Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

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


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


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

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

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

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Peter Hadfield Letter to Chris Monckton

Posted on 25 March 2012 by Rob Honeycutt, dana1981

Peter Hadfield (potholer54) has been engaging in a debate of sorts with Christopher Monckton on WattsUpWithThat; however, Monckton has failed to respond to Hadfield's latest crushing salvo, in which he caught Monckton misrepresenting his sources (as usual).

Monckton has asserted that he has been too busy on his latest speaking tour to respond to Hadfield.  Indeed, we can attest that Monckton has been busy, and will soon publish a post regarding one of his latest misinformation seminars.  However, as Hadfield notes in the video below, Monckton had promised a response prior to leaving for this particular misinformation tour, and failed to deliver one. 

Dear Mr. Monckton,

A couple of months ago you entered into a debate with me on (See “Update on the Monckton-Hadfield debate”) about alleged errors in your public lectures — allegations that I made in a series of videos on my YouTube channel “Potholer54″. But as soon as I presented documentary evidence to back up my claims, you suddenly fell silent. Despite promising Anthony Watts that you would respond when you returned from Australia mid-February, you have not done so, and now you have written to tell me that you are, in effect, running away. Sorry, I don’t know how else to phrase your abrupt retreat from our debate as soon as I showed evidence that supports my allegations and starkly contradicts your claims.

I am referring to your e-mail to me dated March 22nd:

"I am on a very busy tour and will be still more busy when I return to the UK, so I do not know when I shall have further time to respond. Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities and, while I try to accommodate them, other priorities must sometimes come first."

Let me address the first excuse first. I understand you are currently on a busy tour, but you promised Anthony Watts you would respond when you returned from your last tour, and you did not. Meanwhile I note that you have had plenty of time to respond to a university newsletter that criticized you, and you spent two hours talking on skype to a small classroom of students. I fail to see why these are “priorities”, while my 57,000 subscribers and the hundreds of thousands of subscribers to wattsupwiththat are not deserving of an answer from you concerning clear evidence that you seriously misled your audiences over a period of several years. The people watching this debate have watched you vacate your chair, and are still expecting to see you to re-appear from backstage at any moment with some incisive rebuttal after checking my evidence. I am sure they will be as shocked as I am to hear the squealing of car tyres as you make good your escape.

You have, after all, been given every advantage in this debate. It is taking place on wattsupwiththat, a regular forum for you and one that YOU chose, so there can be no suggestion that the umpire is biased against you. In fact, even though he and I disagree on the climate issue, Anthony Watts has been good enough to give us equal space for our responses. You were given not just one but two to rebut my videos, responding first to a summary of my videos that was made by someone in a WUWT comments forum, and then directly to something that was, as you put it: “not word what [Peter Hadfield] said, but I hope that they fairly convey his meaning.” (“Monckton responds to Peter Hadfield aka “potholer54″ — plus Hadfield’s response”)

With respect, no, the points you wrote did not fairly convey my meaning — in fact they ignored the substance of the allegations altogether and a lot of your response focused on ad hominem attacks questioning my integrity, honesty and intelligence.

So when I responded with the actual allegations, along with supporting documentary evidence –17 video clips of your speeches, 13 scientific papers and studies and one newspaper article that you yourself cited — and showed that you had clearly misquoted or misrepresented your own sources, you inexplicably fell silent, and then failed to deliver your promised response.

Your other excuse: “Many people like to engage in debates on inconsequentialities”

If you think these issues are “inconsequentialities” then why did you bring them up time and again during your many public speeches? The sun is largely responsible for recent warming — there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature over the last 500 million years — only one Himalayan glacier is retreating — the Earth has been cooling — Greenland isn’t melting — there is no long-term decline of Arctic ice…. etc. etc. It was you, not I, who decided these should be the bedrock of your case against anthropogenic climate change. I simply asked you for the sources of your assertions and when you gave them to me I checked them — and it turned out that you either misrepresented or misquoted these sources, or your source does not have the authority you claim it does.

