Arguments
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.
Our good friends Art Robinson and Willie Soon beat the esteemed viscount to it by quite a few years. Unfortunately, the Olson paper exposing this fraud has vanished from UT's earth and space science project website.
Also see the abstract of this 2010 GSA presentation: Misrepresentations of Sargasso Sea temperatures by Arthur B. Robinson et al
These are outright lies masquerading as valid science. But that's ok if you put your hands over your ears and repeat 'not listening' over and over again.
What sites to we know of that are publishing Robinson's effort or derivatives?
Could we send them a suggestion to remove and if not create a little page of "These sites knowingly misrepresent Keigwin's paper".
It is time to step up your game instead of all the superficial one line responses. You have been asked to go to specific threads to discuss your arguments rather than discussing them here. I noticed that since you first started posting, two very specific criticisms of Mockton have appeared on SkS. You have not posted there, and I guess that is because you know vague arguments are easier to defend than specific ones.
You bring up Douglas as an example of a peer reviewed article that supports Mockton. In fact, it does not. See:
Real Climate
For one discussion. Or, better still, post to this specific thread:
Skeptical Science
You also write that it is only my "opinion" that the MWP was not global. No. That is the scientific consensus. That latest Mockton thread discusses just that:
Skeptical Science
If you really think our understanding of the MWP is wrong, if you are a true skeptic, you should post there with specifics. Simply dismissing my criticism as "opinion" isn't very skeptical at all.