Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 Next
Comments 63701 to 63750:
-
chriskoz at 14:31 PM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam @40, Thanks Adam for pointing me at the Monckton's response to JA. This voluminus, gishgallop document is too big to describe, let alone answer to any of its arguments, as it fits perfectly the GG definition here and could be added to the listed examples. It's only possible to dispute it one point at a time, as many commenters here are trying to do, provided that the opposite side tries to focus on the actual point until the point reaches the logical conclusion, as stated in the rationalwiki link above. That's unfortunately not the case with lord Monckton, as his famous evasive actions - "monckton maneuvers" - have been documented on the web. Sadly, it appears also not to be the case with you on this thread, as several commenters tried to narrow the focus to some specific points but you, in response, are trying to dillute the focus. For example, in your comment above, you are saying: "Chris if you read all of Monckton's rebuttal you will realize that what Abraham asked was most likely a strawman designed to mislead the authors" You are clearly dilluting any depth of arguments here and running into Monckton gish-gallop, as emphasized text indicates. As a classical gishgalloper, Monckton wants JA to engage into the debate of "responding to every question" raised, even if that question is irrellevant. You want to engage SkS readers into the same. This is physically impossible. I condone JA for his silece about Monckton's "biblical response" and suggest to SkS moderators to curtail this threat as we don't have time to read it all. But I'm looking forward to the detailed critique of "Monckton's bible" in coming posts. We will see what Adam will have to say there. Hopefully the moderators wil keep it on topic. Thanks guys for good work! -
Sceptical Wombat at 14:11 PM on 19 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
If I understand it correctly the more heat that goes to the deep ocean the better. It will cause a slight rise in sea levels due to thermal expansion but is unlikely to otherwise affect the surface climate (including the surface layers of the ocean) for many thousands of years. Or have I got it wrong? -
Camburn at 13:45 PM on 19 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
And another way to learn about the Medieval Warm Period in North America: "Severe though the six multiyear droughts since the mid nineteenth century have been in terms of environmental and social impacts, as climate events they were dwarfed by a series of megadroughts that struck the West between about 900AD and 1400AD. These droughts were sufficiently long in duration that it actually makes more sense to describe the Medieval climate of the West as not so much afflicted by a sequence of droughts but as simply more arid than in subsequent centuries or now." The Medieval Droughts would make man shudder today, and in fact may happen again. Medieval Drought North America The mega droughts of long term duration indicate that there was a definite world wide climate effect. One does not have a drought centuries long without other areas of the world being affected as well. It is also quite well defined as to time line in North America. -
tmac57 at 13:37 PM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
I have this fantasy of Monckton bringing a lawsuit against Abraham,and Abraham's lawyers having every one of those scientists that Monckton has misrepresented sitting in court prepared to take the stand.I would love to see the wind deflating from his well puffed up ego as he realizes that his game is over.Sort of like the Marshall Mcluhan scene in 'Annie Hall' (Google it if you are not familiar) -
cjshaker at 13:12 PM on 19 February 2012Medieval Warm Period was warmer
Here's another way to learn about the Medieval Warm Period “The scientists found the years from 800 to 1300, known as the Medieval Warm Period, had the most frequent fires in the 3,000 years studied. Other research has found that the period from 800 to 1300 was warm and dry,” the university said. “What’s not so well known about the Medieval Warm Period is how warm it was in the western U.S.,” Swetnam said. “This is one line of evidence that it was very fiery on the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada–and there’s a very strong relationship between drought and fire.” http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/18/sequoias_endured_500_years_fire_and_drought/ Chris Shaker -
jimb at 13:09 PM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
I noticed that on Adam's link in @1 "Abraham surrenders to Moncton" that Adam highlights a statement by Moncton "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." How's that court case coming? -
skywatcher at 12:42 PM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam, you might also note that CO2Science is well known for misrepresenting hunderds of legitimate papers (I should know, it's misrepresented one of mine). Using papers that identify any old warm period between about 800AD and 1400AD as indicating the Medieval Warm Period was global is stupid. Different places experienced particular warmth at different times, and when you add all those signals together it means the overall average is not one of exceptional warmth. That some places experienced notable Medieval warmth has never been in doubt. A good place to start is Hughes and Diaz (1994) "Was there a Medieval Warm Period and if so, where and when?", where even in the early 1990s, it was thought most likely that the MWP was not a global, synchronous event. That research led to the initial hemispheric and global reconstructions, which the skeptics love to hate, and even now, nearly two decades later, the most complete evidence indicates the MWP was globally at the very most a relatively modest event. Adam, you should do well to remember the caveat I've been trying to help Burt Rutan with in his struggles to understand climate science at Scholars and Rogues is this: A strong Medieval Warm Period = HIGH climate sensitivity. If skeptics really actually understood this point we'd hear a lot less about the MWP and the Hockey Stick! -
