"Monckton is wrong"

Monckton keeps winning debates but this does not stop the CO2 from holding back outgoing longwave radiation.

How come that oral skills and basic physics do not rely on each other?

It's pretty obvious anyone debating with the guy needs to have a laptop hooked up to the internet during the show to verify he's actually telling the truth.

Or even better, the Skepticalscience.com app http://www.skepticalscience.com/ - which is now available for the Nokia, as well as the Iphone. The perfect tool to take down the climate idiot your stuck next to at a dinner party.

Of course, the best way to take down Monckton is to study how Tim did it!

Is Monckton also of the opinion that the radiative forcing for doubling of CO2 is much less than the accepted value of 3.7 W m-2? Why does he think so?

In a debate, where most participants are scientifically unattentive however politically alert, you tell (a) whatever they want to hear and/or (b) whatever suits you best to create uncertainty. Nobody, in the shortness of time, can go and check the citations from obscure fringe-publications. And even if they could, it takes a lots of explaining and rambling to debunk a plain and plainly invented statement. Start by explaining that the tiny amount of COs does actually cause warming - but is not the CO2 fairy. OK, try this on an Alberta cattle farmer or petro engineer.

This is a reason why charlatans like Monckton are forever calling for things like one-on-one debates and 'court of law' style hearings to decide climate science; they get their stuff heard and the fact-checking has to come later. This is one of many reasons why peer-review is so vitally important to science.

But even so, this is all good work in exposing someone who is nothing other than an intellectual fraud. If any of the denialist groups had any integrity, they should be shunning him as a liability. But I doubt they will.

My favorite slide (CM70) is when he subtracts one percentage concentration of co2 from the other to claim there has only been a 0.01% rise of co2 in the atmosphere since 1750. WTF??? He claims to be a mathematician: "I am ... a mathematician. That was how I was able to invent a puzzle which had only 200 pieces and a £1 million prize for the first person to solve it ⦠it was puzzle of the year in Australia." SMH Jan 26, 2010.
I think that I learned percentages in yr. 8. Perhaps he should go back and retake yr. 8 maths again.

Why even give this idiot the courtesy of your attention? Just point out that he doesn't just misrepresent science, he even lies about himself and his relationship with the House of Lords. He's a liar and he will only have power if we grant it to him by conniving in his ridiculous Baron Munchausen act.

""I am ... a mathematician. That was how I was able to invent a puzzle which had only 200 pieces and a £1 million prize for the first person to solve it â¦"

He doesn't mention that he lost his money a few short months later when the puzzle was solved, years ahead of his estimate. Apart from that little embarrassment, he's completely right: puzzle-maker=great mathematician. That's why you so often see the Fields metal given to Suduko composers.

Monckton lies and it's easy enough to show that he has lied in the past, about himself and about climate science.

Anybody who ever accepts a debate in which a proven liar is to present evidence should be absolutely certain that he will be permitted to annihilate the opponent's credibility. If this is refused he should simply refuse and when asked to explain simply say that honesty in debate is a requirement.

Liars like Monckton must be tagged and excluded from the debate. They must have no platform. Call them liars, let them sue as the nazis sued, they will lose because they lie and this can be proven in court.

Don't know if anyone's seen this, but it looks like the denialists are now trying to smear the Royal Society:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm

3 Mike,

That won't work. If they have any clue whatsoever, they'll just say "You got that from a Warmist liar, didn't you?".

They will also say "You can't think for yourself, can you? You depend on your widdle fwiends on the internet!".

9 Tony,

Anybody who ever accepts a debate in which a proven liar is to present evidence should be absolutely certain that he will be permitted to annihilate the opponent's credibility. If this is refused he should simply refuse and when asked to explain simply say that honesty in debate is a requirement.

That is excellent advice. If that is original, can I quote you? If not, do you know who you are quoting?

"Monckton is wrong"

Quelle surprise! Next up, sky is blue!

Could someone please explain, for the benefit of a layperson, exactly why they are different things? Thanks!

Expected denier response:

Obviously John Abraham is wrong because he's not a Lord.

This is timely because there is a bonehead in another thread who, by his own admission, thinks Monckton is an authority.

The presentation is great, listening to it now.

Alex@11: Saw that (fixed link here), but I don't see how it's going to go any other way than that botched attempt by the deniers at altering the American Physical Society's stance on the topic. The only thing they might get out of it is some qualifiers on the level of scientific understanding attached with various statements, but the IPCC has been doing that since whenever anyway.

There's some shockingly naive reporting from the BBC on McIntyre though. The reason wannabes like him mainly exist in the bloggosphere rather than the peer-reviewed literature is precisely because most of the time they are flat out wrong in their accusations. McIntyre may have had a point on one or two occasions, but then a broken clock is still correct twice a day.

Mac writes;

>Could someone please explain, for the benefit of a layperson, exactly why they are different things? Thanks!

Could you elaborate Mac? Which "they" are you refering to?

That BBC article contains some awfully naive - or very subtly nuanced - statements, including:

> But the blogosphere does not respect past reputations, only current performance. And some of the top performers in the blogosphere are critics of the establishment.

I do wonder **what definition** of "performance" the writer had in mind, given that McIntyre is cited as an example of a top performer, and of whom it is said:

> He arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit - but none of the CRU inquiries has contacted him for input.

> I have been told by the review teams that they can read McIntyre's blog if they want to learn about his views. ... And they would have saved a lot of time and effort if they had asked him to summarise his scientific scrutiny on a couple of sheets of A4

Unless I am very much mistaken, McIntyre provided [a submission](http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/StephenMcIntyre.pdf) incorporating his views [to at least one of the inquiries](http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/mem…). At least one of the McIntyre submissions [was **cited** in the resulting report](http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/31/climategate-investigations-round-1-cr…).

Could the writer *really* be ignorant of this fact, and compound the error by not bothering to spend two minutes with Google?

Perhaps journalism ought to adopt the notion that you're only as good as your current performance, in which case this particular writer is a failure.

Mac - the "3.26 plus or minus 0.69" refers to the results of 18 different climate models, which are, after all, only models. By contrast, the "UN's central estimate of the "global warming" that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration" is based on much more than simply averaging a bunch of climate models. As the said box concludes, "the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or 'equilibrium climate sensitivity', is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C".

No scientist worth his or her salt would even think of giving an estimate of climate sensitivity "to two places of decimals"...

[Alex's link unmangled using the method shown over the response box](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10178124.stm)

Or like this using angle brackets:

Or like this using backslashes as literals:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science\_and\_environment/10178124.stm

I can never remember this when I need to, only when someone else needed to.

> Alex's link unmangled using the method shown over the response box

I wish scienceblogs would fix the auto-URL parser. It's a well-defined problem to detect the start and end of a URL, and their parser is broken - and it shouldn't be terribly hard to fix.

@Crazy Bill: Thanks! That's a clear explanation. I have only the foggiest understanding of what climate sensitivity is or how it could have been expressed in terms of doubling CO2. (And I assume, wouldn't climate sensitivity depend on where your climate "starts" from?) Google is helping... but I struggle with some of the numerical concepts in climate academia. Blogs do a great job with conceptual explanations but I never seem to be able to bridge the gap to understanding even the simpler math.

O/T but on the subject of scientific impostors (Bjorn Lomborg)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2912358.htm

re: 11 (that link is broken)
For odd reason, I know some folks high up in the Royal Society.
I believe they can handle this :-)

Hold up, has Monckton ever been wrong before?

Mac @23 and maths etc.

I don't know your level of knowledge/education but I found David Archers lectures useful. It is quite a long series and you need a few hours spare, but you can dip in when you want.

I found the advantage of these is that you can pause and rewind them etc. Which is probably even better than a real lecture. It is also useful to take notes for reference later, which I have found really useful for jogging my memory in climate change discussions.

Here's the link:

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html

Archer builds a simple model of the atmosphere and makes comparisons with other planets in the solar system.
BTW it is important to start from the beginning, if your maths aren't strong, you might get lost if you jump in out of sequence.

Still I am worried what is really happening to our climate. Tsk tsk tsk [3rd design](http://3rddesign.com)

Mac, the IPCC climate sensitivity number comes from observations of past climate changes as well as models. See this post and the accompanying paper for details. Oh, and maybe the IPCC report. ;-)

Ah, our fabulist friend - the most compelling entertainer the House of Lords never produced!...

For what it's worth, here is how I handle deniers in person. Ask in rapid fire

What is the Beer-Lambert Law?
What does "adiabatic lapse rate" mean?
What is the wavelength of the peak of the solar spectrum reaching the earth's surface?
What is the wavelength of the peak of the radiant heat leaving the earth's surface?
What is the power of the sun's radiation at noon at the equator in Watts per square metre?
How many extra Watts per square metre do we get if CO2 doubles from pre-industrial levels?

Followed by

You appear not to know much about climate science, so how did you come to your conclusion?

It hasn't happened yet, but if I ever meet anyone who can answer these questions correctly, I'll send them to this slapdown of Monckton.

That demolition of Monckton is bruising. I bailed about half way through because it was too much to consume in one sitting. Bit like eating a family block of dark chocolate in one go.

In a word: devastating.

John #11- It would be interesting to know what the complaints about the RS stuff involved. GRanted it was 3 years old and a bit out of date, but so far all thats come out makes the complainers sound like a bunch of whiners. They may have had a better case, but nobody is saying anything particularly intelligent.

Is there a transcript anywhere of Abraham's presentation for the sake of the deaf?

In response to comment 19 user (lotharson). Here is McIntyre's most recent discussion of the CPU affair and rather long history of the events leading up to the controversy.

@32: I had to sit through it in bite-sized chunks as well. The solar bit was especially brutal - paper after paper after paper, all in direct contradiction to Moncktons silliness. A sensational take-down by Abraham. Kudos to him for dogged perseverance.

13 TrueSceptic

The ideas I express in comment 9 are not original, but those are my own words and you may use them as you see fit.

Monckton is a liar and we mustn't give him a platform.

He arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit - but none of the CRU inquiries has contacted him for input.

I like "arguably." As in "Arguably, that BBC writer is madder than David Icke and less worthy of a paycheck than American finance swindler Bernard Madoff. Arguably, because, well, I'm prepared to argue the pro side."

How long until Monckton starts complaining to the University of St. Thomas?

No scientist worth his or her salt would even think of giving an estimate of climate sensitivity "to two places of decimals"...

Indeed, and if Chris is under the impression that he's being more accurate then he's an even bigger blustering buffoon than I already thought.

@39 How long until Monckton starts complaining to the University of St. Thomas?

Monckton will probably make reference to Abraham and the University of St. Thomas as proof that he knows what he's talking about. After all, his citations are a complete 180 from what he says anyway. Why change now?

JG, try emailing him. Most academics are happy to hear from people who'd like to read their work. Likely he has, or can extract, a text file from the presentation or tell you how. Most universities nowadays have a disability access program person who'd know how to do that. If the author was just speaking off the cuff without notes, this might spur him or the university to create the transcript you need. (Of course, it's possible this is a work in progress and something more is already being prepared)

Just hoping, but I've asked for this kind of help in the past for others and most universities really do respond.

John Abraham has put the presentation on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpOrjaWlC_E

Although currently there is an error.

Well there was an error. It's OK now!

HankRobertts@42

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try that.

Of course Monckton is wrong. He has no moral issue with lying through his teeth.

Unfortunately, Abraham's takedown is duller than ditchwater. Only people firmly in the pro-science camp are going to listen to more than two minutes of it.

Which is a pity, because deflating self-serving and narcissistic eccentrics like Monckton is something which should be done before they gain a wide audience and a popular following. I feel some relief knowing that nobody, of any political stripe, can listen to Monckton without realising that he is a pompous jackanapes know-nothing.

Maybe the best solution for such mendacious scumbags is to ignore them altogether.

HankRoberts@42

Again thanks for the tip.

For general info: Alas, there's no transcript.

#46

"Unfortunately, Abraham's takedown is duller than ditchwater. Only people firmly in the pro-science camp are going to listen to more than two minutes of it."

Which is why it is handy that the slides are numbered & titled so that you can point people in the direction of the requisite part of the takedown. Polar bears, for example, are covered by slides 11-21 and the "Railroad Engineer" epithet so beloved of Monkton is looked at on slide 37.

Aaaargh!

DON'T attack your allies for being 'duller than ditchwater'!

This plays straight into the Denialists hands: if someone's thorough and measured in their approach they're 'dull' and 'pedantic' and 'boring', dude. But if they're flamboyant and entertaining then they're 'big fat liars' like Al Gore!

No, what the world really needs is more people who can combine an unequalled grasp of the 'facts' (albeit invented) with the natural-born huckster's ability to sell the product; like Chris Monckton!

Our opponents are only too happy for the public to have ridiculous expectations of the communications skills of scientists; to hold them to ludicrous standards of perfection in a media environment where honesty and integrity and a desire to communicate real information are at a distinct disadvantage.

We should never be party to that.

Will the redoubtable Lord Rees confront this Discount Mosley, or is he running scared about the flack some Fellows have raised over the RS own polemic excess?

Question: in addition to debunking, is the most effective strategy to combat the denial movement?

By this stage anyone familiar with the debate and the actual science knows Monckton is not simply wrong, but not even close to being wrong.

However, no matter how many times you point out the fact that Monckton is wrong he remains bulletproof in the eyes of the denial movement.

He's their "Dear Leader", the charismatic Lord of Lies.

Debunking is good, debunking is very necessary - and it's what I and other bloggers do a great deal of.

But, is there a limit to the effectiveness of debunking as our primary strategy?

I will stress: debunking is very, very necessary and a powerful tool. However, like the creationists, these prophets of denial simply move onto the next set of lies and the baying crowd laps it up. The Gish Gallop is now the Monckton Gallop

Not to sound pessimistic, but when your world view is so entrenched - conservative, libertarian, fundamentalist, Marxist - then you are going to filter information accordingly. This "epistemic closure" is almost impossible to breach.

Recently I've recently spent a great deal of time talking to "ordinary" people about the "climate debate".

I've asked them a simple question: How do you understand the debate, who do you trust?

Answer: they feel lost, confused and overwhelmed by it all. Both the "alarmists" and "deniers" make a lot of claims. All the noise they see simply implies that there is a debate, and therefore there most be dissent within science. Climate change is a terrifying concept, so even accepting it is a tough battle.

This is of course the primary strategy of the denialists. They don't need to convince people it's not happening, they just need to create uncertainty.

This is not to disparage the worthy, serious and great work of many blogs such as this, Skeptical Science, Climate Progress and Real Climate. They make available to the public invaluable information.

However, what I'm starting to gain a greater appreciation of is that for most people the debate over facts is meaningless. Given the general level of scientific literacy within the general population is low, the majority of people find the intricacies of the debate hard to understand. Long wave radiation? Absorption properties? Carbon sinks? And what's that about methane, I thought CO2 was the issue???

In the end I'm finding that they don't know *who to trust*.

Cynicism of politicians, business and the scientific establishment is rife. It's not helped by a complacent media and the "sea of disinformation" on the internet. "Alarmists" claim the oil companies are behind the denial movement while in turn the deniers claim government/scientists/monied interests are behind the "climate scam".

[And yes, I appreciate that attacking the credibility of science is their main strategy]

Five months ago I had a rudimentary knowledge of the debate and the science. Now I can titter or roll my eyes at the patently false claims of people like Monckton. But the sacrifice in time, effort and hard work was enormous. We can't expect everyone to make the same effort.

