The saga of Monckton's Physics and Society article continues (previous posts: 1 2 3 4
5). Via Eli Rabett, here is Arthur Smith's list of 125 errors in Monckton's piece.
Also, a few more snippets on how Monckton's article ended up in Physics and Society. Lawrence Krauss (outgoing chair of the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society (FPS)) wrote:
Earlier this year, the editors ran a piece submitted by Gerald Marsh, a frequent contributor to FPS, in which he questioned the accuracy of climate change predictions and estimations of anthropogenic contributions to it. The article gave the editors the idea of devoting an issue to debate about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's statements regarding human-induced global warming.
Being unfamiliar with the field, they asked Marsh to suggest authors on both sides of the argument, and sent out requests. Physicists David Hafemeister and Peter Schwartz kindly contributed a tutorial on the physics of global warming. Marsh also suggested "Christopher Monckton of Brenchley", who the editors assumed was a climate scientist. Monckton submitted what appeared to be a highly technical piece refuting the notion that global warming is occurring, much less induced by human activity.
The editors ran both articles, and encouraged feedback. They also prefaced the issue with an unfortunate editorial stating that there is "considerable" debate within the scientific community about the IPCC statement that global warming is anthropogenic.
Within hours of the issue appearing on the web, an angry physics community responded. The editors then learned that Viscount Monckton - who they had addressed as "Dr Monckton" in their correspondence, a misconception he did not correct - was actually a British journalist and global-warming sceptic. His article presented claims that he has been circulating for years and that climate scientists say they have debunked.
Marsh replied with this:
Lawrence Krauss's commentary on the appearance of Christopher Monckton's piece on global warming in the newsletter of the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society (16 August, p 46) could be read as implying that I should have warned the editors that Monckton is a controversial figure.
To clarify the record, here is what I wrote to the editors about recommendations for those who could contribute to the debate on the side of those who do not see global warming as a threat: "I have had direct contact with only three people. I would recommend you contact: Willie Soon at Harvard, Christopher Monckton, and Freeman Dyson at the Institute for Advanced Study. Willie is an astronomer and Christopher has a background in science. He is a bit of a controversial figure (challenges Al Gore to debate him in ads in The New York Times and other major media) and is also known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He is a serious participant in the debate and has done some good scientific critiques of the IPCC. Dyson needs no introduction.
"A few more that I have not had any contact with who have done excellent work in the area are Sally Baliunas, H. Svensmark, E. Friis-Christensen, and Judith Lean. There are many more, and I am sure these folks can put you into contact with them."
I think this makes it clear that I did not suggest that Monckton is a climate scientist or holds a doctorate, nor is this relevant to the merits of his arguments.
But Marsh did mislead the editors by saying that Monckton had a "scientific background" when Monckton has no scientific qualifications or publications. And of course, Monckton has not done any good scientific critques of the IPCC.
File this one under "scientists expect everybody to play fair". When the physicists ask for a list of people to contact about climate science, they (we) naturally think that the names returned will belong to climate scientists.
Well, Krauss states they were "unfamiliar with the field". I'd guess that they were unfamiliar with the whole climate brouhaha too -- if they'd been aware that there's actually a huge deliberate inactivist movement, they'd probably not have made that mistake.
But in a way, I don't blame them. The media are hiding the inactivist movement quite well, and nobody is, like, calling them on it.
First of all, thank you Tim for this analysis with all the links.
Am I correctly informed when assuming that Arthur Smith's list of 125 errors is his personal opinion and has not undergone any peer review?
The relevance of my question becomes clear when reading the first "error" already. It turns out to be a different interpretation of the word "most" in "most of the warming" in probably the most important statement of the entire IPCC TAR report: More than 50%, 70% or almost 100% of the warming of the second half of the twentieth century is owing to human activities? Lucia has indirectly critized this kind of list of errors on her August 1 post, but - mind you - did this without defending Monckton's manners at all.
Oh, because to the warmists, there has been a "good" scientific critique of the IPCC ? Wow, that's big news.
Tim, you should then show it to the world.
Only 125 errors?
_@3,
Of course they are not errors. Naming errors what is difference POV or strawmen is simply hubris and blatant lies. But hey, that's enough to make a good title for Tim and that's what counts.