dhogaza at 12:22 PM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam: "But might I point you to this list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments The arguments made by skeptics (including Monckton) are indeed supported by hundreds of studies in the peer reviewed literature." Oh, we know all about poptech, alright: http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=poptech&x=0&y=0 Monckton. Poptech. Barrel meet bottom. "Have you seen 'An Inconvenient Truth'? He shows these expensive computer generated images of all these major cities getting flooded by his supposed 6 metre sea level rise. No, he didn't give an exact timeframe..." Right, he didn't give a timeframe, therefore Monckton's lying when he suggest he did. -
JMurphy at 12:20 PM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam wrote : "Chris if you read all of Monckton's rebuttal you will realize that what Abraham asked was most likely a strawman designed to mislead the authors." 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. -
skept.fr at 12:06 PM on 19 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Two other points : - I use to see 0-2000 m data for OHC on SkS or on NOAA-NODC website. Is there a reason for choosing the 0-1800 m interval? - the 4a figure is a bit unclear for me. Why is there just a 2005-2010 period for 0-1800m and a 2001-2010 period for 0-700m? Is it unimportant for the calculation of energy imbalance if we do not take account of 700-1800m for half of the period? Thanks for explanations! -
skept.fr at 11:51 AM on 19 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
In a previous discussion with Tom Curtis on SkS, about confidence level, I was said that 95% is a "conventional" level in statistical significance. But in the abstract (I've not found the paper for free), Loeb et al mention "uncertainties at the 90% confidence level". Is there in the full content of the paper a reason for this choice of 90% rather than 95% or 99% confidence? -
chris at 11:46 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam @ 40 says: "I'm not familiar with Huang's work, so cannot comment on it, but might I point out that is just one study. Co2 science has gathered hundreds of studies supporting the existence of the MWP http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php" How dreary... You're playing the same game of evasion and redirection as Monckton. The fact is that Abraham pointed out a clear misrepresentation in Monckton's presentation of paleo data including that of Huang. Never mind not rebutting this in his mish-mash, Monckton compounds his misrepresentation by further misrepresenting Huang's data. Rather than engage with this, or ponder why Monckton is presenting a fabricated graph and pretending it belongs to Huang, you simply evade the issue by pointing to some unrelated website. Monckton made very explicit false claims - he insinuated that Sir John Houghton supported lies...he attributed a fabricated quote to Sir Houghton...he asserted (with zero evidence) that 700 scientists supported the interpretation that the MWP was warmer than current temperatures. 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. Do you get the point Adam? Abraham highlighted these misrepresentations in his lecture, and Monckton is unable to rebut them since they're unrebuttable. You feel compelled to defend Monckton's disgraceful falsehoods and misrepresentations, yet don't seem to have any factual basis for doing so.....and so you evade the issue by directing us to some irrelevant website that has nothing to do with Abraham's lecture, nor Monckton's mish-mash... -
Tristan at 11:36 AM on 19 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
It doesn't really mean either of those because you can't look at the study in a vacuum. To get a naive 'best estimate' of the imbalance would require something like the bayesian interval of Hansen, Trenberth and Loeb. Maybe DM can provide that. -
skept.fr at 11:33 AM on 19 February 2012Breaking News…The Earth Is Warming…Still!
#51 KR : Apologies are mine, I was all but clear in my expression. Thank you for your explanation about D'Araso paper. For a non-physicist, theses questions of energy may seem simple at first glance, but become very complex when you try to deepen your understanding. -
Camburn at 11:23 AM on 19 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Alexandre@2: I have not read any evidence that the range would be flat or negative. Last night I was researching TOA measurements, and came to the conclusion that we do not have the ability to measure these with great confidence. The above post confirms this. If there is no open source for this paper, I will aquire a copy of it to read and absorb for a better understanding of the conclusion. My gut is telling me that the number that seems most reasonable is approx 0.2W/m2. That is based on other papers dealing with issues that are not central to this paper. The L&P effect comes to mind tho. -
Tom Curtis at 11:12 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adam @40 asks:"Once again might I ask, why if Monckton was completely wrong in his rebuttal, why Abraham did not respond to any of Monckton's questions?"
Because an adequate rebuttal already existed in the form of his pre-existing presentation (duh)."And why did he edit out his video by 10 minutes?"