So the question is, how can we win the battle for the "hearts and minds" of the people with the most to lose? The poor, the disenchanted of the Africa/Eurasia/South America and the lower-middle classes of the Western world?

AIDS provides a good parallel: at first denial, then delay and then acceptance only when the bodies started to pile up. And yet >25 million deaths later we are still fighting AIDS denialists.

It would seem we will act only when it gets bad. That's my greatest fear. There is no comfort in saying "I told you so".

I ask this question because I'm curious to know what others interested in the debate think. Not to derail the thread, but I think it's worth discussing.

Note: apologies for the length of this post, I need my morning coffee perhaps ;)

Re @ 51,

Excellent post! I concur with pretty much everything you say. I have often wondered what the point is of repeatedly debunking the deniers, is some respects we may even perhaps even be inadvertently amplifying their message, but that is because it is not a level playing field. Never was, never will be, and they know that.

We need an honest equivalent of "Monckton"-- we scientists are, alas, very often not great orators, and cringe about making references to Uba-juba island in Kanga kanga (a hypothetical place of course) which was "lost" not because of rising sea levels but because of subsidence, or speak latin to bewilder and wow the mignons. Munchkin has his act/performance down pat, and much to my bemusement it works. He tells people what they wish to hear.

Anyhow, a great orator on the science side would be awesome, together with frequent public statements (quarterly maybe?) on the state of the biosphere from a reputable/esteemed science group. Images are very powerful (thanks Anthony Watts), and they can be used to effectively communicate the seriousness of the situation. I honestly believe that most people out there are not aware that Arctic ice volume is plummeting, for example. Thos eimahe son Billborads and/or TV screens state the case well. One, of course, has to be incredibly careful of not unintentionally exaggerating the situation!

That is my, IMO, also why we need someone like Obama to really step up to the plate and for him to speak to those key images.

And yes, debunking IS important. If one thinks the deniers are bad now, I am certain they would behave much, much worse (believe it or not) if people like Tim or Dr. Abraham did not invest the time and effort to keep them in check.

On a happier note, Alexa sows that Deltoid is getting more traffic and page view than WFUWT (see Alexa.com) :)

Dr Abrahams critique is thorough, informative and, as one would expect, compelling in its finding that Monckton is a liar and a fraud. I have only one minor comment to make and that refers to Dr Abrahams use of the term âscepticâ when referring to Monckton.

Surely a sceptic is a person who doubts available scientific evidence and puts forward credible alternative material for peer review. Monckton does not do this. He puts forward spurious and contrived data which he knows to be such and does so for the purpose of distorting the truth and misleading his audiences.

On the other hand, Monckton asserts, that âthere has been very, very sharp global cooling on all measures since 2001â See http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2010/2800684.htm#transcri…. In doing so, he is not just mistaken, he is lying and knows he is lying. To describe him as a âscepticâ seems wrong.

Unfortunately, Abraham's takedown is duller than ditchwater. Only people firmly in the pro-science camp are going to listen to more than two minutes of it.

So you're blaming Abraham for your own ineptness at communicating the work he has done?

I agree with Maple, watchingthedeniers post is excellent. a vital question is what is the best approach is combined with debunking.

Hank and Lotharsson have each linked to studies that show setting straight works to confirm their prior prejudice.

IIRC the groups in the study Hank linked involved a sample with right-wing views who were given strong evidence that conflicted with their preferred narrative. And again IIRC the group in the study that Loth linked to were critical of the limits and methodology of studies depending on how the studies confirmed or conflicted with their initial outlook. More critical of findings which don't fit easily with their ideology; but are less critical of studies that confirm their preferred view. (An over simplification, that could countered if someone can find Loth's and Hank's links).

My take-away from these studies is that the studies findings polarize people. It is likely that effort is best spent communicating with people which arenât yet polarised.

This can be partially achieved by excellent balanced debunking sites (as mentioned by WTD and I'd add Science of Doom).

Re-Deltoid, What are people's views about role of exposing misrepresentation? I don't like being deceived, and believe exposure of deceit is powerful.

The volume of fact and misrepresentation seems terribly balanced on the net. Which lead me to wonder what proportion of us are active in AGW in public? I suspect it is harder to put your views out in public, where as in the intertbues every dog as his input. I suspect that local community actions say a lot to people who are confused by the competing claims.

>We need an honest equivalent of "Monckton" [...] a great orator on the science side would be awesome, together with frequent public statements (quarterly maybe?) [...] we need someone like Obama to really step up to the plate...

For me Gore played this role, and if Obama played it he'd face a similar assault as Gore did (remember Van Jones). Gore seemed to greatly influence the agenda in Australia with a few trips he made down under with AIC (combined with a devastating drought).

That is why Gore had to be attacked. The effectiveness of Hansen is also why he gets so much attention from denialist. Can anyone imagine being subjected to the campaign suffered by Mann? Perhaps Jones can?

Whoâs got their backs? And who are we not going to allow to be thrown under the Bus?

>On a happier note, Alexa sows that Deltoid is getting more traffic and page view than WFUWT (see Alexa.com) :)

On a depressing note, my reading is that Watts is getting 4 times as much as all of Scienceblogs combined. Please disabuse me of this notion!

BTW, I think we are seeing the results of disenfrachisment of people. Thus we need to avoid being suckered into the percieved roll of defending the powers that people understand to be disenfranchising them.

We can openly look at the corruptability of science, eg. how are the focus and studies in Pharma, Biotech, influenced by the dominance of the concenrated wealth in those sectors.

This is the opposite of AGW where the science has come through despite the power and profit motive of richest industries in history.

And media, media consolidation, media industrial complex, the media propaganda model. Much of the disenfranchiesed rely on media that tells them a simplified story for why they are poorly off. part of that story is that governemnt are ripping you off (while at the same time the media industrial complex buy (and profit from)sucessful election campaigns and thus disproptionately shape that government's decisions).

I don't think were going to properly address AGW without diversification of media funding models and diversification of media control.

And behind that is one more tier in the anti-democratisation of power, that is the dis-regulation of finance and banking. But I leave that for now.

re: #50
1) I've met Lord Rees. I doubt that he is running scared of Monckton. The RS is run by sharp people, but you can always guarantee that a few percent of any learned society will have odd views, and FRS (Fellows of the Society) are no different.

A typical joke (Cambridge or Oxford) of some of the older fellows there goes something like:
A group of fellows are eating at high table and are concerned about mad cow disease in UK.
They express concern to the steward that the "Future leaders of the UK" may be eating bad beef.
Steward: don't worry, we switched the students to Argentinian beef long ago.
Fellows: oh, good ... and we assume you did the same for us?
Steward: no, you're all already mad as hatters so it doesn't matter.

[This is quite unfair to many fellows, but it is a jolly joke,

2) In any case, another FRS and I were discussing Monckton a while back, and I quoted Monckton's letter to Snowe and Rockefeller, the part that said:

"You commend Britainâs Royal Society, once a learned body and now a mere Left-leaning political pressure-group"

My FRS friend laughed aloud, as of course, FRS tend to be older and more conservative, and the idea of the RS as a left-leaning pressure group was ludicrous.

3) Last year, when I studied the APS Petition, the signing group was heavily skewed towards the older members.

4) Finally, I have observed to various (highly-placed) UK friends that Monckton was an unwanted import to the USA and couldn't they please take him back? Sadly, all declined.
The best offer I got was something like "How about we split the difference, leave him in mid-Atlantic."

Hi jakerman,

Good point about Gore. But then what is the alternative? It would sure help a hell of a lot if the media stepped up to the plate. Their behaviour has, for the most part, been truly awful on the AGW file.

We can right off the WFUWT crowd and CA crowd. We should not forget that Gore did strike a chord with millions of reasonable lay people, we can't get to everyone, but that should not preclude one from repeatedly trying.

I guess it is important to have these debunkings saved for the future when the you-know-what really hits the fan. So at least the deception and lies of the deniers will all have been documented.

As for Alexa, I'm pretty sure that I read the traces correctly. It is late here and I'm tired, maybe someone should double check...OK, I checked. I entered "www.scienceblogs.com/Deltoid", but it seems to return stats stats for "scienceblogs.com" (i.e., all scienceblogs). Even so, all scienceblogs combined are getting much more traffic than WFUWT.

>Good point about Gore. But then what is the alternative?

A good question, perhaps a trusted figure in every neighbourhood? Speaking directly to communities rather than being only dependant of what filters through the media.

Perhaps we could to phone some local scientist to see who can be made avaliable. [97%](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm) of climate scienctist will stetch a lot further than 3% if we take away the false balance of the intertube and the media.

And the denialsist might look silly making their ideological claims in person.

Re #59,

Scientists working for the Canadian government are muzzled. I thought about doing outreach in our community but fear a back lash from those who think it is a hoax. That said, education, it critical. So maybe I'll dip my toes in the water and see what happens ;)

Sadly, many (in fact most) of my colleagues in academia are reluctant to get involved- they seem to think that it is 1995, and one can simply dismiss the handful of crazy AGW deniers, there are oblivious to the success of the misinformation and confusion campaign of the AGW deniers. They think engaging them or refuting them is a waste of time. I beg to differ on the latter.

>*Scientists working for the Canadian government are muzzled.*

We had a similar freedom loving policy gagging scientist under our previous de-regulation loving government.

>*I thought about doing outreach in our community but fear a back lash from those who think it is a hoax. That said, education, it critical. So maybe I'll dip my toes in the water and see what happens ;)*

Yes it would need to be well planned and delivered. An expensive investment of your time.

>*Sadly, many (in fact most) of my colleagues in academia are reluctant to get involved- they seem to think that it is 1995, and one can simply dismiss the handful of crazy AGW deniers*

Mmmm. And is much easier to not sacrifice time and energy. We are materially very comfortable today, and the stress involved with such sacrifices are real in terms of ability to provide for the health and wellbeing of our love ones and dependents.

Others who have made sacrifices in the past have often been able to see the physical harm of slavery, opression, and terror which they stood against. Those making the sacrifices now need to see the conequences in the future with suffienct time to stop them.

Perhaps we're asking too much of our species? Perhaps we are not that different from other species with populations that boom and collapse?

Maybe we'll give away our souls and restrict the population collapse to those in among those least responsible for AGW?

Would the poor really allow us to manage this type of survival?

One thing I wonder about is that we've never seen a speicies population collapse who are in control of massive stocks of nuclear weapons. I wonder how that would work itself out? Things got shakey in the fall of the USSR but the population didn't collapse.

@ Mapleleaf and Jakerman,

Thanks for your comments, I'm enjoying the discussion.

I think we shouldn't place our hope in one, individual "messianic" figure who will be "our" Carl Sagan or Ronald Reagan (the *cough* Great Communicator *cough*).

Gore has done a amazing job in bringing the issue to the attention of millions of people. Without An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) it would be a much harder sell. But you can see how the denial movement goes after Gore's credibility.

The denial movement, lead by Mark Morano's example are so good at "Swift Boating" these days that is hard for an individual to maintain credibility across partisan lines.

Plus, in the highly polarised political discourse of US Red State-Blue State identity politics people such Gore do not reach the large conservative/Tea Party/fundie base. Palin plays to the crowd and her understanding of science is well... you get the point. AIT just no longer reaches a certain audience.

IMHO, in order to explain the issue you need to entertain. The strategy needs to be broad based, and encompass several initiatives. I envision several crazy schemes:

A kind of "Climate Busters" show, based on "Myth Busters" - a show in which the basics of science and scepticism are taught (with explosions of course, volcanoes are good for that). Get someone to built a big controlled room with plants, fill with a atmosphere gases, pump in CO2 and watch what happens as PPM go up... "Oh look, the plants thriving, oh look they are now dead...gosh is the temperature spiking?" This is a model volcano. Watch it go boom. This is how it effects climate.

Yes, we need individuals with the gravitas and oratorical skills such as Obama to communicate to a wider audience. Not only did Obama electrify the US in the lead up to the elections, but the world. Perhaps an Obama-Sagan? But not one. We need many communicators from across party/partisan lines. "Climate change mitigation? Yes we can!"

Of course satire such as "Climate Crock of the week" is great, humour is a great tool. More of that please.

Re point about media behaviour... Information/briefing packs and sessions for journalists? This may have already been done, but teach them how anti-science movements work, how they spin and exploit "balanced coverage". Remember the old physics guys who supported Reagan's SDI did this. Let's spell it out: "They lie, this is how".

There is a wealth of information out there on the reason for denial of climate change, how the denial machine works and how people accept or reject information thanks to cognitive biases. We also know what works as effective communication.

Kinda needs to be pulled together as a multidisciplinary project. None of this needs to be a formal movement centrally planned and controlled (woo, da conspiracy!) but there is plenty of information that could be dumped into a wiki as a resource.

Denial Database or Portal? Your one stop shop for fighting the denial movement? Links, resources, papers, tips and presentations? [See further discussion here](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/the-denial-databasep…)

But then, I've had only *one* coffee and still not thinking straight. Overly optimistic? Crazy? Too ambitious?

>Overly optimistic? Crazy? Too ambitious?

Do and learn. We need lots of tries to get a win. If you find you've been too ambitions that you've gained real data and are better informed for your next ambitious effort.

BTW if what want to see confident ambition see the [API 1998 Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan](http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html).

Got make me one of those super powerful plans. How did they get such confidence? Oh thats right, they are the most profitable corporations in history.

James Hansen [released this](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100601_TemperaturePaper.p…) today:

>Given this situation, the best hope may be repeated clear description of the science and passage of sufficient time to confirm validity of the description. A problem with that prescription is the danger that the climate system could pass tipping points...

Some strategies more than others will reduce the length that will be "sufficent time" to confirm validity of the predictions to sufficent people.

Educating oneself if valuable, but then how do we best deploy that knowledge? Activists like John Mashey show a possible route. Several invaluable websites have been named. I've nominated community organising, WTD has nominated a porthole or information hub.

What else does the hive mind suggest before we commit to the next step?

Let's bear in mind just how effective the denial machine *has been*, especially in the UK of late:

The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November.

The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month.

And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made".

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500443.stm

We are going backwards. It's that simple

If you're relying on opinion polls you're asking the wrong people. The policy-makers, worldwide, have been on board for years, all that we need to do is ensure that they take appropriate action. Global warming is not yet a big enough issue to tip large numbers of uncommitted voters and it's unlikely to be so (let's all hope) for a couple of decades. If it ever does become a big election issue, it will be a liability for those who are dragging their feet, not those who are proposing commensurate action.

The skeptics and deniers lost the argument years ago. All they can ever hope to do now is make a confusing noise. Their more obvious lies should be noted, but they have little influence and should be ignored. There are much more important matters to deal with, and those concern the policy makers.

> Hank and Lotharsson have each linked to studies that show setting straight works to confirm their prior prejudice.

IIRC one of the links I posted some time back demonstrated that **how** you express the debunking is critical. If you repeat the falsehood on your way to debunking it, rather than expressing the truth without repeating the falsehood, you entrench the falsehood in people's minds. (Hmmm, SkepticalScience may want to take note...)

That second study (from Hank?) on entrenchment of existing attitudes was fairly depressing though. (I wonder if there's a link to [Altemeyer](http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/)'s phenomenon of "[Right Wing Authoritarianism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism)" (which is **not** talking about the *political* right or left wing, but a designation of the authoritarian followers' chosen sources of authority.)

Given that those studies likely represent real phenomena, I think professional communicators and communication academics need to help craft effective messages. I imagine most of us - and most climate scientists - have no particular skills in that area.