Example of strawman:
- Monckton said: no warming since 1998.
- The warmist replys : no, if you choose a 20 year period, it's warming.
And it's qualified as "Monckton error". Man, how pathetic.
I hadn't even followed this controversy so the last I heard this was something from July. This is still going on? That's just incredible.
#7
It takes time for the AGW crowd to swallow that in any public debate, warmists have been crushed by skeptics, the latest one being Littlemore (Desmogblog) versus Monckton.
Given that the major driver of this has been to continue pressing the US government to do nothing, and since both major candidates (and the Libertarian candidate) agree that indeed humans have and are making a substantial contribution to greenhouse gases, I expect this 'debate' is going on to the next step, that of the costs of mitigation.
I'm sure someone will suggest that Bangladesh and Kiribati pay the bill for the US, as it's all being done for them (although California is already feeling the pinch).
Demesure- it is well known that public debates serve only the liars, such as the denialists. It is quite hard to explain the real science to people during a debate, when your opponent, such as Monckton, can put out a lie a second.
But then you don't care about that, clearly.
> in any public debate, warmists have been crushed by skeptics, the latest one being Littlemore (Desmogblog) versus Monckton.
No, this is the latest, but you won't hear that from the wingnut presses.
> since both major candidates (and the Libertarian candidate) agree that indeed humans have and are making a substantial contribution to greenhouse gases
Eh? I thought, for McCain and Palin, AGW may or may not be a scam depending on who their audience is.
I note that Marsh spent most of his recommendation time focussing on Christopher Walter, when Soon and Dyson are much more emminently qualified to comment on climate physics. I cannot help but think that his 'recommendation [to] contact' is at least to a small extent disingenuous in its construction, especially when there are many other 'sceptical' commentators who would have vastly more credible credentials than the political advisor/journalist.
Sorry Gerry, but I can't help but agree with the sentiment that you "should have warned the editors that Monckton is a controversial figure".
The picking of nits aside, kudos to Arthur's excellent decontruction of Christopher Walter.
Now this is indeed 'peer' review!
Demesure says at #6:
Sorry Demesure, but wishing won't make it otherwise. These are errors, and they are sytematically laid out for you.
Believe me, if Walter's paper had been scientifically peer-reviewed, these are exactly the points that would have been caught, corrected, and returned to him, and in all likelihood with strong advice that no further consideration be given to it being published at all.
Millenial irony - Demesure having dinner with Tim Lambert...
Now that the millenium silliness is over...
Climatepatrol.
Whilst Lucia might not have "defend[ed] Monckton's manners at all", her piece is rather more of an apology for Christopher Walter's blatant errors of science than she leaves the casual reader to believe. There are in fact many people, who should know better, who have given the 'journalist' far more credit than he really deserves.
I think that Arthur's points are very largely valid, and I mean this in whatever of Lucia's or Arthur's permutation of 'mostly' you care to choose.
The media are hiding the inactivist movement quite well, and nobody is, like, calling them on it.
I call our local rag on it quite often, but they never print my letters to the Editor. My latest one was about the 'GLOBUL COOLIN' meme. The editors don't want to hear it. My letters get printed (various subjects) everywhere but this paper. Fortunately I don't have to pay for it as the GFs dad retired from that paper...
Best,
D
Dr. Gerald Marsh is a retired nuclear physicist and APS Fellow following the Fred Singer-like path of opining about climate in OpEds, thinktank websites, newspapers, newsletters, although not in peer-reviewed journals.
His "body of work" on climate is listed here at RC and then I found a few more.
I suggest reading a few of these to understand Marsh's viewpoint, although you can guess from the list of those whose work he praises.
Dyson, of course is not a climate scientist.
They contacted ~5 of these, and only Viscount "Dr" Monckton responded.
People also might check Dr Larry Gould's homepage - He was the physicist who endorsed Monckton at SPPI.
Pardon me, elitists, but the Fourth and Final Discount Monk of Peter Benchley is a Scientist, because under the Sarah Palin Proximity Principle, he has stood near Scientists, therefore he pretty much is one.
Pardon me, elitists, but the Fourth and Final Discount Monk of Peter Benchley is a Scientist, because under the Sarah Palin Proximity Principle, he has stood near Scientists, therefore he pretty much is one.