I don't know. However it is certainly not as an admission of error. He still promotes the original presentation on his page with not caveats or other admission of error. Therefore the most natural interpretation is that he still stands by what he said therein (except for misquoting Monckton as saying he was boring). -
Alexandre at 10:52 AM on 19 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
Camburn 0.5 ± 0.43 W/m2. That means a range from 0.07 to 0.93 W/m2, probably in a Gaussian distribution. Which range would you bet on? Maybe 0.00 flat? Or even some negative amount? -
Alexandre at 10:46 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Talk about hijacking the thread with outrageous claims... -
Camburn at 10:43 AM on 19 February 2012Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'
The error bars presented in the above post of +-0.43 W/m2 indicate that the climate is virtually in balance or substantially out of balance. Time will tell which it is. Is there an open source to Loeb (2012)? -
Adam at 10:36 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
John Russell "C.Monckton's attempts to create a smokescreen in order to divert attention away from what John Abraham had uncovered in 2010." Once again might I ask, why if Monckton was completely wrong in his rebuttal, why Abraham did not respond to any of Monckton's questions? And why did he edit out his video by 10 minutes? I cannot comment on the personal research that you have done on Monckton's presentations, since you did not give specific examples. But might I point you to this list of 900+ peer reviewed papers supporting skeptics arguments The arguments made by skeptics (including Monckton) are indeed supported by hundreds of studies in the peer reviewed literature. chris "Abraham has contacted several of the authors who point out that Monckton's presentaton is a misrepresentation of their work. " Chris if you read all of Monckton's rebuttal you will realize that what Abraham asked was most likely a strawman designed to mislead the authors. I'm not familiar with Huang's work, so cannot comment on it, but might I point out that is just one study. Co2 science has gathered hundreds of studies supporting the existence of the MWP http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php Owl905 Millenia or Milenia is the plural of a Millennium meaning 1,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenia 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. dhogaza "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?" Have you seen 'An Inconvenient Truth'? He shows these expensive computer generated images of all these major cities getting flooded by his supposed 6 metre sea level rise. No, he didn't give an exact timeframe, but he clearly implied that this was going to be happening in the near future. CBDunkerson "he has yet to cite even one specific issue where Monckton was correct." "nor respond to any of the numerous issues cited by others to demonstrate otherwise." If you can point out with direct quotes from Monckton's reply where any of his major claims were wrong please do so. I do not believe anyone on this thread has made any credible argument against Monckton's reply to Abraham. And you also keep avoiding my question of why, if you are so sure that Monckton is wrong, why Abraham has not responded or even acknowledged Monckton's letter. All I wanted was to simply point out that John Cook was being unfair in his article by citing Abraham 's presentation, but ignoring Monckton's repsonse.But it seems we're getting nowhere on this thread. All of you have obviously made up your minds that everything Monckton says is wrong. We're never going to resolve this discussion, so therefore there doesn't seem to be any reason to continue with it.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] You asked for specific examples where Abraham was correct and Monckton was wrong. More than one was provided for you, your ignorance of the work of Huang is not an adequate response, nor does pointing out that it is one of many studies. Asking questions and not treating the answers seriously is clearly trolling.Warning #1
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
bill4344 at 10:23 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Those interested in local connections (to Australia, that is), don't forget SA's own Senator Cory Bernardi. He was funded for travel an accommodation by Heartland to speak at their 4th ICCC in 2010, and then had accommodation provided for him again later that year. For more (with video; get your head-vice out!) see my comment over at Hot Topic. -
Brian Purdue at 09:18 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
I find this “introductory” post interesting because the author, John Cook, was recently subjected to a slur by a WUWT blogsite “moderator” as a receiver of money from a WW2 Nazi collaborator. This style of attack is Monckton’s par excellence because the Viscount either evokes the Nazi symbolism, as he did with Professor Ross Garnaut and lots of others, or he’s calling them communists; now there’s a contradiction in terms. This “debating” style has become the climate denier’s hallmark, and a common chorus emanating from the ranks of climate conspiracy theorists. But without it, they really don’t have much to talk about, and certainly not when it comes to the peer-reviewed science. -
logicman at 08:38 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Monckton has most definitely stated in writing: "global warming has stopped". His stand on that point could not be more clear. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/monckton-global_warming_has_stopped.pdf -
JohnMashey at 08:37 AM on 19 February 2012Denialgate - Internal Heartland Documents Expose Climate Denial Funding Network
re: 204 Not much surprised me, although details filled some holes in spreadsheets and certain details clarified the almost-certain identity of A.D. [Don't ask.] Also, I was slightly surprised to see Big Tobacco still well-engaged, $50K from Altria, $110K from Reynolds American in 2011. The tobacco archives had nothing I could find after ~2001, and it seemed like they were trimming, but they were still on the cigarette dole, even higher. -
owl905 at 08:12 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Adding to JMurphy and chris - from Moncton's reply: "We now have confirmation from the UK Met Office that there has been no “global warming” to speak of for 15 years." -