> Perhaps we're asking too much of our species?

I'm fairly cynical that we'll be able to get sufficient agreement before serious damage becomes inevitable. As a species we're not that great at dealing with future threats where the signs are not obvious to the laymen, the tactics of the denialism promoters are quite effective on a significant portion of the population - and with slow-moving but high-momentum threats the threshold before action becomes popular can be crossed too late to be effective.

>(Hmmm, SkepticalScience may want to take note...)

I'd suggest that skepticalScience is still highly valuable inspite of the phenomena. (Not suggesting that Lotharson thinks contary to this). SkeptSci highly fact based, educational for scientific semi-lays like me, and puts most of the focus on the science and a minimum on the denialsit points.

Lotharsson, on the value of debunking in geneal, are you of the opinion that the findings (re setting people straight) were relevent to polarised attitudes and less relevent to the people who are yet to be polarized?

Tony writes;

>The policy-makers, worldwide, have been on board for years, all that we need to do is ensure that they take appropriate action.

The issues seem to currently require bipartisan agreement. We keep getting action held up by the out of government opposition simply running against action or watering down legislation until its worse than useless.

i.e. Governments in power are reluctant to legislate serious mechanisms without bipartisan support. Thus action is held back by the minority. This problem is multplied by the prisoners delemma set up with internation trade competition and the need for rich nations to jump all together.

> ...are you of the opinion that the findings (re setting people straight) were relevent to polarised attitudes and less relevent to the people who are yet to be polarized?

I'm not sure, and I have no particular expertise in this area.

But if you meant - "Was the study I once linked to was more relevant to people who already have false beliefs on an issue than to those who have no beliefs?" - then that might be the case. (Caveat: I have memory issues some days...best thing to do is go back and find the studies.)

Talking of Skeptical Science...

John Abraham does a guest post about Monckton:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-…

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

[Here is a link to one study](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2554…) found by Lotharsson. And [jump here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2528…) for the Hank link. Dave H [added one as well](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/open_thread_48.php#comment-2529…).

BTW i'm waiting with bated breath for Watts to invite John Abraham to write a guest post on WUWT:-)

jakerman wrote:
Educating oneself if valuable, but then how do we best deploy that knowledge? Activists like John Mashey show a possible route. Several invaluable websites have been named. I've nominated community organising

Like most other non-climate scientists here, I have spent a good deal of time educating myself about the science of climate change. I have also put in way too much time on popular non-science blogs refuting and exposing the nonsense of those aiming to cause confusion by spreading disinformation. I think the most effective use of my time and acquired knowledge has been working with a local grass roots environmental organization whose aim is educating people in our neighbourhood and city about the potential threat of AGW and about what they can do as individuals to reduce their own carbon footprint and leverage their personal actions by influencing various levels of government to address the issue.

The education component has included arranging for a trained Climate Project volunteer to give a public presentation of the AIT slide show in the auditorium of the local high school, followed by a panel discussion on how individuals and society can respond to lower our carbon footprint (this was long before Gore's Our Choice follow-on book was published). Other projects have been a monthly series of films, speakers and workshops on various aspects of reducing energy use and sustainable living practices, such as low water gardening and reducing household water use (purifying and pumping fresh water and treating waste water is the second largest municipal expenditure of electrical energy in in our city), how to weather seal and add insulation to your home, keeping cool in the summer without air conditioning, staycations, and other similar low-carbon themes.

We established a volunteer project to help homeowners evaluate the energy use of their homes and identify what upgrades they could make and what government and vendor grants, rebates and incentives they would qualify for to offset their costs. The project included establishing a list of qualified contractors and vendors, and calculating household energy use pre and post upgrades to measure change in energy consumption and carbon emissions, surprisingly, something the government grant programs did not include.

We held three candidate meetings during provincial and federal elections focussed on the issue of energy use and pricing carbon emissions, and have actively advocated municipal government for energy use reduction and instituting programs to assist homeowners in reducing their energy use.

The success of our projects has varied, but attendance and participation in our events has steadily grown, and several projects have spun off into new stand-alone groups focused on such things as urban private and public space agriculture and organizing bulk purchase of household solar pv and domestic hot water hardware, contracting and financing. It's quite clear to me that individuals can and will take action when properly educated and motivated to do so. It's also clear that those who do take action have a multiplying effect on their neighbours and on their governments, at least on the local and provincial level. I strongly urge you to actually get your feet on the ground in a public and visible way to demonstrate that something can be done by individual citizens instead of waiting for government to do it for you.

I still want to know what's up with the Pretty Pink Portcullis of the House of Lord*. Is it clip art? Is it pink on purpose? Does Chris think it's funny, too? Can we put it on all our documents?

* singular for a reason

jakerman,

Here you are again insisting if only the entire world system of operating could be overturned all would be ok,

You need to get real and realise the world is not going to conform to your fantasies, that there are many, many different approaches out there to yours which people hold equally as sincerely and that progress will only come through compromise, respect and co-existence.

Jim Eager,

I have a lot of empathy for what you say. It is 'empowering' to take 'control', to work with others and to feel you are making some kind of difference.

But my experience of 25 years in anti nuclear weapons activism is that most people in such organisations don't want to go beyond this initial 'rush'. They are happy to be 'against' something but not really interested in finding the technical and political solutions to the problem. When you raise these issues
they don't really want to know.

Which is why we didn't just show AIC, Dave, but followed it with a panel to discuss what positive action people could take.

It's why none of our events or projects have been couched as "anti" anything, but rather "for" something, such as saving people money on their energy and water bills, making their homes more comfortable, or increasing the value of heir homes.

We must be doing something right since the number of people involved in our events and projects continues to grow, and why our Ward has more installed solar infrastructure than the rest of the city combined. It certainly didn't get that way by arguing with those in denial of physical reality because we simply don't bother doing that.

[Some context](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/255_members_of_the_natianal_ac…) for anyone wondering why Dave Andrews is responding to me is such an off target manner. (Possibly in his mind he thinks I wrote something else, which is what he has attacked).

I think I've trained him to pay 'special' attention to me! Which might be more productive than his past contributions (paying special attention to Mann and Jeff Harvey).

Dave its nice to see you engaging respectfully with Jim. Take care of your self Dave.

Jim, Thanks for [your post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…), It is inspiring what can be done.

First question who can be contacted to discuss the process and practices that helped and didn't?

Second, given this experience what would you try next to build on this? What would be the most effective use of your limited time and energy?

Correction:

Dave its nice to see you engaging respectfully with Jim.

Sorry to see you misrepresent what Jim is doing.

jakerman asked: "First question who can be contacted to discuss the process and practices that helped and didn't?"

I guess that would be me, so ask away, although it might be more appropriate to take the discussion private. Is there some way to exchange email addresses securly?

jakerman: "Second, given this experience what would you try next to build on this? What would be the most effective use of your limited time and energy?"

Good question. We are currently discussing what our next project(s) will be. The Green Together project that helped homeowners navigate the energy upgrade and rebate program is winding down (our project grant has expired and the federal gov rebate program is not being renewed), although some of the GT project aspects are not dependent on grants/rebates so they will definitely continue. Our film/speaker/workshop program is ongoing. There's a municipal election this fall so we may do another candidates meeting around city energy conservation programs and policies in conjunction with other environmental groups since our group mainly operates in only one ward. One long term project we are discussing is trying to convince the city to allow homeowners to use municipal curbside right of way and even the street right of way to put in ground source geothermal wells and loop piping for residential heating. There are precedents for both. I'm sure we'll keep busy.

Now featured in the Guardian.

Jim Eager,

I wish you every success in your endeavours. Time will tell.

Jakerman,

Give up your cod psychoanalysis. Its as bad as your supposed world view.

Thanks for your opinion Dave, Stay nice.

Hold on, Monckton's credibility has just been given a major boost!

> Monckton's credibility has just been given a major boost!

The way that press release is written the UKIP was responsible for the hung parliament - and Monckton wants to write a constitution for Europe, which might be overstepping his authority by a smidgin or two...

From the UKIP page, quoting the Discount Monkfish "My first task will be to build on the Initiative Referendum Bill...by drafting new, radically democratic constitutions for Britain and for Europe."

I can't wait to see these two documents. He is the comedy gift that just keeps giving.

Even the UK Telegraph is giving Monckton [a kicking](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100008371/viscount-monc…).

"Viscount Monckton is a fantasist, a blethering popinjay useful only for amusement. He can be safely ignored in all serious scientific debate. But it reflects badly on those people who want seriously to argue against the science of climate change that this capering jester is among the public figureheads of their movement. If I were, for example, mâcolleagues James Delingpole or Christopher Booker, I would publically wash my hands of Monckton, and soon."

Telegraph: "If I were, for example, mâcolleagues James Delingpole or Christopher Booker, I would publically wash my hands of Monckton, and soon."
I would also wash my hands of Delingpole and Booker.

The UKIP write-up on Moncktonâs many talents is a must read:
[Christopher: A man of many talents](http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1675-christopher-a-man-of-many-…)

Includes the following:

"2008-present: RESURREXI Pharmaceutical: Director responsible for invention and development of a broad-spectrum cure for infectious diseases. Patents have now been filed. Patients have been cured of various infectious diseases, including Gravesâ Disease, multiple sclerosis, influenza, and herpes simplex VI. Our first HIV patient had his viral titre reduced by 38% in five days, with no side-effects. Tests continue."

> John P Abraham has taken the time to go through one of Christopher Monckton's talks and check whether the references that Monckton cites say what Monckton claims they do.

Seems the good folk commenting on this site must be too busy to actually watch Abraham's presentation before jumping aboard.

It's a real pity J.P Abraham has not taken the time to actually be accurate, and more the pity this dribble has been parroted here without someone taking the time to verify those claims.

Abraham's slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton's claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today. He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton's citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004), Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) He tries to do this without actually reading the papers. Rather he does so by (in some cases) asking the authors by email.

Has anyone actually watched Abraham's presentation? Some of his 'evidence' is laughable and would not get a passing grade for a first year paper.

Here are some tidbits:

1. He emails Schweingruber regarding Esper and Schweingruber (2004). Schweingruber tells him he's retired, so he refereed [sic] him to his mate Frank instead. How can Frank refute what Schweingruber wrote? Why didn't Schweingruber say Monckton was wrong. This isn't evidence.

2. He emails Keigan. Keigan does not claim Monckton is misrepresenting his research or that the graph Monckton shows is incorrect. Keigan asks for a free trip so he can come down and explain himself, and he also agrees with Monckton regarding constructing nuclear power stations. This isn't evidence.

3. He looks up the website of Viv Jones, one of the Noon et al (2003) authors. There he finds the following statement, "The Arctic region is currently undergoing rapid climate warming" and accordingly uses this as evidence that Monckton cited Noon et al (2003) inappropriately. This isn't evidence.

4. Next attempts to show Monckton's use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in 1998, Huang et al stated
>Temperatures were also warmer than present 500â1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2â0.7 K below present about 200 years ago.

Neither is this evidence that Monckton is wrong.

Perhaps Frank, Keigan, Jones, and Huang have good reason to change their views since their earlier works. But that is not the argument Abraham is attempting to make, and therefore cannot support his very weak argument.

I know it's only one small part of Abraham's presentation, but quite frankly, if the rest is even remotely as well researched as this, then it is unlikely to be worth anyone's time to watch it.

Thanks you.

Furthermore, Lord Monckton's reply to Abrahams:

http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-la…

Hmmm, cohenite, I wonder if he created that response while sitting at his desk in the House of Lords ...

Christopher Monckton's rebuttal is comedy gold of the highest order. Does he not see the irony in attacking everyone else's credentials and alleged untruthfulness?

Anyone else puzzled by the references to "Abe, baby"?

I don't think Monckton is a mentally balanced person.

As predicted:

>Now you will understand why I have already initiated the process of having Abraham hauled up before whatever academic panel his Bible College can muster, to answer disciplinary charges of wilful academic dishonesty amounting to gross professional misconduct unbecoming a member of his profession.

I now predict this will be as sucesscful as his many press complaints.

Monckton is also very insecure.

Aw, cohenite, do you really, really believe in Mr Monckton's credibility?

Your link is a hoot. A royal plural, an insinuation that he is a genuine scientist, a Sabre of Pomposity rattling in its Scabbard of Litigiousness, and a scientific content that is more tenuous than the gaseous content of the exosphere... Seriously, what is it about that prating knob that has you so enraptured?

And two general observations for the rest of the readers here - is it not somewhat conflicted that a minor aristocrat should so vehemently push the cause of radical democracy when he has a lurid clip-art ([H/T pough](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)) graffito, pretending to some membership of the (unelected) House of Lords, plastered across just about every surface that he exposes to public view? The crowned portcullis is a Royal badge, and his Barbie renovation of its colouring is a dubious artifice in claiming sufficient separation so as to not constitute infringement of 'passing off'.

And "RESURREXI Pharmaceutical"... it is a registered British company? More importantly, has it applied for proper scrutiny, adhering to all appropriate legislation, of its medical testing on human subjects? There is a remarkable dearth of information available about its activities, even accounting for commercial-in-confidence excuses.

I'm happy to add my voice to the chorus of people who note that Monckton continues to demonstrate no scientifically credible capacity for participation in climatology or in medicine. If the litigious Viscount wishes to threaten me because of this, as he has John Abraham and a long list of previous targets, I'd be delighted to receive his huffing and puffing here.

Perhaps our resident divorce lawyer could represent him.

I did a quick Google for RESURREXI pharmaceutical. The only relevant hit was the UKIP fluff piece. The company is keeping an extremely low profile.

@Zoot

There is a company called RESURREXI LTD (he must have dropped the Pharmaceutical bit - too sciency), and a company called MONCKTON ENTERPRISES LTD. Both are based in Pitlochry, Scotland.

Thank you m'lord. The company doesn't appear to have a web presence.

Zoot said: "The company doesn't appear to have a web presence."

Nor any registered official presence (required for a limited liability company in the UK):
"No Search Results for 'resurrexi and ltd'"
http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/htsearch.cgi

It's getting even funnier. In his 'defense', Monckton claims Abraham looks like an overcooked prawn. So, the same Monckton who went after the Guardian because it supposedly made fun of his looks, does the same to Abraham!

I guess Monckton will file a complaint against himself at the PCC?

96 John,

Initiated the process, eh? Are there no limits to the preposterous pompous posturing potty peer's delusions and arrogance?

Is this really Monckton?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/monckton-at-last-the-climate-extremists-tr…

Its more like someone doing a Spinal Tap on denialists....

@dorlomin:
Yep, that would be Monckton. He already forgot he debated Tim Lambert. And we already got a nice example of Monckton misrepresenting the literature in that debate (Pinker et al, in this case).

Monckton is a pathological distorter of science.

"Monckton is a pathological distorter of science everything".

Fixed that for you Marco.

Chek,

"Monckton is a pathological distorter of science everything ".

Fixed it for you. Remember, less is usually more.

The many writers above who use the term "denialist" are not fully honest. Most people they tag this way believe that climate is changing and most believe that man has played a part. The difference arises from how big that part is, because the world still awaits an ironclad paper that settles the many prior, conflicting guesses.

Not all of us agree with Lord Monkton's every word. Some are more senior academically. If he does stray from time to time, it's less serious than (say) the conduct revealed in the Climatgate emails, and yes, I know that official Inquiries are finding no harm in that fiasco.

If "denialism" exists, its function is to deny traction to bad science.