I live on a street which has a bus line that goes to the university here; good enough for conservatives/denialists! Unfortunately I am not any of those, and therefore am stuck without the degrees I could otherwise claim.
Not on topic but related another blog
that wants comments on a "sceptic" paper...
Demesure:
You're absolutely right. That is part of a Monckton strawman.
Either that or Monckton considers himself a scientist because Isaac Newton was English and a scientist, Stephan Hawking is English and a scientist, Charles Darwin was English and a scientist, and he (Monckton) is English and therefore must be a scientist.
"Example of strawman: - Monckton said: no warming since 1998. - The warmist replys : no, if you choose a 20 year period, it's warming."
Ah, no; an example of a strawman is saying that "the warmists refuted Monckton's statement by referring to a 20 year period", when in fact Smith's refutation included "If you look at 8- or 11-year trends rather than 7 or 10 as of mid 2008, temperature is up.", a much more powerful statement puncturing Monckton's cherry picking.
I'm probably the best choice to head NASA, given that I can actually see the moon and several planets, stars, and galaxies from my house.
Why is Judith Lean on that list?
Indeed. Tony Jones interview ( part 2 and part 1) of Martin Durkin is one of the very few instances of investigative journalism of a piece of denialism.
cce asks Why is Judith Lean on that list?
Eli replies, why not, Marsh is clearly clueless.
I'm looking forward to reading here about the demolition of Mann 2008 currently unfolding at climate audit.
Pedro, I'm sure the "auditor" will publish all his well founded critique so we just have to wait...
> I call our local rag on it quite often
I stand corrected on that then...
> Tony Jones interview ( part 2 and part 1) of Martin Durkin is one of the very few instances of investigative journalism of a piece of denialism.
That was a good interview, but still, it didn't do much beyond pointing out errors in Durkin's thesis. There's little coverage of the fact that inactivism is actually a deliberate, aggressive, and organized movement.
> the demolition of Mann 2008 currently unfolding at climate audit.
Or the inhalation of McIntyre currently undressing at Chorus, Amen? I'm sure it's a euphoric experience.
Pedro makes a fatuous remark: "I'm looking forward to reading here about the demolition of Mann 2008 currently unfolding at climate audit".
Given that Mann's two papers were published in two of the journals with the hihgest impact factors (Nature and PNAS), I wonder why the Climate Audit crew seem unable to publish in such sources? Where are their lengthy list of peer-reviewed publications? Why do they not publish data papers in Nature, Science, PNAS, Plos, etc? Why rely on their internet cite, which is not peer-reviewed at all?
The answer should be quite obvious.
Demesure, who apparently hasn't been following the discussion on this very point here at Deltoid, writes
Monckton is wrong, Jack. Here's why:
Ball's error
Reber's error
I'm looking forward to reading here about the demolition of Mann 2008 currently unfolding at climate audit.
OK, I'll start: who cares?
Best,
D
Dano:
Well, if you don't care, they'll keep spamming about it.
Actually, even if you care, they'll still ignore your comments and keep spamming.
That's People Power we can believe in... my friends.
Jeff (#32):
A skeptic will probably reply with this well-worn argument. The comments on that post speaks volumes about the confusion there. Take this one for instance:
"If Lord Moncton (sic) wrote a paper and submitted it for "peer review" then the peers should be non-PhD individuals with education and track record similar to Moncton. A peer is a member of a group of people of the same age, status, ability."
In light of Frank's cogent response, let me take a mulligan:
I'm looking forward to reading here about the demolition of Mann 2008 currently unfolding at [Chorus, Amen].
OK, I'll start: Thanks, but no thanks.
Best,
D
Now we know what you get when you cross a monkey and a plankton.
Former skeptic,
I am afraid that your link cuts no ice with me (excuse the pun). Comment on the internet is free - which is something I think is great. It means a lot of the elite nonense we are fed through the mainstream media is being challenged, mostly in the dissident literature and on online sites/blogs. But when it comes to science, any crackpot ideas can crop up in a venue that is deregulated. Flat earth theories, alchemy, creationism, you name it, there are people who have set up web sites to promote it.
