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

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life:

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 Support

	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...

Latest Posts

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

Printable Version | Link to this page

Comments

Prev 1 2 3

Comments 101 to 104 out of 104:

muoncounter at 13:45 PM on 22 February, 2012
Misrepresentations of Keigwin's Sargasso Sea temperature data seem deeply embedded in denial-world. 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.
0 0
scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 22 February, 2012
Hmm, that is interesting because it doesnt take much effort to see that the paper was misrepresented and the data edited in the pseudo-skeptic version. 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".
0 0
muoncounter at 14:50 PM on 22 February, 2012
I've asked Hillary Olson for a copy of the study she did; as I recall it was in painstaking detail. As for misrepresentation, one doesn't have to look very far.
0 0
paulhtremblay at 04:44 AM on 23 February, 2012
Adam, 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.
0 0