There is very bad science in global climate modelling. It starts with a premise that the task is possible, without first examining if it is impossible.

In that context, here is a related piece that I wrote on David Stockwell's blog "Niche Modeling" when cyclicities were being discussed.

.........................

David, The more you write, the more comfort I find in the analogue I mentioned before about the human body. The cyclicities of heart rate and respiration rate can occur at different frequencies, sometimes one changing alone, sometimes both changing at the same time but to various extent (as when exertion increases). To take the analogy further, unless there is a shock like a wound with loss of blood or loss of a lung, an increase in heart rate or respiration rate or both can lead to an increase in body temperature, which in turn can activate a feedback by perspiration. The onset of perspiration can be unpredictable or at least require some prior conditions and it interacts with data external to the body (like ambient air temperature and humidity).

If you accept this analogy as a partial explanation of system complexity, you can see that although the system can, in theory, be modelled, there are many inputs that need measurement and some might not have been measured in the past - e.g. the type of clothing being worn. The external factors, if not adequately known or recognised, can make the modelling not only wrong, but impossible.

Have we reached the impossible realisation stage in global climate models? I suspect it is starting to dawn."

.........................

Having read that, would you label me a "denialist"? If you did, I think that you would express bigotry, a nasty creature that is best left out of science.

(p.s. I have about 5 papers related to the circular dot pattern of this blog, some related to seed packing in sunflowers, the so-called "magic angle" etc., and I knew one of the physics authors well before his death, so you might conclude that I'm not a greenhorn. Can the person who displayed it give me an estimate of the number of significant figures that need to be retained in the radian factor to show pseudo spiral parastichy most clearly before the pattern starts to break up? Off the top of the head?)

>Having read that, would you label me a "denialist"?

Yes.

>If you did, I think that you would express bigotry, a nasty creature that is best left out of science.

No.

Thanks for dropping by.

>Not all of us agree with Lord Monkton's every word.

Geoff have you published (on blogs or elsewhere) any of your disagreement with the specific claims from Monckton? Or are you satisfied with allowing his memes to go unchallenged by so called "skeptics"?

Which of [Abraham's points](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) do agree shows Monckton is in meaningful error?

>I have about 5 papers related to the circular dot pattern of this blog, some related to seed packing in sunflowers,

The dot pattern is [Seed's logo](http://seedmediagroup.com/about/logo/).

This blog's logo is a [deltoid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/new_banner.php).

@ Geoff Sherrington:

would you label me a "denialist"?

No. Deluded might be a better word.

I wonder if he created that response while sitting at his desk in the House of Lords ...

I would imagine he was in the House of Lord; the one with the pink portcullis.

[Geoff Sherrington](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

p.s. I have about 5 papers related to the circular dot pattern of this blog, some related to seed packing in sunflowers, the so-called "magic angle" etc., and I knew one of the physics authors well before his death, so you might conclude that I'm not a greenhorn. Can the person who displayed it give me an estimate of the number of significant figures that need to be retained in the radian factor to show pseudo spiral parastichy most clearly before the pattern starts to break up? Off the top of the head?

I call "enormous wank".

The only reason your horn is not green is because it's red.

If you're going to speak about sunflower seed-packing (relevance?!), and if you're going to throw about a scrotum-load of jargon, and in the process omit any mention of Fibonacci's sequence, then you must excuse a humble biologist who suspects that you're speak from your arse.

Seriously, Sherrington, what has the ScienceBlogs logo to do with anything discussed on Deltoid? What a completely lame strawman. And if "[n]ot all of [you] agree with Lord Monkton's every word", which of his words do you actually agree with?

How exactly does "senior[ity]" fit into the picture? Where is the analysis that demonstrates that when "[Monckton] does stray from time to time, it's less serious than (say) the conduct revealed in the Climatgate emails"?

What is your case for the statement:

If "denialism" exists, its function is to deny traction to bad science.

Substantiate, with science, your nonsense that:

There is very bad science in global climate modelling. It starts with a premise that the task is possible, without first examining if it is impossible.

The eyes of the Interweb are watching with intense interest...

And then there's your love-letter to Stockwell... It's all well and good to turn a metaphor or a hundred (I'm an enthusiastic proponent of the off metaphor myself inorder to strike a bullseye), but you're comparing apples and oranges in yours, and in the process you're flattering someone who should know better than to draw the bows that he does...

As one of my old high school teachers was wont to say of more than a few of my less able classmates - Geoff does not show any interest in actually learning.

0 out of 10.

"off metaphor"?

Probably as appropriate as the odd metaphor, when all is said and done...

> Can the person who displayed it give me an estimate of the number of significant figures that need to be retained in the radian factor to show pseudo spiral parastichy most clearly before the pattern starts to break up?

This particular question strikes me as eminently Monckton-esque - boasting about the precision that one can personally cite (typically in order to imply that those who can't don't know what they're talking about - which does not follow).

Usually this tactic impresses the rubes - who haven't a clue who knows what they're talking about and who is engaging in an "enormous wank" - but as far as I can see it's primarily employed by those who don't have a solid argument.

Posted by: Bernard J. | June 6, 2010 5:29 AM

"and in the process omit any mention of Fibonacci's sequence"

Care to name which Fibonacci sequence? Or do you know of only one?

Posted by: Bernard J. | June 6, 2010 5:29 AM
"There is very bad science in global climate modelling. It starts with a premise that the task is possible, without first examining if it is impossible."

The problem is that there is no science to quote. If you can point me to any papers that set review points at which there is discussion on go/no-go review points, I'd be delighted. It is assumed that global models can be solved. Nowherehave I seen it stated that they might be insoluble. That would risk having a grant cut off, would it not? And cancellation of the order for a bigger supercomputer?

Posted by: jakerman | June 5, 2010 11:42 PM
"Which of Abraham's points do agree shows Monckton is in meaningful error?'

It is beneath by dignity to comment on Abraham's points because they are the words of a closed mind, appealing to authority, quoting selectively, straying well outside a field of training ... what on Earth is the reason to state that polar bears might drown if they have to swim to far? That's schoolboy stuff. Sheesh.

Likewise, I don't dwell on Lord Monkton's points, being content to publish what I have reserched and what I consider to be a close approach to plausibility. Besides, Monkton is not fixed in a mind vice; he changes his comments as new data come in with new instruments, new satellites, new mathematical analyses. Abraham seems to be a bit behind the times with some of his beliefs. He should read more.

> Care to name which Fibonacci sequence? Or do you know of only one?

More irrelevant quibbling.

In common usage there is only one sequence known as "Fibonacci's sequence" - beginning 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8...or (less commonly in my non-exhaustive experience) the variation that prepends a zero to that sequence. However the leading zero appears to add nothing (no pun intended) to this discussion.

One can generalise by starting with any two numbers and apply the successive pairwise summation rule used in Fibonacci's sequence, but the sequences so generated are not known as "Fibonacci's sequence".

>It is beneath by *(sic)* dignity to comment on Abraham's points because they are the words of a closed mind, appealing to authority, quoting selectively, straying well outside a field of training ...

Ah.

Geoff Sherrington writes:

>*It is beneath by dignity to comment on Abraham's points because they are the words of a closed mind*

Spoken like closed mind.

Geoff continues:

>*appealing to authority, quoting selectively, straying well outside a field of training ...*

Geoff is't Abraham's more qualified than you to speak on climate? And if not, aren't you appealing to authority?

And in your critique of Abraham, aren't you actually confusing appealing to peer reviewed science with appealing to authority?

Next Geoff, please explain how Abraham's selectively quotes Monckton, and (here is the trick) do so in a manner that can't be used to damn Monckton for doing worse.

John Abraham delivers a more gracious reply than Christopher Monckton deserves.

Geoff Sherrington said: "Not all of us agree with Lord Monkton's every word. Some are more senior academically. If he does stray from time to time, it's less serious than (say) the conduct revealed in the Climatgate emails... If "denialism" exists, its function is to deny traction to bad science".

Firstly Monckton is a huckster, not a scientist, (and currently the deputy leader of a joke political party) whilst also sporting a joke logo when presenting his joke take on science.

Given Arthur Smith's previous exposure of Monckton's freely chosen ineptitude (or worse), as well as Tim Lambert's and now Abraham's, you - let me get this straight - are here to deny traction to "bad science"?

I think Bernard called you out correctly in post #114

Following John's link to Skeptical Science in #123 is highly recommended, not least because his Lordship (hopefully not an imposter) has now posted a comment.

Milord_sidcup, and what a pompously crackers comment it is too. It appears (if genuine) that the good visocunt will be issuing a video by way of rebuttal to Profeesor Abraham.

And if there should be any need for further clarification required, presumably also a new range of Ninja Pink action figures.

Another story about Abraham on Monckton at the Guardian, [here](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jun/03/monckton-us-clim…)

Thanks for pointing that out lord_sidcup. One has to wonder why Monckton continues to denigrate the University of St. Thomas but still expects them to take his complaints seriously.

Sorry folks, but when I see a blog with the name jakerman, I withdraw from it. He/she does not even know how to use the apostrophe - "Abraham's selectively quotes Monckton".

A shame, there is so much I could contribute, especially after a diverse, successful 35 years in leading edge science that was measurably very productive and possibly helped pay a few salaries of you people.

BTW, Lotharsson | June 6, 2010 8:24 AM "In common usage there is only one sequence known as "Fibonacci's sequence". Not so. Try "Basis for Synthesis of Spiral Lattice Quasicrystals", Bursill L A et al, Modern Physics Letters B Vol 3, No 14, (1989) 1071-1085 at page 1076:
http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii14/sherro_2008/2010/Fibonacci.jpg?…

There are people with fixed minds and there are people who want to learn. I feel that I can't learn much from this blog. That's why I did a simple test with the logo below. 0 out of 10, the blog answer was based on belief, not on evidence.

Goodbye.

I love this site.

Good to see you lot are unencumbered by facts which might otherwise give a reasoning man cause to consider the argument before engaging in gratuitous self-congratulations. Abraham's infantile attempted rebuttal only proves how desperate you lot are for a savior now the Goreacle is silent.

>A shame, there is so much I could contribute, especially after a diverse, successful 35 years in leading edge science that was measurably very productive and possibly helped pay a few salaries of you people.

Remind us, which mining company did you work for?

>Good to see you lot are unencumbered by facts which might otherwise give a reasoning man cause to consider the argument before engaging in gratuitous self-congratulations. Abraham's infantile attempted rebuttal only proves how desperate you lot are for a savior now the Goreacle is silent.

Monckton insulted John Abraham's voice and appearance, likened him to Goebbels, insulted the university which employs him and threatened to have him disciplined.

Abraham was most gracious in reply, and didn't once resort to ad hominem abuse.

For this you call him infantile.

Okay then.

If you would care to watch the presentation, I am would be most grateful if you could point out all the errors to me, since apparently you know all about them. Monckton declined to point out the errors so perhaps you could.

Compare:

>There are people with fixed minds and there are people who want to learn. I feel that I can't learn much from this blog.

with:

>It is beneath by (sic) dignity to comment on Abraham's points because they are the words of a closed mind, appealing to authority, quoting selectively, straying well outside a field of training ...

C'mon Geoff. Don't be a weasel. Why can't you handle contradictory evidence? How can you dismiss something without even watching it? How can you accuse John Abraham of having a closed mind when you yourself block out whatever is inconvienient to your fragile belief system?

This, sir, is why you have been labelled a denialist. A true skeptic would fairly look up both sides of the story and decide for himself which is right.

Which could it be? Christopher Monckton, with a long history of fudging, lying, professional threats and abuse?

Or John P. Abraham, who researched the sources of Monckton's citations and found them to be incorrect and then calmly rebutted the little of Monckton's reply that actually touched on his presentation?

If you know they're incorrect (without even having seen the presentation), I extend the Passing Wind challenge to you. Why dont't you watch the presentation and point out all the errors?

If he's as wrong and as closed-minded as you know in your heart he is it will be easy!

No. Not at all. I call his rebuttal of Monckton infantile.

In just the segment of his takedown on the existence of the MWP, Abraham claims he is going to check Monckton's claims by reading the actual papers cited or asking the authors. Of the 9 graphs Monckton shows on his slide, Abraham tackles less than half of them, 4.

Instead of reading and commenting on the contents of the papers, he emails the authors to ask if Monckton correctly interpreted their papers. Monckton did not interpret their papers, he merely showed graphs those papers contained. Did the papers include those graphs as Monckton claims or not. Yes they did.

Did even one of the authors contacted say Monckton misrepresented their graphs. No. Not one. Huang did say that his 1997 paper should not have claimed the MWP to be warmer than today, but that's what it did indeed say. Therefore, Monckton did not misrepresent Huang unless Abraham has evidence that Monckton knew Huang had recanted. Furthermore, Huang's current work does not claim there was no MWP, only that it was slightly cooler than today.

Abraham seems to be trying to create a new scholarly method of inquiry. One that ignores what has been published for one that asks the author (or an author's friend) if someone has correctly interpreted their work, or if they have since changed their mind.

So John, if Abraham's infantile attempted tackedown of Monckton passes muster for you, then I am afraid their is no helping you.

Passing Wind is correct. Checking sources by emailing authors is what children do.

>Monckton did not interpret their papers, he merely showed graphs those papers contained.

Adults call that cherry picking. Cherry picking while ignoring the context of the graphs is exactly what Monckton is being critiicised for.

Geoff Sherrington writes:

>*A shame, there is so much I could contribute*

From the same person who who [just wrote](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>*It is beneath by dignity to comment on Abraham's points because they are the words of a closed mind, appealing to authority, quoting selectively, straying well outside a field of training ... what on Earth is the reason to state that polar bears might drown if they have to swim to [Sic] far? That's schoolboy stuff. Sheesh.*

And that was Geoff's response to avoid [this on topic question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>Geoff have you published (on blogs or elsewhere) any of your disagreement with the specific claims from Monckton? Or are you satisfied with allowing his memes to go unchallenged by so called "skeptics"?
Which of Abraham's points do agree shows Monckton is in meaningful error?

Sure Geoff, you had 'so much' to contribute as long it meant as you didn't have to engage in the relevant facts.

Geoff you didn't run away when I asked you the first question. You opted to bailout when [I asked you this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>Geoff continues:
>>*appealing to authority, quoting selectively, straying well outside a field of training ...*

>Geoff is't Abraham's more qualified than you to speak on climate? And if not, aren't you appealing to authority?
And in your critique of Abraham, aren't you actually confusing appealing to peer reviewed science with appealing to authority?

>*Good to see you lot are unencumbered by facts which might otherwise give a reasoning man cause to consider the argument before engaging in gratuitous self-congratulations. Abraham's infantile attempted rebuttal only proves how desperate you lot are for a savior now the Goreacle is silent.*

A strikingly fact free piece of two-bit opinion. How ironic given the large amount of fact in presented by Abrahams.

>*Instead of reading and commenting on the contents of the papers, he emails the authors to ask if Monckton correctly interpreted their papers.*

How do you know this? Can't he do both? And rather than just say he believe's Monckton misrepresent the authors, it is more powerful to get the authors comments.

Good job too. Abrahams judged well the lengths Monckton's supporters would go to as apologists for him.

> Not so. Try "Basis for Synthesis of Spiral Lattice Quasicrystals"

That snippet does not support your claim. For one thing citing Modern Physics Letters does not demonstrate *common* usage.