CBDunkerson at 08:05 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
Please note that while Adam has now posted to this thread five times he has yet to cite even one specific issue where Monckton was correct... nor respond to any of the numerous issues cited by others to demonstrate otherwise. Further, the 'meta' issues that Adam has raised (e.g. 'Abraham has surrendered') are absurd on their face given, for example, the previously cited 'John Abrahams takes a stand' article from St. Thomas just last week. This would seem to constitute a tacit admission that Abraham, in fact, was correct. Otherwise Adam would be able to talk about actual instances to the contrary... rather than metaphorically sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating, 'I cannot hear you! Monckton is always right! He has never made any mistakes! All hail the one and true non-voting member of the House of Lords!'. The only person I've ever seen provide more evasive and 'fact challenged' answers than Adam's performance here is Monckton himself. Though Monckton at least provides specific falsehoods. -
william5331 at 08:04 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
We, the convinced, read these things but need no convincing. The question is how to get such information to the public. Does anyone out there have the ability and funding to produce a cartoon that could go viral. Here is an example on a different subject of the sort of thing that might just inform a wider audience than us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI5AjJd00cM It combines humor and information in a very palatable form. -
chris at 07:51 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
whoops, now I'm doing it! I meant to say: "The paper from which the data is supposedly taken is Huang et al (1997) which contains no data for the 20th century". -
chris at 07:47 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
A troubling addendum to my post just above that illustrates some of the misrepresentation of "data" presented by Monckton. In Monckton's mish-mash response to Abraham's lecture (see link in Adam's first post on this thread), Monckton redisplays the side that Abraham's calls CM #24, and which contains a series of pictures that Monckton uses to misrepresent current understanding of historical global temperatures (the slide is on p 18 of Monckton's mish-mash). The top left hand corner picture is labeled (Huang et al 1998). Further on in Monckton's mish-mash (page 20) the Huang et al picture is presented in a full figure, and this time it's labelled (Huang et al, 2004). However that picture that Monckton continually mis-cites, isn't from any of Shaopeng Huang's papers. It's a made-up figure, and I suspect that's why Monckton is careful not to properly reference it. The paper from which the data is supposedly taken is Huang et al (2007) which contains no data for the 20th century (see my post linked to in top of this post). Someone has rather arbitrarily made up an x-axis with made-up dates to make it appear that the data extend to 1990. -
JMurphy at 07:45 AM on 19 February 2012A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation
I'd better qualify my accusations against Monckton above (just to counter any wriggle-room for his fans) by stating that when I state what "Monckton DID say", I am backing Abraham (no 's', unlike what I wrote above, unfortunately) in his statement that if you were to believe Monckton, you would have to accept that "the world is not warming", "sea levels are not rising", etc. Monckton's 'arguments' DO claim all of these and more. (Hope that makes sense !) -
CBDunkerson at 07:43 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - Infographic Illustrating the Heartland Denial Funding Machine
Eternal Sunshine, actually while I agree that it should be blatantly illegal, they may have some cover on that issue. The whole 'money is speech' / 'corporations are people' movement pushed through by 'conservative' judges in the US has included several rulings that money spent on 'issue' campaigns does not violate the prohibitions on interfering in politics... even if these 'issue' ads clearly support or oppose a specific candidate. So, if Heartland can make a case that their focus was to weaken collective bargaining (which, is likely true) and any support for specific candidates was motivated only by their position on that issue they might very well be on solid 'legal' grounds. -
JMurphy at 07:35 AM on 19 February 2012A 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... -
funglestrumpet at 07:28 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate 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. -
Eternal Sunshine at 07:20 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - 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. -
dhogaza at 07:10 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
funglestrumpet at 07:00 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - 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. -
John Russell at 06:50 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - 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). -
owl905 at 06:35 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
chris at 06:30 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
John Russell at 06:29 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - 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. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:15 AM on 19 February 2012A 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 -
John Russell at 06:10 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
MarkR at 06:06 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
kampmannpeine at 06:04 AM on 19 February 2012A 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 ... :) -
chris at 05:38 AM on 19 February 2012A 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... -
Adam at 05:28 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
Adam at 05:25 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
chris at 05:20 AM on 19 February 2012A 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... -
Tom Curtis at 04:57 AM on 19 February 2012A 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. -
nealjking at 04:57 AM on 19 February 2012DenialGate - 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.
Prev 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 Next