For the ever shrinking coterie of warming denialists, many of whom are twisting and distorting science to promote a brazenly political agenda, the internet is their 'Alamo'. Their last stand. It is a myth that they usually cannot get their stuff published in rigid journals because of some inherent flaw in the peer-review system that is prejudiced against them. It is because their science is flawed. Plain and simple. Peer-review is not a perfect system; I know this from personal experience as a senior scientist who feel aggrieved when my papers are bounced when I felt that the data and manuscripts were up to scratch. But peer-review keeps science safe from crackpot theories.
Note that fifteen years ago the notion that the climate was changing was being attacked vigorously by the sceptics. There was no proof. The, as the empirical evidence flowed in, they switched to a new tactic: its natural, due to solar activity or some other process. Or else that the current warming was not unprecented in recent Earth history. More recently, some sceptics are finally admitting that there is a human fingerprint over the current warming episode but they are saying that we can and will adapt to it. In all of the above scenarios, one thing remains constant: don't change anything. Business-as-usual.
That has to be the worst rebuttal yet from the pro-AGW camp.
"Confusion", "Red Herring", "Invalid", "Nonsense" etc do not count as errors.
The real problem, however, is that the rebuttals are wrong themselves; for example, E3 on climate models' inability to get anything right. In fact, they have a zero percent strike rate so that's just a terrific basis for public policy. Climate models are massively back-fitted - a huge no-no, as Tim Lambert would know (I build financial models so have expertise in the area).
Jeff Harvey - You are on the side of the modern day eugenics equivalent. Increasing numbers of my lefty mates are now full on 'deniers', something that is an increasing surprise for me to discover. Many years ago I believed the orthodoxy re man and warming. I hadn't looked at the science. When I did I changed my mind. It's not even real science, come to think of it. The real deniers are those who continue to promote CO2 as the primary driver of climate.
I like the Jokeack Lacton view from self-marginalizing wingnuttia: full of implicit fear, hyperbole (eugenics my *ss - this is either a simpleton or mendacious statement), no evidence from the denialist side (no journal articles, no models, no equations, none of their own data, no figures, no formulas, no scribbles on a napkin), nothing but reassurance that denialists are marginalized on the fringe into a small minority (albeit energetic in their denial), with no direct access to decision-makers.
How much longer will it be until they've marginalized themselves into total irrelevance?
Best,
D
Ah. Further to my point above, reading my e-mail alert from Science mag, I see there's a new study that used a small group of people to study political affiliations, and the scaredy-cats are conservatarians.
I suspect th' dirty lib'rulls agree with this finding, which appears to extend the work of one of the authors and the recent study that found dirty lib'rulls and conservatarians process information differently (and Lakoff's hypothesis about stern father figures).
Best,
D
Dano: Conservatarians? I think I call them conlibertarians...
Well, if you check out Jack's blog, take along an industrial-strength irony meter ...
> honesty
Whenever I see the word "honesty" I reach for my gun.
Jack Lacton, who appears to inhabit what the late Carlos Casteneda called "A Separate Reality," posts:
1. Climate models successfully predicted 1) that the world would warm, 2) that the stratosphere would cool as the troposphere warmed, 3) that the poles would warm more than the equator, with most of the warming at the north pole and very little at the south, 4) that the mean global annual diurnal temperature range would decrease, and 5) the magnitude and duration of the cooling from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991. How is this "a zero percent strike rate?"
2. Climate models are not backfitted at all. The only data that goes into them are grid data and physics.
3. Building financial models gives you zero competence in building general circulation models. They are two completely different kinds of algorithms.
Climate models are not backfitted at all. The only data that goes into them are grid data and physics.
Perhaps due to the fact that Jokeack doesn't know what he's talking about, he might be confused about backcasting, which is done to models to see how well they perform.
And thank you , dhog, for going to Joke'sack's blog so we don't have to take extra showers.
Best,
D
We recently went through the financial models vs physics models arguments with monsoonevans, see especially comments #21, 32, 35, 40.
A non-zero percent strike rate doesn't match with the denialist model of reality.
A non-zero percent strike rate doesn't match with the denialist model of reality.
If I may, a correction: denialists don't have models of reality.
If they did, they'd be publishing in journals and energetic denialist trolls would be posting 147 comments a day trumpeting them. Or doing huge mental gymnastics to deny their findings.