But more importantly, as someone who opines of another commenter that:

> He/she does not even know how to use the apostrophe

...I would expect you to understand the *distinction* between the original poster's [use](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) of the term "Fibonacci's sequence" (hint: singular) and (say, as appears in your linked image) "the ... higher order Fibonacci series" (hint: apparently plural according to context, and certainly qualified differently).

To spell it out, since a briefer exposition of these concepts has not yet been comprehended: the three sequences in the image you linked to, despite sharing the same recurrence relation as what is commonly referred to as "Fibonacci's sequence" and despite apparently being termed in that paper "higher order Fibonacci series" are not the same as "Fibonacci's sequence" - because they start from a different pair of initial values from what is commonly called "Fibonacci's sequence".

Furthermore, the term "Fibonacci sequence of order n" - presuming that to be what was implied by "higher order Fibonacci sequence" is **not** correctly used to denote sequences (such as in your image) that use the Fibonacci sequence's recurrence relation but different initial values. It is used to denote sequences where the recurrence relation specifies that successive values are calculated by summing **the previous n values** for n>2 - which is not the case in the example you provided.

> That's why I did a simple test with the logo below.

You *actually* think that your off-topic and pedantic "test" was relevant to people's willingness to learn about the topic of this thread - or even to establish your credentials to teach about the same? Astonishing.

> 0 out of 10, the blog answer was based on belief, not on evidence.

Presuming from your context that you're talking about the logo question, then that does not compute - especially as your question was directed to "the person who displayed it", and you misidentified who that was. The "sunflower" logo is the logo of ScienceBlogs, not of the blog Deltoid. And Tim's [comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) pointed this out. As you say, some people don't want to learn.

But feel free to use it as an excuse to depart in a huff rather than defend your other arguments.

>*Furthermore, Huang's current work does not claim there was no MWP, only that it was slightly cooler than today.*

Which is exactly the point Abraham made. So we can be be clear on that point.

John, here's a bit more detail for you to ponder on Abraham's errors.

Abraham's slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton's claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today. He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton's citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004) , Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) by reading some of the papers and asking the authors. _**"Let's do something crazy, let's either read the actual papers or ask the authors..."**_

_**"If 700 scientists say the medieval warm period was warmer than it is today, why are we concerned? That's a legitimate [garbled] If, if it was warmer than it is today then maybe we are in a natural warming period."**_

How well did he do? Here are some of my observations:

1. Abraham makes no mention of actually reading Esper and Schweingruber (2004). Perhaps he did, but fails to mention it. Abraham emails Schweingruber _**"to ask whether Monckton correctly interpreted his findings"**_. Schweingruber tells him he's retired, so he refereed [sic] him to his mate Frank instead. Frank claims "temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than the Medieval period." This may be the case, but it clearly isn't evidence that Monckton misrepresented Esper and Schweingruber. Why didn't Schweingruber say Monckton was wrong himself? A quick look at the paper in question clearly shows a MWP (figure 10) that was much warmer than it is today.

2. Abraham emails Keigan and once again makes no mention to having read the paper in question. Keigan does not claim Monckton is misrepresenting his research or that the graph Monckton shows is incorrect. Keigan asks for a free trip so he can come down and explain himself, _**"if someone was willing to send me down to St. Thomas I would be delighted to explain in person"**_, and he also agrees with Monckton regarding constructing nuclear power stations. The abstract to Keigan et al (1996), states _**"Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was ~1°C cooler than today ~400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period)."**_. This seems to support the existence of the MWP and Monckton's claim.

3. Abraham then shows the cover of Noon et al (2003) but rather than comment on the contents, he looks up the website of Viv Jones, one of the Noon et al (2003) authors instead. There he finds the following statement, "The Arctic region is currently undergoing rapid climate warming" and accordingly uses this as evidence that Monckton cited Noon et al (2003) inappropriately.

4. Finally, Abraham attempts to show Monckton's use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in the paper in question, Huang et al stated _**"Temperatures were also warmer than present 500â1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2â0.7 K below present about 200 years ago."**_

The use of Huang by Monckton seems rather selective, especially given Huang's later work no longer supports a warmer MWP, but does not claim the MWP did not exist.

All in all, Abraham has not provided any reason not to accept Monckton's evidence for a MWP, with perhaps the minor point that Huang has partially recanted his earlier claim. However, since Monckton was, in part, suggesting the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, but does not explicitly state this, I'll call this small point a draw.

Perhaps Abraham would have been better served had he approached debunking these points by showing that the authors to the cited papers had since changed their mind and that Monckton should have been aware of this. Alas, this is not the direction he chose, even though a teenie weenie part of this argument does leak out, even though never explicitly stated.

Overall, I find that Abraham has very much failed to disprove Monckton in the most important question. I have no idea if he managed any better in other parts as I did not examine the rest as closely (yet).

John, you may well dismiss this as cherry picking, but you'd be wrong.

pough, you are indeed correct. Emailing authors to check validity is unworthy of scientific endeavor. It only serves to highlight how desperate Abraham is. Professor indeed.

Did anyone else pick up on Abraham bagging Monckton for not giving full and complete citations, and only using the abbreviated form like Rahmstorf et al (2007). Check out his slide 8 for a laugh.

What does Abraham suggest is the correct form? He's and example from slide 8:

S. Rahmstorf et al. Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science vol. 317. 709, 2007.

The full citation should, of course, include the complete author list. Rahmstorf, S, Cazenave, A, Church, JA, Hansen, JE, Keeling, RF, Parker, DE, and Somerville, RCJ. 2007. âRecent Climate Observations Compared to Projectionsâ Science. 316:709

> Instead of reading and commenting on the contents of the papers, he emails the authors to ask if Monckton correctly interpreted their papers. Monckton did not interpret their papers, he merely showed graphs those papers contained. Did the papers include those graphs as Monckton claims or not. Yes they did.

Yes, Abraham could certainly have done better.

But it's quite astonishing - perhaps even "infantile" - to claim that Monckton **did not interpret** the papers. If you want to be super-pedantic (hint: you probably don't want to go there if you're defending Monckton), then perhaps we could start by noting that Monckton intepreted the graphs by selectively choosing which ones to show and what to say about them, out of the context of the original papers. But I fear that point may be too subtle for some...

> Abraham seems to be trying to create a new scholarly method of inquiry.

No, but you (along with Monckton) seem bent on trying to establish a new method of pseudo-scholarly argumentation - where any portion of any published paper may be used as "scientific" support a claim, even if (a) the extract used did not mean in context what Monckton claims it means (e.g. see his use of Pinker in the Monckton-Lambert debate), and/or (b) that paper has subsequently been superseded or entirely overturned in the scientific literature (e.g. Huang's paper).

> Did even one of the authors contacted say Monckton misrepresented their graphs.

So...setting aside the comparatively trivial question of whether Monckton misrepresented a specific Huang paper - how about considering the far more important question that makes the trivial question moot - did Monckton misrepresent the current beliefs of scientists or the overall state of the science?

Jakerman, you are correct.

I have no evidence that Abraham did not read the papers, and failing to make a single reference to anything they might contain is not evidence either.

Neither did he claim anything in those papers contradict Monckton. Look at them yourself.

[Esper and Scheingruber (2004)](http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Holocene_2002.pdf)
[Keigwin (1996)](http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;274/5292/1503)

I don't have a free link to Noon et al (2003)

[Huang et al (1997)](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1997/97GL01846.shtml)

Nothing here contradicts Monckton. In FACT it all supports Monckton.

> Overall, I find that Abraham has very much failed to disprove Monckton in the most important question.

Except that it's arguable that it's the most important question.

Monckton has not shown that a warmer-than-today MWP would invalidate the current scientific concerns about AGW; indeed whilst opinions remain divided on this point, there's concern that such a finding would plausibly point to a *higher* climate sensitivity than is currently considered to be the case.

Windy is posting has posted the same statements at [Chris Cook's](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-…).

Chris has pointed out facts such a:

>[Monckton] shows a selection of data which is either rather old or is not representative of global or hemispheric temperatures. So he's misrepresenting the evidence that bears on our understanding of the temperatures of the last 2000 years.

Here is more info from Chris that has not effect on Windy:

>Huang has repeatedly pointed out that his 1997 paper has nothing to say about the relative warming of the MWP and current temperatures since there are essentially no post-19th century temperatures in his borehole record since data from the top 100 metres of the boreholes wasn't used so as to exclude artefacts due to non-climatic influences.

So given that Monckton is citing data that doesn't included post 19th Century warming. Wouldn't it be a good idea to contact the author to clarify the point? Well done Abraham for actually doing this.

Lotharsson,

Abraham went about his inquiry very poorly. Did he prove his case. No.

Unfortunately, Abraham did not tackle Monckton on the grounds that he was misrepresenting the current beliefs of scientists or the overall state of the science. He might have done better. Abraham is also guilty of selectively using dated information, such as the relationship between co2 and temperature. Which follows which?

But clearly, to claim Monckton misrepresented the papers he was citing was never going to work.

This is what pisses me off about this entire debate. Abraham has failed and were supposed to applaud him for this rubbish.

> In FACT it all supports Monckton.

I think that's too strong an assertion.

For example, a mere two minutes with the first reference you quoted - Esper, Schweingruber and Winiger - shows that it ONLY looks at "West Central Asia", so on its own it hardly proves the claims of a synchronous global (or even hemispheric) MWP - which I believe (from memory) Monckton is implicitly or explicitly making.

And this illustrates the common central fallacy of those who claim the "MWP disproves AGW" - especially the oft-quoted "700 scientists support a MWP" line so beloved of Monckton, Nova and others. Firstly they assume globally synchronous warming that does not appear strongly justified by the evidence, and secondly they assume that a warmer MWP means anthropogenic forces have no significant impact right now which does not necessarily follow.

>Nothing here contradicts Monckton. In FACT it all supports Monckton.

Except that:

>[Monckton] shows a selection of data which is either rather old or is not representative of global or hemispheric temperatures. So he's misrepresenting the evidence that bears on our understanding of the temperatures of the last 2000 years.

And Abraham finds that the authors he contacts support Abraham's reading and not Moncktons.

And the [best evidence](http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=2) available support Abraham's point that the MWP is not shown to be warmer than current anomalies. And Monckton is wrong to claim that it is.

> Abraham did not tackle Monckton on the grounds that he was misrepresenting the current beliefs of scientists

Er...really? Not even in the e-mails to scientists asking whether Monckton's representation of their work was accurate?

> Abraham went about his inquiry very poorly.

I agree Abraham could have done better, but it was a useful start. But Monckton went about his presentation somewhere between very poorly and very mendaciously, and you don't seem to be complaining about that.

> Did he prove his case. No.

Perhaps you could consider which of Monckton's claims Abraham proved were unjustified, rather than implying that anything less than a 100% success rate is useless. Otherwise you appear to be heading into concern troll territory.

Best evidence also includes the [response to the NRC report suggestions](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html).

That would be @ Chris John Cook's. Sorry John.

jakerman.

Clearly Huang has changed his mind and no doubt regrets comparing past temperature to present temperature in his 1997 paper.

**_"Temperatures were also warmer than present 500â1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2â0.7 K below present about 200 years ago."**_

Lotharsson,

Whether the MWP existed, was warmer or cooler than today may indeed have no bearing whatsoever on the AGW question. I doubt we know enough about climate to compare what may have driven climate back then to present drivers in any meaningful way.

More the pity that Abraham made the question of the MWP being warmer than today central to his argument. I can understand why you want to support Abraham, but you must realize how sloppy and careless Abraham has been. Might this end up being a lost opportunity - perhaps.

Lads, they are all interesting and somewhat valid points. Too bad Abraham didn't actually make them. No sense banging heads any longer over what points Abraham shoulda, woulda, mihghta, coulda made.

Thanks for the chance to chat.

See you guys next time something interesting pops up at blog of tricuspoid.

>Clearly Huang has changed his mind and no doubt regrets comparing past temperature to present temperature in his 1997 paper.

What is clear is:

1) Huang disagrees with Monckton and agrees with Abraham.

2) Chris [has shown you](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-shows-Monckton-wrong-on-Arctic-…) that Huang's boreholes exclude almost all the 20Century warming. I understand that BP (before present) is a convention in paleo parlance that can mean anything but literally the present.

Windy continues:

>Lads, they are all interesting and somewhat valid points. Too bad Abraham didn't actually make them.

Too bad you just assumed Abraham didn't read the papers and too bad you keep making other assumptions such as what timeframes were included in Huang study. Perhaps you should have done what Abraham did and contact the author?

> I doubt we know enough about climate to compare what may have driven climate back then to present drivers in any meaningful way.

I reckon many climate scientists would beg to differ. Studying climate drivers of the past is one way that equilibrium climate sensitivity is assessed, and it's also relevant to the determination that human influences are now having a significant effect.

> More the pity that Abraham made the question of the MWP being warmer than today central to his argument.

...if, by "central", you mean 8 slides out of 115?

You're still quibbling.

Abraham **clearly nails** Monckton on cherry-picking the the 1990 IPCC report to claim as a baseline when the papers that informed subsequent IPCC Northern Hemisphere reconstructions **were not in existence in 1990** in slides 24-26.

And it appears obvious from context that the subsequent Monckton references to "MWP" (slides 27 onwards) mean at least Northern Hemisphere, if not global.

In slide 27, Monckton is clearly shown to claim - **in his slide heading** - that 700 **scientists** say "the [Northern Hemisphere] MWP was real". It seems entirely kosher to find out if Monckton's claim that the **scientists** say that about the MWP is true - this is quite distinct from your concern over whether *the particular papers* whose graphs were excerpted by Monckton say that or not.

Yes, Abraham could have done still better here - but:

1) it's pretty clear that even the Schweingruber paper whose graph Monckton uses does NOT say what Monckton says it does,

2) (in contrast to your characterisation of it) in the correspondence with Kiegwin, Kiegwin clearly says "**you are right**" - not "I won't tell you whether you are right unless you fly me down to talk in person".

3) The scientist Huang's recent paper clearly contradicts Monckton's implied claim that Huang says the MWP was warmer.

Abraham's reply to Monckton's "700 scientists say the MWP was warmer" claims are far stronger than your portrayal of them.

jakerman,

You assume far too much. I posted the same critique in response to Abraham's guest postings over at skepticalscience.com, as well as have previously emailed him at jpabraham@stthomas.edu

The entire Huang issue is a furfy of the lowest order. Since you clearly have a poor memory or refuse to acknowledge what Abraham has actually written and said, let me post the entire contents of Abraham's slide 32, including his spoken comments in bold.

Slide 32
But Chris Monckton said...

S.P Huang was mentioned showing a MWP
In his article...

_**"What about Huang? Here's a recent paper bu Huang 2008 and the full citation is given there. Here's a quote"**__

S.P Huang, H.N Pollack, P.Y. Shen.
A late Quaternary Climate
Reconstruction Based on Borehole Heat
Flux Data, Borehole Temperature Data,
and the Instrumental Record, Geo.Res.
Letters, 35, 2008

"The reconstructions show temperatures...
the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below
the reference level and the end-of-20th
century temperatures about 0.5c above the
reference level...consistent with the
amplitudes estimated from the other climate
proxies as summarized by the IPCC."

_**"and that quote from Huang says that the medieval warm period was slightly below a reference level and the end of the 20th century, that means now, temperatures are a half a degree Celsius above the reference level. Consistent with the IPCC."**_

-**"And there's a screen shot of Huang's paper, including the abstract. With relevant text highlighted"**_

Therefore, Abraham makes no mention that Huang recanted. We have Chris over at skepticalscience.com to thank for highlighting that, not Abraham.