And if you think they are inconsequentialities, why have you decide to expend several thousand words on wattsupwiththat trying to rebut them? You were quite happy to do so when you thought the debate would be easy, and when you addressed your own rather crude summary of what you thought I was alleging. It was only when I came back with details and a wealth of supporting evidence that you apparently decided it was better to beat a hasty retreat than try to answer such prima facie evidence.

I appreciate that you would much prefer this kind of debate to take place on stage, where oratory is paramount. It is much harder to engage in this kind of debate online, where everything is written down and can be quoted back, where sources are demanded for any facts you give, and where these sources can be checked and verified. But this is the nub of our debate — whether you have chosen reliable sources and quoted and represented them correctly.

Nowhere in my videos or in the WUWT debate have I suggested that you are making these errors deliberately, or that you are being dishonest ( a courtesy you did not extend to me), and neither have I descended to ad hominem attacks or name calling (also a courtesy you did not extend to me.) Errors are simply errors in my book, and if you unintentionally misled your audiences over several years then I accept that it was unintentional.

After all, the truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion… as you yourself said at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy last year.

In the same speech you said: “Before we subjucate the truth to mere expediency, convenience or profit it is first desirable to discern the truth.”

And again: “What matters here are the facts; what matters here is the truth.”

For a man so dedicated to the truth I am surprised that you did not jump at the opportunity to either rebut my allegations by showing that it is I, not you, who misread these sources and quotes, or check your sources again and acknowledge that you made these errors. In that spirit, I urge you to rejoin the debate that Anthony Watts has so kindly agreed to host.

This may be the triumph of hope over experience. My experience tells me that you won’t be too busy to issue a long response addressing the issue of the debate itself and why you shouldn’t have to continue it, or an attempt to deflect the debate onto some other subject or forum, combined with another ad hominem attack on me — instead of what everyone would LIKE to see, which is a clear rebuttal or acceptance of the evidence I provided.


Also check out Peter Sinclair's informative blog post with includes other relevant Potholer vs. Monckton videos.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 54 out of 54:

  1. Cornelius, I grew up with hyperthyroidism until surgeons removed most of my thyroid at age 18. I didn't notice that there was anything 'wrong', nor was aware of it apart from my extreme appetite for food and precociousness. I benefited from having a system clock on turbo as a teenager discovering computers! Might explain that I found it difficult to settle and fit in anywhere because I was intellectually unsatisfied by most of my peers and became a maverick, but apart from that I really didn't consider that hyperthyroidism was a big deal.
    0 0
  2. Funglestrumpet said:
    By way of 'thanks', they get a whole army of people: Delingpole, Philips, Hitchens, The Tea Party, The Republican Party, etc. etc
    No way does the late Hitchens deserve to be counted in this crowd. He hasn't (as he acknowledged himself, said much at all on climate change) He puts a kind of Pascal's Wager position here. He admits that "people don't want to hear from me on climate change" and then gives an account of his sympathy for action to protect the biosphere over the ozone layer question -- fumbling about for the right form of words to describe that, and acknowledging his fuzziness. Here's a guy who admits to not having the insight to comment meaningfully on the scientific questions. He was certainly not repudiating mainstream science on Co2 sensitivity or anthropogenesis. A summary of his words is here:
    The argument about global warming is not whether there is any warming but whether or not and to what extent human activity is responsible for it. My line on that is that we should act as if it is, for this reason, which I borrowed from Jonathan Schell's book on the nuclear question, The Fate of the Earth: We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster.
    Apart from his rather bizarre alliance with Bush over Iraq, he had nothing in common with the Republican/tea party fringe.
    0 0
  3. Fran, I think the intention was to refer to Peter Hitchens, Christopher's reactionary brother. Google "Peter Hitchens climate change" and you'll be treated to the usual Daily Mail nonsense.
    0 0
  4. Ah Andy S ... I see ... In that case ignore.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

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

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us