Sorry. Carry on. Apologies.
Best,
D
Jack writes, "Many years ago I believed the orthodoxy re man and warming. I hadn't looked at the science".
And you have now? Have you read all of the peer-reviewed literature? The fact is that the scientific sceptics are few and far between. Otherwise the denial lobby would not have to rely on the same, retreaded and largely discredited names to support their arguments that they did 15 years ago: Lindzen, Michaels, Balling, Idso, Baliunas etc. The usual suspects are still being paraded out because the climate-change denial crowd just cannot find many more statured scientists to rally to their cause. Leaked memos from the American Petroleum Society showed more than a decade ago that they were worried that if they could not recruit new scientists to join them in their denial, then they would use up all of their apparent 'credibility'. Ten years later? Same names, Same faces. A few new arguments.
While I am at it, Jack, I would be delighted to know what scientific acumen you possess that escapes 95% of the scientific community. Moreover, you didn't answer the main point I made in my last post: why have many of the sceptics shifted over the years from 'denial' to 'its natural' to 'OK, humans are largely responsible but we'll adapt anyway' and 'besides, it's too late to do anything about it anyway'. Haven't you heard guru Michaels even make this admission at a recent contrarian pow-wow? What does this tell you about their 'science'?
Jeff writes:
.
Excuse me, elitists, but I am going to challenge #51: While I am at it, Jack, I would be delighted to know what scientific acumen you possess that esca"pes 95% of the scientific community." I don't know much about the politics of science. But I am observant. It did not escape 95% of the scientific community that there is still a debate. It is no secret that climate scientists living off public funding are more interested into a high climate sensitivity and those who work for private think thanks and retired scientists tend to be more interested into a low climate sensitivity. Although there ARE new names in public research who challenge the orthodox climate sensitivity of the IPCC with new papers, as you, Sir Jeff Harvey, are well aware of. The "realclimate crowd" is quick to respond whenever such a paper suggesting a low climate sensitivity comes out. This is not surprising because the new world order needs a high CO2-climate-sensitivity for the drastic reorganization of society as it is on their drawboard for a long time. The Copenagen Consensus recently pointed out that the lower range of climate sensitivity of the IPCC would likely make draconian policies to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere more costly than their benefits to human welfare until 2100. Elitists, it is in your hands.
Amusing how the tools of the rich like to call others elite, but climate ol tool, if you want to look it is pretty easy to nail down Jeff's bona fides using the intertubes. Now as for Eli, he is but a humble Rabett, but he does remember the crap you are peddling as being a distress sale from when others such as Eli and Jeff were warning about the excesses of the elites of Wall Street and being told that sanity would only hurt the poor.
So amigo, take it and shove it where the sun don't shine. Me, I gotta go pay off the billions you and yours have cost us and we bunnies are not feeling extremely charitable towards your version of stupidity at the moment.
Yes, thousand of nerds worldwide are avoiding figuring things out in favour of perpetuating a known lie in the hopes of using environmental issues to weasel grant money out of right-wing governments. Uh-huh. You're projecting your stupid and your greed again.
1. Said nerds are smarter than you.
2. Said nerds are inquisitive.
3. Said nerds are competitive.
4. Said nerds know you can get grants without setting yourself up to be a saviour.
5. Said nerds know you don't get rich from grants.
6. Said nerds have a variety of political philosophies, not just one.
Do you have any idea just how unconvincing your little conspiracy theory is?
Climatepatroll.
When you first popped up here you claimed to be a sceptical lay person simply trying to balance the discussion of climate science.
However, your postings here and on your own blog were rapidly shown to be as selective in the science and statistics as were those of most other denialists. You've been called out on a number of occasions without satisfactory response, but now your behaviour shows you to be no different to the worst of the denialist trolls that are attempting to delay urgent response to AGW.
I am gobsmacked that you remain ignorant of Jeff Harvey's very strong credentials in population ecology. He is well able to assess the validity of climate science, especially as it pertains to alterations to bioclimate envelopes and phenological impacts. He is certainly infinitely more qualified and experienced to speak on climate science than you are, and he certainly does not take arbitrarily adopted ideological positions with a religous-like faith.