Abraham is somewhat careless with his quotes. You will no doubt have noticed when Abraham transcribes the abstract, he say the MWP was **at or slightly below**, whereas his spoken comments just say, **was slightly below**. Where did that **at** go?

Here's the complete abstract from [Huang et al (2008)](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034187.shtml)

_**"We present a suite of new 20,000 year reconstructions that integrate three types of geothermal information: a global database of terrestrial heat flux measurements, another database of temperature versus depth observations, and the 20th century instrumental record of temperature, all referenced to the 1961â1990 mean of the instrumental record. These reconstructions show the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of a mid-Holocene warm episode, a Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a Little Ice Age (LIA), and the rapid warming of the 20th century. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1â2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level. "**_

Given in part, Monckton was also claiming that the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, and Huang et al does clearly state that the MWP was real and maybe as warm as today, and that there was the mid-Holocene warm period 1-2 deg warmer than today - much to Abbott's pleasure.

Oh. And no. Abraham didn't contact Huang. See transcript above.

Lotharsson,

I haven't watched, or dissected all of Abraham's presentation - as I have made clear on many occasions. I also made it clear that I chose this part of Abraham's presentation because Abraham states

_**"If 700 scientists say the medieval warm period was warmer than it is today, why are we concerned? That's a legitimate [garbled] If, if it was warmer than it is today then maybe we are in a natural warming period."**_

If we are in a natural warm period, who gives a $hit about the rest of the presentation. Since Abraham has failed, as far as I am concerned, to make this case, I doubt very much the rest is magically more scholarly.

>1) it's pretty clear that even the Schweingruber paper whose graph Monckton uses does NOT say what Monckton says it does,

Pretty clear from what? Have a look a [Figure 10, p275](http://www.wsl.ch/staff/jan.esper/publications/Holocene_2002.pdf)

>2) (in contrast to your characterisation of it) in the correspondence with Kiegwin, Kiegwin clearly says "you are right" - not "I won't tell you whether you are right unless you fly me down to talk in person".

You are right, about what? Today's weather? The cost of a gallon of gas? USA has little chance in the World Cup? Who knows what. Couldn't have been that relevant if Abraham doesn't show it. Sorry, but you are reaching too far.

>3) The scientist Huang's recent paper clearly contradicts Monckton's implied claim that Huang says the MWP was warmer.

No it doesn't. See my post 157. Huang say **"at or slightly below"**, which means they might have been the same, or slightly below today's temperature.

>Abraham's reply to Monckton's "700 scientists say the MWP was warmer" claims are far stronger than your portrayal of them.

Just because that is the answer you'd like, doesn't make it so. Abraham has not done well, and could **eaasily** have done much better. No doubt, his inflated claims will make it to the global warming pantheon hall of fame.

"and Huang et al does clearly state that the MWP was real and maybe as warm as today"

Haung says that the warmest part of the MWP was *cooler* than today:

"the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level...

and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level."

It does not say it may have been as warm as today.

>The entire Huang issue is a furfy of the lowest order.

Agreed, and it was Monckton's furphy.

[Abraham's](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) slide 24 citing Monckton's slides 19-20. "The Medievil period was warmer than today". Further more the IPCC **erased** the the "MWP"Slide 22.

Monckton's slide 22 (Abraham's 25) cites Huang 1998. That is the paper that [Chris set you straight on](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Abraham cites Huang's 2008 paper to show that Huang's comparison with current warming (which he did not do in his 1998 paper) does not support Monckton's claim that the MWP was higher.

And Monckton comes crashing down for cherrying picking studies to fabricate a shoddy case that is contradicted by the [best estimates](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Here is a clue Windy. Cherry Picking papers (and not understanding the comparisons they make) is not a scientific way of reconstructing temperatures.

My apologies, Robert Murphy is correct. Huang said at or slightly below the (1961-1990) reference level.

Apologies to Lotharsson too. Huang does claim temperature today is 0.5c warmer than the MWP. Wow. 0.5C over 1200 years.

>>3) The scientist Huang's recent paper clearly contradicts Monckton's implied claim that Huang says the MWP was warmer.

To which Windy responds:

>*No it doesn't. See my post 157. Huang say "at or slightly below", which means they might have been the same, or slightly below today's temperature.*

Windy read Lothasson's sentence again then see if you spot your folly.

Then read [Robert's post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

jakerman,

>Abraham cites Huang's 2008 paper to show that Huang's comparison with current warming (which he did not do in his 1998 paper) does not support Monckton's claim that the MWP was higher.

I'm willing to bet you that Huang **does not** make any real comparison to current temperature, just as he didn't in 1997. What chance is there that Huang's proxy reconstructions correctly map to instrumental data without actually being a amalgam of proxy and instrumental records.

I don't have access to the full-text of Huang et al (2008), do you? I would really appreciate a link to an online copy.

Let's be absolutely clear about what Huang et al. (2008) actually wrote in their "5. Summary and Conclusions" is (my emphasis):

These reconstructions resolve the warming from the last glacial maximum, the occurrence of mid-Holocene warm period, a MWP and LIA, and the rapid warming of the 20th century, all occurring at times consistent with a broad array of paleoclimatic proxy data. The reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm period some 1â2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level. All of these amplitude estimates are, as with the timing of these episodes, generally consistent with amplitudes estimated from other climate proxies as summarized by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2007].

The ref level is the mean of the instrumental record in the interval 1961-1990.

And of course, the difference between the times prior to the 20th century and the 20th century is the difference between preindustrial era and industrial era CO2 levels.

Wind writes:

>I'm willing to bet you that Huang does not make any real comparison to current temperature

You just used it in that very way to try and support your case (before your understood it). Remember [citing this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1â2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.

Oh I see, it now doesn't fit with Monckton's unscientific cherry picking criteria.

> If we are in a natural warm period, who gives a $hit about the rest of the presentation. Since Abraham has failed, as far as I am concerned, to make this case, I doubt very much the rest is magically more scholarly.

So, you agree that YOU decided this was Abraham's central claim, which contradicts [your earlier claim ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

> ...that **Abraham** made the question of the MWP being warmer than today central to his argument.

And since you also falsely characterised what you specify as "Abraham's central claim", your corollaries also fail to follow.

> You are right, about what?

Give the context - and the fact that he continues on with "...there are a number of criticisms I have about this...", I would say "you are right that Monckton has not correctly represented my work". Is that really so difficult to believe? Or are you claiming Abraham has misrepresented Kiegwin?

> Pretty clear from what? Have a look a Figure 10, p275

...which is **clearly** captioned "West Central Asia climate variations from 618", thus **clearly** not referring to a hemispherical or global temperature reconstruction, which would be necessary in order to show a hemispherical or global MWP.

> Pretty clear from what?

I should add - also pretty clear from the abstract, the figure showing the regions where the tree rings were sampled from, and the conclusion...

Passing Wind has been trying on the same argument at sceptical science [here](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html#15659).

Worth reading for the context PW omits.

jakerman and Lotharsson,

You guys win. You guys are the smartest people I have ever known. You guys have convinced me Abraham is a genius, and Monckton is a nut. When you commission a monumental stonemason to construct an edifice to your greatness, please let me know if you were to send my donation.

Was that a farting shot?

> Was that a farting shot?

LOL :-)

Passing Wind it is, then?

if there ever was a bad attempt of defence, it was this one.

Shorter Passing Wind:

Damn you, with your reason and logic and references - you're right and I was wrong, but it's all just so unfair! (Slams door)

Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!

Passing wind writes, *Apologies to Lotharsson too. Huang does claim temperature today is 0.5c warmer than the MWP. Wow. 0.5C over 1200 years*

Windy, please tell us all here how you can approximate the significance of temporal and spatial scales in your downplaying of a global 0.5 C temperature shift (as it turns out, virtually all of the 0.5 has occurred over the past 30 years, but why quibble?) Have you some inherent wisdom that can separate the relative significance of stochastic versus deterministic climate-related events? Please enlighten us here as to what scales of time and temperature shifts yuou would consider to be significant and thus of concern. And then tell us why you have chosen the arbitrary value that you did.

Furthermore, regional variations in temperature shifts over the past century far exceed 0.5 C (e.g. 5-10 C in higher latitudes). Have you reasearched the effects of these changes on the the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning? On the helath and resilience of these systems? On the delivery of vital ecosystem services that sustain humanity?

I'll answer these questions for you. No. You haven't. You have tried to downplay climate warming by making the 0.5 C estimate seem trivial because you have a pre-determined worldview on the subject, much like many of the denialists do who are distorting science to promote political agendas. Its just that science is getting in the way.

Apparently, I'm the only nice guy here, pointing Passing Wind to Huang's publications:
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/publicat.html

You'll find the relevant 2008-paper there also.

[Re. my comment #89](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

I see the Telegraph has actually *removed* the article by Tom Chivers reporting Abrahamâs debunking of Monckton. Extraordinary that they would censor one of their own journalists (but still give Delingpole free reign to mount his own vacuous defence of Monckton).

There is still a copy of the [Tom Chivers article here](http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/telegraph-steps-out…).

What is the newspaper business coming to?

The Tom Chivers article does have this update:

"Update: Lord Monckton has phoned up and, in a rather charming fashion, expressed disappointment at the contents of this post. He was very polite about it and made me feel a bit small about the "popinjay" and "jester" comments, and he pointed out that that I hadn't phoned him for comment. He says he is going to get in touch with me after he has prepared a response to Prof Abraham, and I have said that I am happy to revisit this topic when he does so. I have, however, refused at least for now to take the blog down, until I have spoken to my editor."

It looks like The Telegraph has rewarded Monckton's bullying.

"Monckton's numbers do come from box 10.2, but are the mean and standard deviation of the sensitivity for 18 different climate models, which is not the same thing at all."

That's just bizarre. His data is correct (and therefore his case is sound), but because he got the citation wrong, he's wrong?

Seems to me, a number based on "18 different climate models" is much more compelling than one based on "box 10.2".

You guys win.

That's clearly true.

You guys are the smartest people I have ever known.

You don't have what it takes to make that determination. (See "Dunning-Kruger Effect".)

Re: 178 lord_sidcup

I think it's fair to point out that Monckton is now Deputy Leader of British political party UKIP.

Is this a case of UKIP putting pressure on the British press and forcing censorship for the purpose of self-interest?

For comparison...

"UKIP MEP stands by attack on âbiased, censoringâ BBC"
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2009/11/ukip-mep-godfrey-bloom-climate-d…

And we are off again
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Abraham-reply-to-Monckton.html

With added bonus Monckton threat to sue.

Correcting myself, its not really an explicit threat to sue.

@179, zzmike

""Monckton's numbers do come from box 10.2, but are the mean and standard deviation of the sensitivity for 18 different climate models, which is not the same thing at all."
That's just bizarre. His data is correct (and therefore his case is sound), but because he got the citation wrong, he's wrong?
Seems to me, a number based on "18 different climate models" is much more compelling than one based on "box 10.2".

Except that the number that Monckton quoted, is NOT that IPCC value for expected global warming in the case of a doubling of CO2. It is the value for ONE OF the several inputs into determining that value. The mean of the climate models is as Monckton claimed - but box 10.2 is explicitly concerned with using additional information BEYOND climate model results, from various other methodologies, and using ALL of that information to constrain the expected climate sensitivity.

Monckton claims that the value of one of several inputs into the IPCC value is in fact the entire IPCC value. That is simply wrong, and does border on bizarre.

pough, you are indeed correct. Emailing authors to check validity is unworthy of scientific endeavor. It only serves to highlight how desperate Abraham is. Professor indeed.

You are a Poe. You have to be. It's far too troubling to think of you as being serious. Checking with the author is one of the absolute best things you could do, especially if the paper in question is outside your field of expertise.

Posted by: pough | June 7, 2010 1:50 AM

>Passing Wind is correct. Checking sources by emailing authors is what children do.

:)

> His data is correct (and therefore his case is sound), but because he got the citation wrong, he's wrong?

No, read it again - his citation and data are both correct in and of themselves - but are NOT the data he claimed to be quoting.

This is particularly egregious when he's using his ability to quote a figure to two decimal places as a party piece to impress the rubes at the debate who don't know any better with the depth and ready recall of his knowledge (and the apparent lack of such ready recall in his opponents) - and then quotes the *wrong* data himself.

It's almost like someone tried to impress the audience by asking if their opponents could quote the 13th through 20th decimal places of pi and quoted the 18th through 25th digits of e instead.

>Checking sources by emailing authors is what children do.

Repeating POE comments is farcical Windy.

Posted by: Marco | June 7, 2010 9:47 AM

>Apparently, I'm the only nice guy here, pointing Passing Wind to Huang's publications:

Thanks kindly Marco.

Well, so Dr Huang adjusted his view of the MWP in his 2008 paper from his previous paper which Mockton relied upon; how tardy of Monckton not to be up to date! Huang says current temps are 0.5C above the reference line, which is the usual 1961-90 anomaly fudge, whereas the MWP was at the reference line or slightly below. Huang actually offers a reason why current temps may be slightly above the balmy clime of the MWP: UHI:

http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/stoten08.pdf

Arguably with UHI included today's temps are not quite at the MWP optimum. Anyway every one's forgotten that Professor Phil Jones has had an epiphany about the MWP; perhaps Monckton can use Jones next times he lectures; I must tell him; now where is my embroided stationary for corresponding with royal personages?

>*Dr Huang adjusted his view of the MWP in his 2008 paper from his previous paper which Mockton relied upon*

Cohers comes to try and defend [the indefensible](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

We know cohers is from the school of desperate cherrying picking 1998, so it should not be unexpected that he should defend Monckton paleo selection criteria.

Cohenite. You fail to illuminate for us why the presence or absence or degree of a MWP provides any evidence, one way or another, of the cause of THIS warm period.

Your logical fallacy: MWP was natural, therefore today's rise is natural. Same as saying all dogs have four legs, therefore that cow with four legs is a dog.

What the MWP proves is that this warming period is not exceptional.

What the MWP proves is that this warming period is not exceptional.

warming != warmth

>*What the MWP* [if warmer than current best estimates] proves [would show] *is that this warming period* [if it stopped now] *is* not exceptional *precidented by just one perod in 2000yrs.*

And would say zero about what is driving the current warming.

Lee #184

"The mean of the climate models is as Monckton claimed - but box 10.2 is explicitly concerned with using additional information BEYOND climate model results, from various other methodologies, and using ALL of that information to constrain the expected climate sensitivity."

The irony being that at his recent speech at the Oxford Union it is reported:

"Lord Monckton said that real-world measurements, as opposed to models, showed that the warming effect of CO2 was a tiny fraction of the estimates peddled by the UNâs climate panel." (from WUWT)

As you point out, Monckton's estimate of climate sensitivity comes exclusively from climate models, whilst the IPCCâs does not. Someone should let the Oxford Union know they have been hoodwinked.

Cohenite

"What the MWP proves is that this warming period is not exceptional."

Rather than embarrassing yourself with stupid statements, why don't you work out what it really means?

cohenite | June 8, 2010 1:35 AM:

What the MWP proves is that this warming period is not exceptional

And by "exceptional" you mean...what, exactly?

@lord_sidcup:
The Oxford Union inviting Monckton suggests they *wanted* to be hoodwinked...

If the MWP was similar to the present warming,then it raises the question.Could both events have had the same cause?

>If the MWP was similar to the present warming,then it raises the question.Could both events have had the same cause?

