledges just three errors in his original presentation: 1) He admits that Monckton says he was "bored" at one time in his speach, where as Abrahams originally quoted him as saying he was "boring". 2) He admits that some of Monckton's slides noted as containing information without reference are marked as being from the SPPI (of which Monckton is the Policy Director). However, he correctly notes that the SPPI was not the original source of the data so that that does not constitute a proper scientific reference (nor a reasonable aid in checking the veracity of the information). 3) He admits that just one slide of Monckton's containing information without reference was marked as data from the University of Alabama Hunstville. However he correctly maintains that that is not a proper scientific reference, which would include the papers name, journal and date of publication. At a minimum it should specify the channel, and version number of the UAH satellite temperature series, and the date on which the data was accessed. As we are now on (at least) version 5.2 of the UAH record, that is not a trivial issue: Abraham also notes an additional error in Monckton's speach. I quote from the second of your sources:

       "Abraham and the university are half-heartedly attempting to characterize the issue as a mere “academic dispute”, as if telling lies is what academics do. However Abraham has put up a new version and taken out the worst of the outrageously libelous errors, which amounts to a full ten minutes of lies removed! Abrahams original version. Newer, tamer, but still incorrect version. As Monckton points out on Watts Up, this is an admission on their part that the first version was libellous, but with many errors still remaining:"

       (My emphasis) I note that the underlined sentence is a direct lie. The University of St Thomas' lawyers had written to Monckton expressly stating that:

       "It is the University's position that Professor Abraham has done nothing improper or illegal in expressing his ideas and opinions on this matter and that Professor Abraham has not engaged in any academic or professional misconduct."

       Inferring an opinion in direct contradiction of a stated opinion that has not been retracted is not justifiable, and Monckton is certainly intelligent enough to know so. What is more, John Abraham continues to maintain both both his original and his revised presentations on his faculty website. As he continues to publish the original presentation, the implication that he has resiled from that is obviously ungrounded. Again, Monckton is in a position and intelligent enough to know this. Unfortunately he is also intelligent enough to know that his accolytes will not care for such matters of consistency, and unscrupulous enough to exploit that gullibility in his followers. Again quoting from your second link:

       "Plenty of libels indeed remain in the new version of Abraham’s talk: he has even been imprudent enough to add quite a new and serious early in his talk, having failed yet again to check his facts with me. In the new version of Abraham’s talk, every remaining libel will be regarded by the courts as malice, because he was told exactly what libels he had perpetrated, and was given a fair chance to retract and apologize, but he has wilfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels. And when the courts find that his talk was and remains malicious, then he will have thrown away the one defense that might otherwise have worked for him – that in US law a public figure who sues for libel must be able to prove malice. I can prove it, in spades."

       The claim that Abraham has "willfully chosen to persist in and repeat many of the libels [sic]" directly contradicts the claim that Abraham and/or the University of St Thomas which continues to host both of his presentations, has surrendered. Therefore that claim is also deceptive. As the claim is made by Jonovva rather than by Monckton, I cannot attest sufficiently to he intelligence to know that it was deliberate deception (aka, a lie), or whether she was simply first deceived by Monckton. Finally, I have a friend who tells me to never attribute to dishonesty what you can attribute to stupidity. Therefore I cannot comment on the ethical basis of your regurgitation of Monckton's deceits.

Prev  1263  1264  1265  1266  1267  1268  1269  1270  1271  1272  1273  1274  1275  1276  1277  1278  Next