No, I think that you are a liar.
If you are not, you will be immediately able to supply the verifiable source that proves that 95% of the scientific community is still debating the validity of AGW.
"New World Order"? "[D]rastic reorganization of society"? "[D]raconian"? "[C]ostly"? "Elitists"? Ah, so now you show your hand. A right-wing conspiracy theorist, with more than one flavour of fundamentalism thrown in, it seems.
You are certainly an evidence-free zone.
"climate scientists living off public funding "
frinstance:
" Blair continued to press for support on an aggressive plan to curb global warming when he met with the president last month at the White House, but Mr. Bush said the U.S. needs more research."
Oh my... I go away for a few days, and when I come back the place has been taken over by wingnuts. Geezz...
While I realise that attempting to argue with the likes of climate patroll may be about as useful as arguing with a tree stump, I'd like to point out that some of the most famous climate scientists rareley, if ever, publically call for more research funding of climate science. Instead, they generally call for more money to fund mitigation or adaptation programs, such as funding renewable energy feed in tariffs, or research into Carbon Capture and Storage. Unless there are a whole bunch of climate scientists who bought up shares in solar stocks back in the 70's, the argument that climate scientist lie about the science to secure grant money is as stupid as it is easily falsified.
Climatepatrol(l),
Eli answered your last post quite elegantly. But I will add my two cent's worth. First of all, one needs only look at some of the recent the climate denial 'petitions' and to check the scientific fields the signers are on to realize that the sceptical community is wafer-thin. I actually looked up many of the names on the Web of Science to see how many peer-reviewed papers they had, and the VAST MAJORITY had only a few or even none. As I said last time, the scientific community - as well as the scientific evidence - is stacked against the denialists. As I also said last time, the denialists keep moving the metaphoric 'goal posts' alluding to the science. It is noteworthy that you and your brethren never like to address this issue.
Secondly, don't waste my time or the others here with nonsense from the 'Copenhagen Consensus', Lomborg's little brouhaha in which the deck was stacked with establishment, neoclassical conservative economists whose understanding of the natural economy was nearly zilch. Their world is one of make believe - promulgating the myth that 'if only' there were 50 billion dollars available then we could prioritize many of the world's ills. The bloody money is there and much more - but the will isn't. The poor will never be a priority when their needs conflict with the interests of the rich and powerful. I wince whenever I hear Lomborg speak these days - its such an embarrassment to hear someone spewing out verbiage as if we all lived in a world of love, and peace and harmony, and not the REAL thing, where the global economy is a veritable casino ensuring that capital flows inexorably from the poor to the rich.
Mindsets, missquotes and prejudices aside, This apalling hostility just deserves one answer: Me too, I live off public funding. This is true. Call me what you want. I do not want to waste your and my time any further here to explain myself. Let's just agree to disagree. Peace be with you and good bye.
Appalling hostility? Where does that come from?
Bernard is correct. Most of the scientific community has moved well on from the hypothesis of AGW to its acceptance. The uncertainty lies in (a) its extent in the coming decades, and (b) what effects these will have on natural systems (along with other anthropogenic processes that are effectively simplifying nature). The latter is the crux of the matter because the Earth is habitable on the basis of a huge range of biological interactions - especially those involving micro-organisms - which make it so. Climate change, along with other anthropogenic stresses, is challenging complex adaptive systems to respond.
The climate change denial community has somehow managed to shift the uncertainty over the outcome of climate change to the process of climate change itself. This a remarkable sleight of hand.
Did we break a troll?
Seems one needs a thicker skin to post here than at, say, Marohasy's. Or at Bolt's. Ironic, given the relative levels of personal criticism.
Or maybe it's just that to gain some credibility one is required to present a stronger evidential case on Deltoid than at other places...
I think this is one of those notions that only plays to people who know nothing about academia.
For the most part, an academic career in government or academia simply doesn't pay very well. You spend a long time as a grad student and post-doc working for serf wages, and when you finally move up to faculty level the salaries still are not particularly high. Pretty much anybody with the smarts to make it in academia could make more money in private enterprise.