The you have to look at the evidence and conclude:

a) No other known forcing can reproduce current warming;

b) Anthropogenic forcing (as supported by radiative physics and predicted decades previous to temperature signal detection) plus known natural forcing can produce current warming;

c) IIRC There was an extended period of very low volcanic activity during the MWP (unlike today with combination of volcanic and anthropogenic aerosols);

d) Thus best evidence (a&b) indicate the causes are not the same.

Warren said: "If the MWP was similar to the present warming,then it raises the question. Could both events have had the same cause"?

Even assuming that the question hasn't already been exhaustively examined and that some unknown unknown which occurred during the MWP is taking place again, that does nothing to recognise the additional handicap that the radiative forcing of 100+ ppm extra (and rising) CO2 over pre-industrial levels is adding to the warming.

Currently, the global average rise is 0.75ºC which correlates well with the calculated forcing at around the 380ppm CO2 we are currently experiencing. While it doesn't sound much, note that it's a global average, and that some regions such as the arctic are actually experiencing rises of 5 to 10ºC. Once CO2 concentrations get to 450-500ppm, we're looking at an average of 2 - 3ºC, with local peaks that don't bear thinking about.

As jackerman points out, there is no logical known extra engine driving the current warming, but for argument's sake to assume there were, would be much less rather than more comforting and require even more urgent mitigation action.

"Thus best evidence[a&b]indicate the causes are not the same."
I cant see how that follows.If we dont know the cause of the MWP,then how can we know that the same 'unknown' forcing is not at work now.Also the magnitude of any Anthropogenic forcing is still unknown.That is,how much warming human produced CO2 has caused has not been empirically determined.

Chek,the big question is still the same one.How much of the warming is from CO2?Also,how can we be sure that 450-500ppm will produce a 2-3C increase?If our assumptions about the causes of the current warming are not correct,then our future scenarios are flawed.

"..there is no logical known extra engine driving the current warming.."
OK,so then we suspect that it could be CO2.But we cannot attribute the cause to CO2 by default.We must have a positive attribution.It could be CO2,but if our understanding of the climate system is incomplete,then we need more information before we make premature conclusions.Given that this is not easy in a dynamic system like climate.

jakerman, why don't you have a quick glance at this before you pronounce that only AGW [and natural causes] can cause current warming:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html

Quite frankly, had I known how much controversy surrounds [Huang et al (1997)](http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/97GL01846.pdf) I probably would not have touched it. I am, to some degree, in over my head, but will do my best.

As an aside, [Huang et al, 2008](http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/~shaopeng/2008GL034187.pdf) (HPS08) reads like a conspiratorists wet dream. One can almost see a the IPCC holding a gun (or was that a cheque book) to Huang's head as he recanted their 1997 GRL paper (HPS97).

The problems with the legend surrounding Huang et al's denouncement of HPS97 are many, and no where near as clear cut as some are claiming here.

Firstly, HPS08 states in [Huang et al, 2000](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/annurev00.pdf) (HPS00) that
>The initial purpose of the [HPS08] is to clarify and resolve this apparent change of perspective in our work between HPS97 and HPS00. Although science certainly allows for abandoning earlier results in favor of later results, in our case there is a different explanation. The fundamental difference between HPS97 and HPS00 is that they do not analyze the same data.

Since HPS00 doesn't analyze the same data, and neither does it mention HPS97 other than including it in the reference list, how can it be claimed it refutes, replaces or otherwise is a change of position?

Now, I'm not the only one that's been confused by the stance taken in HPS08. A quick search through the climate-gate emails (only for source value) reveals anything but a clear understanding that HPS97 was disowned by HPS00.

Wallace S. Broecker 26 Feb 2001 - 0983196231.txt
> Evidence for the Medieval Warm Period from other parts of the world exists but is spotty and/or circumstantial. From an analysis of 6000 continental borehole thermal records from around the world (14), Huang et al. conclude that 500 to 1000 years ago, temperatures were warmer than today, but that about 200 years ago, they cooled to a minimum some 0.2â to 0.7âC below present.

Author??? 01 Mar 2001 - 0983452785.txt
>Although one analysis of heat flow measurements suggests warmer temperatures than the surface proxies during the Middle Ages (Huang and Pollack, GRL. 1997), the considerable sensitivity of the resulting trends to a priori statistical assumptions has lead borehole researchers to restrict their attention to the more reliably interpretable temperature fluctuations during the past five centuries (Huang and Pollack, Nature).

M. Mann 09 Oct 2003 - 1065723391.txt
>My understanding of the papers from the borehole community ever since the 1997 GRL article by Huang et al is that they no longer believe that the data has proper sensitivity to variations prior to about AD 1500--in fact, I don't believe anyone in that community now feels they can meaningfully go farther back that that.

Jonathan Overpeck 14 Jul 2006 - 1152909980.txt
>Thus, although Huang et al. 1997, indicates greater mean annual global warmth, it was unlike the synchronous global warming of the late 20th century.

>So - the point is not (unless you suggest otherwise) that Huang et al 97 is wrong, but rather than within the limits of the data, it is compatible with what the higher-resolution, regionally-specific, multi-proxy data are showing in Fig 6.9, and that there was likely no period during the Holocene that was warmer synchronously around the global than the during the late 20th century. Do you agree with this, and is our reasoning accurate and complete?

>Huang et al 1997 also shows evidence for warmth within the last 500-1000 years that was greater than during the 20th century AND a cool minima 200 years ago.

Things get somewhat murkier when you consider [Huang, co-authored Pollack and Shen, 2000](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shaopeng/annurev00.pdf) (PHS00), seems to contradict HPS00.

>"Taken as a global ensemble, the borehole data indicate a temperature increase over the past 5 centuries of about 1 K, half of which has occurred in the twentieth century alone (Figure 7). This estimate of twentieth century warming is similar in trend to the instrumental record of surface warming determined from meteorological stations (Jones et al 1999b). When this trend is added to the more gradual warming in the previous centuries, the twentieth century stands out as the warmest century of the past five, a result similar to many recent multi-proxy reconstructions (Overpeck et al 1997; Jones et al 1998; Mann et al 1998, 1999) that did not include any geothermal component.

>On a longer timescale embracing all of the Holocene, Huang et al (1997) used the global heat flow database (Pollack et al 1993) to establish a composite profile of heat flow versus depth to 2 km beneath the surface. The inversion of this profile revealed a long mid-Holocene warm interval some 0.2â0.6 K above present day temperatures, and another similar but shorter warm interval 500â1,000 years ago. Temperatures then cooled to a minimum of approximately 0.5 K below present, about 200 years ago."

Or as EliRabbett put it, [Genius is not the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in one mind at the same time. ](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/singing-different-tune.html)

Is this matter is not as fully settled within the climate science community as some would like? So, does HPS08 finally settle the issue? I'll not convinced because the entire retraction has a smell to it, especially when statements like the following are give as a reason for no longer accepting HPS97.

>Yet in our later publications on climate reconstruction [e.g., Huang et al., 2000] (hereafter referred to as HPS00), and in publications by others addressing the climate history of the last two millennia [e.g., National Research Council, 2006; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007] there are no references to the results of HPS97.

Somewhat make it sound like they changed tack because HPS97 wasn't picked up by the IPCC as it contradicted Mann.

Food for thought.

Warren:
>But we cannot attribute the cause to CO2 by default.

If you think that's what has happened then it's about time you got [acquainted with the facts](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html).

>jakerman, why don't you have a quick glance at this before you pronounce that only AGW [and natural causes] can cause current warming:

Cohenite, You've got a new theory every month.

Dime-a-dozen theories fill the internet. Try pointing to a study that can pass the basic test of peer review and publication in a credible journal.

In the meantime the published and thoroughly scrutinized science was 'prounounced' [here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html).

cohenite:

Not a single article from Jeffrey A. Glassman appears on the Web of Science. I tried every combination of his name with or without keywords. Nix. I am alerted every time some piece of junk is posted by denialists online as the next 'definitive' proof that warming is either not occurring or is due to a natural forcing that has not been published in a reputable journal. When the author's name is followed by his degree - an MSc or a PhD - this is also a warning sign. It is used as a ploy to convince the lay reader that the writer is a qualified scientist, but hides the fact that his/her PhD might be in a totally unrelated field or else that the writer has very few, if any, genuine scientific publications in the peer-revierwed literature. I have a PhD (since 1995) and 92 publications in the Web of Science but I would never write an article as "Jeffrey Harvey PhD". What is the point? Scientists who read my work are not interested in my degree, only in my research. Adding a title to the end of an article is a sure-fire sign that the author is trying to convince non-scientists that they are qualified to write what they do, and that their 'research' should therefore be trusted.

IMO Glassman's "science" can thus be dismissed completely. Until he publishes his "the sun dunnit" theory in a reputable journal, he is to be ignored. Trust you to post this garbage here.

Passing wind: Your witless remark, *One can almost see a the IPCC holding a gun (or was that a cheque book) to Huang's head as he recanted their 1997 GRL paper (HPS97)* belies your complete inability to understand how scientific bodies work. Clearly you think of the IPCC as some kind of conspiracy club where there is pressure to accept the theory of anthropogenic global warming as a given. But this is a joke: the IPCC is made up of scientists covering a range of disciplines and with views that cover a broad spectrum. In the end, the last IPCC draft is very conservative: in other words there are many scientists who think the conclusions generated do not go nearly far enough in addressing the evidence behind AGW nor the measures that should be taken to deal with it. The final document went through 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer-review. Far from being 'extreme' in its conclusions, it is actually quite moderate.

The problem is that those who want to do nothing about AGW in order to maximize short-term profit see any kind of actions do deal with warming as a threat to the way they do business. This explains why they have taken the fairly modest outcome of the last published IPCC report and have spun it in order to make it sound like it is extreme and controversial. This goes to show you how powerful, vested interests, through mendacious propaganda efforts, can marginalize dissent. One need only look at how different agencies spun the non-existant threat posed by Iraq in order to ensure that an invasion of that country - for quite different reasons - was pursued.

Now, I'm not the only one that's been confused by the stance taken in HPS08.

HPS08:

One very important aspect of data selection relevant to the debate about whether the MWP was warmer than
20th century temperatures, is mentioned explicitly in HPS97
in the section on Data:

ââWe excluded data with representative depths less than 100 m . . .[because] . . .the uppermost 100 meters is the depth range most susceptible to non-climatic perturbations. . .; moreover, subsurface temperature measurements in this range yield information principally about the most recent centuryââ.

The consequence of excluding the upper 100 meters is that the 20,000 year reconstructions in HPS97 contain virtually no information about the 20th century. As the authors of HPS97 we can be criticized for not stating explicitly in the abstract and figure caption that the âpresentâ (the zero on the time axis) really represents something like the end of the 19th century, rather than the end of the 20th century. At the time we published that paper our focus was on trying to extract a broad-brush representation of Late Quaternary surface temperature variability that might be overprinted on the ensemble of world-wide continental heat flux measurements. We did not anticipate that a comparison of late 20th century and Medieval Warm Period temperatures would later become a contentious issue.

Not exactly complicated.

warren @ 203

how much warming human produced CO2 has caused has not been empirically determined.

I do not understand what you mean by this, and I suspect that you do not understand it either. Exactly what would you accept as a determination of the amount of warming caused by human-produced CO2? Would you accept any evidence short of the creation of a second planet with a different concentration of atmospheric CO2?

> As an aside, Huang et al, 2008 (HPS08) reads like a conspiratorists wet dream.

...says Passing Wind, as he proceeds to outline a conspiracy theory:

> One can almost see a the IPCC holding a gun (or was that a cheque book) to Huang's head as he recanted their 1997 GRL paper (HPS97).

>how much warming human produced CO2 has caused has not been empirically determined.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

All of modern scientific theory is empirically determined. The ab initio and empirical formulae used in [models](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png) have all been determined from empirical observation and measurement. Model reconstructions of twentieth century surface temperatures and empirical measurements of twentieth century surface temperatures match closely, empirically.

@ 214 luminous beauty

Stonkingly good explanation! Mind if I use that elsewhere?

J bowers, Feel free. It's not like it's an original thought.

It turns out that Cohenites link above to the scientifically illiterate Glassman is where Pete Ridley has been getting his ideas.

Not surprisingly, given his website title, Dr Glassman is described as a retired aerospace engineer ... "with a background in electronics, satellites and missiles, but not in ocean chemistry", and as an applied physicist and engineer, retired from California's academic and corporate sectors.

Sane people may follow the first link if desired. On the second, I take the Francis Urquhart position: Some may think so; I couldn't possibly comment.

Posted by: Jeff Harvey | June 8, 2010 9:19 AM

>the IPCC is made up of scientists covering a range of disciplines and with views that cover a broad spectrum. In the end, the last IPCC draft is very conservative: in other words there are many scientists who think the conclusions generated do not go nearly far enough in addressing the evidence behind AGW nor the measures that should be taken to deal with it.

What you have just claimed is conspiracy. You have just claimed the IPCC conspires to deliberately play-down its findings, and it does not correctly describe the science.

>The final document went through 12 rounds of internal and 3 rounds of external peer-review. Far from being 'extreme' in its conclusions, it is actually quite moderate.

Your characterization of the IPCC process is generously benign. Please explain how review of the FOD and SOD by members of the IPCC, many of which are not scientists, equates to **external peer-review**.

Also, you claim 3 rounds of review. How so? There are only two rounds of internal IPCC review, FOD and SOD, where IPCC members, both reviewers and lead authors, are forbidden to canvas opinions from outside the IPCC. Lead authors may choose to reject any reviewer comments at either FOD, or SOD stages without explanation. The final document is not sent back to the review teams for either review or sign-off. It is the sole work of the lead authors - which may change the content, including inserting new material after the review process has ended. How many examples of post-review insertion of new material would you like?

How many examples of non-peer reviewed references, including hiking pamphlets, environmental and NGO reports, government reports, undergraduate works, unpublished papers, and more would you like before you accept the IPCC is not impartial, and its reports have almost nothing in common with peer-reviewed scholarly publication.

The IPCC is not, as Australian PM, Kevin Rudd has claimed:

>The first thing Iâd say is the IPCC - International Panel on Climate Change - scientists has 4000 essentially humourless scientists in white coats who go around and measure things and have been doing so for about 20 years. They reached a conclusion about, first of all, climate change happening and, second, the high likelihood, defined as 90 per cent plus, of it being caused by human activity sometime ago

You may believe this means I think the IPCC flawed beyond any semblance of credibility, but I do not. Neither do I claim it is the vanguard of some Marxist plot to reorganize the world. But the IPCC does have a predefined "position" on AGW. You claim that position is to down-play the threat. Whereas my view is their position is one that rejects views that do not agree that late 20th century warming is anthropogenic and that all warming is bad and likely catastrophic.

>This goes to show you how powerful, vested interests, through mendacious propaganda efforts, can marginalize dissent. One need only look at how different agencies spun the non-existent threat posed by Iraq in order to ensure that an invasion of that country - for quite different reasons - was pursued.

Excellent statement, Jeff. This is the best explanation of global warming alarmism and the dangers of the IPCC ever penned. May I use it?