Also, some people seem to imagine that a scientist gets to just take those grant funds and put them in his pocket. But in fact, that money is to fund your research, and the use of every dollar must be carefully justified--granting agencies do not allow you to pay yourself more than a typically modest academic salary. So the value of getting a grant is that it allows you to keep doing your research. The only substantive value of an academic career is the privilege of being able to add to the body of scientific reward. Nobody wants to spend years of long hours, at a comparatively modest salary, to publish work that they secretly believe to be wrong.
I'd call it "bemused derision", so i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, too! ;-)
Monckton replies/comments in the New Scientist.
Any webpage titled "Open mind" with Monckton in it will furnish further proof that his mind fell out his head many years ago. Honestly, at what point does he get ignored as a crank?
One thing which needs to be cleared up:
Krauss says this:
"The editors then learned that Viscount Monckton - who they had addressed as "Dr Monckton" in their correspondence, a misconception he did not correct"
What is his evidence, and can he make it public?
Guthrie, Krauss was then chair of the APS forum; did he post this himself? It's hard to prove a negative, but he'd be considered a reliable source.
Hank, at #67.
Rather than 'posting' it, Krauss makes the claim in a chronology of the events printed in New Scientist as a Commentary (p46, 16 August 2008, #2669).
The commentary piece is clear, and explicit, and it is apparent that Christopher Monckton made no effort to dissuade the editors of the impression they held that he had a PhD, or indeed that he had any professional experience in science, let alone in climatology.
Gerald Marsh's 'clarif[ication of] the record' in response to Krauss, published under the title 'Open Mind' in the Letters section of New Scientist (p 20, 13 September 2008, #2673) is ham-fisted and disingenuous at best. As Tim has quoted at the top of the page, Marsh said "I have had direct contact with only three people." He mentioned Willie Soon first and Freeman Dyson last, both well recognised physicists, and plonked Monckton's name in the middle.
He then describes the well-known Soon as "an astronomer" and says that Dyson "needs no introduction", and spends rather more time promoting the Viscount with "Christopher has a background in science. He is a bit of a controversial figure (challenges Al Gore to debate him in ads in The New York Times and other major media) and is also known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He is a serious participant in the debate and has done some good scientific critiques of the IPCC. Dyson needs no introduction."
Whether he intended to or not, Marsh created the impression of professional climate science bona fides in the minds of the P&S editors, and Monckton
Bugger.
My post above was somehow swallowed in editing. It was supposed to come out like this, which is still pretty much the same. Oops!
-------
Rather than 'posting' it, Krauss makes the claim in a chronology of the events printed in New Scientist as a Commentary (p46, 16 August 2008, #2669).
The commentary piece is clear, and explicit, and it is apparent that Christopher Monckton made no effort to dissuade the editors of the impression they held that he had a PhD, or indeed that he had any professional experience in science, let alone in climatology.
Gerald Marsh's 'clarif[ication of] the record' in response to Krauss, published under the title 'Open Mind' in the Letters section of New Scientist (p 20, 13 September 2008, #2673) is ham-fisted and disingenuous at best. As Tim has quoted at the top of the page, Marsh said "I have had direct contact with only three people." He mentioned Willie Soon first and Freeman Dyson last, both well recognised physicists, and plonked Monckton's name in the middle.
He then describes the well-known Soon as "an astronomer" and spends rather more time promoting the Viscount with:
and finishes with
Whether he intended to or not, Marsh created the impression of professional climate science bona fides in the minds of the P&S editors, and Monckton did nothing to clarify his lack of professional experience or qualification in climatology.
Marsh clearly fooled Krauss; Marsh assumes "a debate" for example, saying Bunkton is prominent therein.
Krauss clearly was fooled far too easily; he should have Googled, not relied on Marsh's suggestions uncritically.
I dunno. Scientists do tend to be a trusting bunch (except climate scientists who can't trust anyone to give them money unless they've manufactured a crisis only they can avert) and really, suggesting someone like Monckton seriously is ridiculous in an almost clever way. Did you ever read 1914 where the Russians had the Germans on the run simply because the Germans didn't think the Russians could possibly be that stupid and it must really be so smart it's impenetrable? (Like probabilistic combinatorics!)
Pough posts:
So, you've penetrated our little scheme! Well, you won't live to tell anybody about it. But before I kill you, let me lay out our whole nefarious plan in detail...