What a snob you are Jeff; this peer reviewed colleague is talking to you:

http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

gee Cohenite

>As anyone who has served as an
expert witness in American litigation can attest, even though an opposing attorney may
not have the expertâs scientific training, a well prepared and highly motivated trial
attorney who has learned something about the technical literature can ask very tough
questions, questions that force the expert to clarify the basis for his or her opinion, to
explain her interpretation of the literature, and to account for any apparently conflicting
literature that is not discussed in the expert report. My strategy in this paper is to adopt
the approach that would be taken by a non-scientist attorney deposing global warming
scientists serving as experts for the position that anthropogenic ghg emissions have
caused recent global warming and must be halted if serious and seriously harmful future
warming is to be prevented â what I have called above the established climate story.

And from that position your dude says

>It is of course possible that
... there remain mistakes in my interpretation of the
climate science literature, so that some of the questions I believe to be raised by that
literature are actually not well put.

Windy writes:

>What you have just claimed is conspiracy. You have just claimed the IPCC conspires to deliberately play-down its findings, and it does not correctly describe the science.

Please justify this claim Windy. The extract you cite doesn't substaniate your conspiracy theory.

When you put your conspiracy goggles on, we see the well trodden tendancy to fall into the trap of seeing every shadow or every difference of opinion as a conspricacy.

Its known as filling your knowledge gap with your perferred narrative, which becomes very problematic when it requires layer upon layer of fantasy as substitue for fact.

And then Cohenite, he rattles through a series of red-herrings for the rest of the paper, including a lovely hockey stick critique and an interpretation of Baker and Roe and climate sensitivity that overlooks the middle range certainty.

And don't forget he says,
>that aerosols are emissions from human activities, not something
generated by the climate system itself

Yes Andrew, isn't my "dude" humble, almost self-effacing; how refreshing; I suppose you hard men will nickname him Uriah.

Posted by: luminous beauty | June 8, 2010 12:55 PM

How I wish there was even a sprinkling of truth to your claims. Let's break it down.

>All of modern scientific theory is empirically determined.

>The ab initio and empirical formulae used in models have all been determined from empirical observation and measurement.

Hardly. Meteorological data gathered continuously for very short-term, regionally-specific forecasting runs were never intended to either reconstruct past weather or predict future climate. Too many variables are simply not known. Ab initio conditions for the past century are largely UNKNOWN because nobody observed, measured and archived past weather variables other than temperature and rainfall. Nobody measured solar irradiance, albedo, actual cloud over and composition, pressure patterns and circulation, ocean currents or surface temperatures.

Even for the post-satellite era I doubt the necessary observational satellite and land-based data was archived. What pathetically little actual empirical pre-satellite era data is feed into the models cannot under any stretch of the imagination be thought of as complete. Whatever data the models use **ab initio** is so grossly incomplete that one must marvel at the confidence attached to the results.

Therefore, statements like the following quote are meaningless.

>Model reconstructions of twentieth century surface temperatures and empirical measurements of twentieth century surface temperatures match closely, empirically.

Because weather and climate are a non-linear, chaotic system. Predictability may never be possible.

This is mostly off-topic, but I just discovered (if [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Guest) can be believed) that there is another Peer of the Realm named Christopher, one much cooler! Here's to hoping he makes one of his trademark mockumentaries about the other Peer Christopher!

@225, Lingering Fart:

"Because weather and climate are a non-linear, chaotic system."

Bullpucky.

Weather is chaotic - at any given moment, the weather we experience at any given instant, or any given year, is the point at at that time of the chaotic trajectory through time. This is why weather reports break down within days.

Climate is the boundary of that chaotic path. Teh boundary of a chaotoic trajectory is not itself chaotic.

Which is why, when I go to Sacramento in July, there might be a thunderstorm with rain - it happens - and there is absolutely no way for me to predict, to know that ahead of time. That's weather.

But I'm planning on temperatures near 38C, and I'm not going to bother to take a coat or umbrella. That's climate, and it is very, very predictable.

>Yes Andrew, isn't my "dude" humble, almost self-effacing; how refreshing; [rehashing debunked denialist claims while closing his eyes to the flaws in the claims he makes] I suppose you hard men will nickname him Uriah.

Posted by: jakerman | June 8, 2010 9:33 PM

>Please justify this claim Windy. The extract you cite doesn't substaniate your conspiracy theory.

Don't you own a dictionary?

>**conspire**

>⢠(of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to someone's detriment : everything conspires to exacerbate the situation.

Or as Harvey claims, conspire to minimize the situation.

That the IPCC process is deeply flawed is of great disservice to us all. I for one do not consider that acceptable. Perhaps you do. I would much rather an organisation that is not headed by someone with such obvious conflicts of interest, and did not produce such overtly political and error riddled reports. Is the IPCC corrupt and does it have a hidden agenda as some claim? Probably not. But it definitely has an IPCC view, and that is that late 20th century warming is unprecedented, anthropogenic, and that a warmer world can only have negative outcomes.

In Place of the IPCC, I would like an "a political" body that evaluated science dispassionately and produced purely descriptive outputs. Scientific prescription should rest within another body, and policy another still.

You are happy to accept third-rate prescriptive policy from a flawed process, much like you gleefully cheer Abraham's shoddy work, and label anyone with higher standards a sceptic, or worse.

It's now 2010. The global warming debate has been drifting rudderless for decades. You foolishly blame 'big oil' or 'big coal', or the 'tobacco lobby', or some faceless 'denial machine' for the lack of traction while refusing to see that the deeply flawed and politicized IPCC, along with alarmist propaganda, exaggeration and falsification is indeed stalling progress as much.

Try engaging with, and working with those you perceive as being on the other side of the ideological divide, like I'm trying too - imperfect though that might be. I stated my case why I did not think Abraham's take-down particularly worthy of gratuitous self-congratulation, and conceded points to other's views along the way.

At no stage did I stoop to any of the pejorative labels thrown around on this site, like fraud, liar, scam. Furthermore, I backed up much of what I wrote with references and links, which have mostly, although not entirely, been ignored.

I regularly visit many blog sites from both sides of the discussion. So far, I must say the sceptical blogs are generally more open to discussion with the AGW lobby than the other way around. Although there are exceptions both ways.

Windy,

Ab initio does not mean what you think it means. You do not understand the first thing about general circulation models. Your opinions are worthless.

>Don't you own a dictionary?

>conspire: ⢠(of events or circumstances) seem to be working together to bring about a particular result, typically to...

You simply demostrated the same fallacy, but with bells on. Not a cleaver expose.

Passing Wind @ 229:

Try engaging with, and working with those you perceive as being on the other side of the ideological divide, like I'm trying too [sic]... At no stage did I stoop to any of the pejorative labels thrown around on this site... So far, I must say the sceptical blogs are generally more open to discussion with the AGW lobby than the other way around

Passing Wind @ 130:

Good to see you lot are unencumbered by facts which might otherwise give a reasoning man cause to consider the argument before engaging in gratuitous self-congratulations. Abraham's infantile attempted rebuttal only proves how desperate you lot are for a savior now the Goreacle is silent

Now while you've got your dictionary out, look up the word hypocrite.

>*You are happy to accept third-rate prescriptive policy from a flawed process, much like you gleefully cheer Abraham's shoddy work, and label anyone with higher standards a sceptic, or worse.*

A recap of [what this moron so quickly forgot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

Windy writes:

>>*I'm willing to bet you that Huang does not make any real comparison to current temperature*

>You just used it [Huang 2008] in that very way to try and support your case (before your understood it). Remember citing this:

>*reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1â2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.*

>Oh I see, it now doesn't fit with Monckton's unscientific cherry picking criteria.*

Interesting to see what Windy calls "higher standards".

You are no skeptic Windy.

Posted by: Lee | June 8, 2010 10:13 PM

>@225, Lingering Fart:

You must be desperate. Fancy someone at tricuspoid being rude.

>Climate is the boundary of that chaotic path. Teh boundary of a chaotoic trajectory is not itself chaotic.

Really?

You say "boundary of a chaotic trajectory" like it is a trivial, and well understood phenomena. The hope expressed by the boundary condition view is that chaos can be ignored if we interact only with the boundaries of any system - just like real world, eh? Even boundary problems are sensitive to initial conditions, although not to the same degree as chaotic systems. That means it still is an **ab initio** problem, just on a macro scale.

[NOAA](http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_04/) is not as confident as you are, or as certain all is well understood.

>Conceivably, though, as more components â complicated biological systems and fully dynamic ice-sheets, for example â are incorporated, the range of possible feedbacks will increase, and chaotic climates might ensue.

You lot have to start realising you can't be so damn dogmatic, and accept that much more uncertainty surrounds modeling than you want Joe Public to know.

Because weather and climate are a non-linear, chaotic system. Predictability may never be possible.

You have to be utterly ignorant and ideologically blinded to make this mistake. Take a look at the picture of a Lorenz attractor on [this page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory). Do you notice how it is contained in a box? You can scroll that box up and down your screen; you can predict where you will find the box, even if you can't predict the exact location of a point on the Lorenz attractor. Similarly, you can push a graph of the weather up the temperature axis, regardless of the predictability of any point on the graph -- duh. This is just so fundamental, and if you can't get this right then everything you say on this subject is completely unreliable.

At no stage did I stoop to any of the pejorative labels thrown around on this site, like fraud, liar, scam.

So what? That doesn't make you any less wrong, stupid, or dishonest.

the AGW lobby

Hey, no pejorative there.

You are another example of the banality of evil.

You say "boundary of a chaotic trajectory" like it is a trivial, and well understood phenomena.

Indeed it is -- e.g., we can put a box around the Mandelbrot set.

Even boundary problems are sensitive to initial conditions

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You lot have to start realising you can't be so damn dogmatic, and accept that much more uncertainty surrounds modeling than you want Joe Public to know.

As opposed to your dogmatic belief that you know our intent.

You are yet another example of the banality of evil.

Passing Wind,

Why are you so wound up with the models and insisting that we don't know enough, when a) they are currently the best technology available, and b) observations so far correspond to modelled changes to a remarkable degree.

You seem to be forgetting that the theory that anthropogenic influence is changing the world's climate is [based on observed phenomena](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html#1-1) and not on models.

Now, just so I'm clear, are you suggesting Monckton is not misrepresenting scientific papers to make his case? What basis do you have to place trust in him? He has no scientific training, he has never managed to get any of his outlandish claims published in a peer-reviewed journal, and [he is](http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1666-lord-monckton-is-new-deput…) a politician. You're a braver or more foolish man than most, to trust a politician.

What you have just claimed is conspiracy. You have just claimed the IPCC conspires to deliberately play-down its findings, and it does not correctly describe the science.

No, he didn't claim that, that is your own retarded and utterly erroneous inference. Any moderately intelligent person can see how they clearly differ.

Excuse Passing Wind. Paranoid denialists see conspiracies everywhere.

@225, Lingering Fart:
You must be desperate. Fancy someone at tricuspoid being rude.

Considering that your chosen name refers to farting, methinks thou doth protest too much. And, since your very first posted statement was

Seems the good folk commenting on this site must be too busy to actually watch Abraham's presentation before jumping aboard.

you're in no position to complain about being rude. The fact is that you're no mere fart, you're a steaming pile of putrid shit.

Interesting statement:
"So far, I must say the sceptical blogs are generally more open to discussion with the AGW lobby than the other way around. Although there are exceptions both ways."

Let me explain, Passing Wind: some 'skeptic' sites are indeed open to discussion. It's based on the desire for "recognition". However, you will consistently see that the openness to discussion does not equal being open to the actual arguments. Thus, by being "open to discussion", they can claim to be a legitimate source of information, while actually remaining a source of disinformation.

Note that I have seen the same amongst creationists: "we are open to debate! The evolutionists are not! They must be wrong, and unable to defend their claims!". The facts are that the evolutionists are tired of having to rebut the same claims over and over and over again, and being hit with distortions and lies, made with impunity, by the creationists. It really is not that different from the climate change discussions. Climate scientists are not afraid of genuine scientific discourse. But there hardly is any.

jakerman,

We all make mistakes, and I admit mine.

>[My apologies, Robert Murphy is correct. Huang said at or slightly below the (1961-1990) reference level.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

>[Apologies to Lotharsson too. Huang does claim temperature today is 0.5c warmer than the MWP. Wow. 0.5C over 1200 years.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

Not only do I admit mine, but I don't pretend I didn't either.

>[I stated my case why I did not think Abraham's take-down particularly worthy of gratuitous self-congratulation, and conceded points to other's views along the way. ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

SteveC,

The two statements you point to are completely consistent. I suppose you're going to tell us you checked each and every one of Abraham's claims first-hand. Bit much to ask, is it? Did you check any of them? You did? Bully for you.

You snipped 4 little words from my quote. You should've left them where they were. Here, have them back.

>like fraud, liar, scam.

BTW. Excellent work indeed SteveC- 3 single sentences posts, averaging 7 words each. What a marvelous and noteworthy contribution to the discussion.

>[No. Deluded might be a better word.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

>[And by "exceptional" you mean...what, exactly?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

>[Now while you've got your dictionary out, look up the word hypocrite.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

Why don't you try discussing or contributing to ongoing conversation instead of just seagulling.

>you're in no position to complain about being rude. The fact is that you're no mere fart, you're a steaming pile of putrid shit.

Just charming, truth machine. Surely you can do better than that?

>*Just charming, truth machine. Surely you can do better than that?*

He did, but you [avoided addressing that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…). Much like you opted out of [addressing MFS's contribution](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Hat Tip to SteveC for [showing Windy the mirror](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Posted by: MFS | June 9, 2010 1:02 AM

>Why are you so wound up with the models and insisting that we don't know enough, when a) they are currently the best technology available, and b) observations so far correspond to modelled changes to a remarkable degree.

Because we don't know anywhere near enough and the models agree to a remarkable degree. Rather remarkable.

>You seem to be forgetting that the theory that anthropogenic influence is changing the world's climate is based on observed phenomena and not on models.

I think you mean the theory that increasing greenhouse gases due to human activity (existence) are trapping outgoing LWR, causing the earth's average global temperature to increase.

What observed phenomena are you referring too?

>Now, just so I'm clear, are you suggesting Monckton is not misrepresenting scientific papers to make his case?

No. I only suggested Abraham did not prove Monckton wrong.

>What basis do you have to place trust in him? He has no scientific training, he has never managed to get any of his outlandish claims published in a peer-reviewed journal, and he is a politician. You're a braver or more foolish man than most, to trust a politician.

I don't trust or distrust him. I never stated I did. I would have to examine his claims beforehand. He does sound convincing, much more so than Abraham.

As far as politicians go, I voted for that weaseling worm, KRudd. So much for trusting them.

> I would much rather an organisation that is not headed by someone with such obvious conflicts of interest, and did not produce such overtly political and error riddled reports.

[...plus several other trenchant quotes I could not be bothered cutting-and-pasting.]

Concern troll expresses concern using various mostly false denialist memes.

Film at 11.

Passing Wind @ 243:

Why are you so wound up with the models and insisting that we don't know enough, when a) they are currently the best technology available, and b) observations so far correspond to modelled changes to a remarkable degree

Because we don't know anywhere near enough and the models agree to a remarkable degree. Rather remarkable.

Translation:

1. When the models all agree:

(a) the models are wrong; and

(b) it's a conspiracy

1*. When the models disagree, the models are wrong.

Note I, Passing Wind, am not required to read the information in the links my interlocutors provide as evidence to back up their points. That I asked them for evidence to back up their points is irrelevant.

Marco,

This site isn't the place to discuss the science. If you are really interested, try scienceofdoom.com. Realclimate.com is barely okay if you are really desperate as it is too one sided. This site seems to exist as a for vent Tim Lambert's venom, and his rabid pack of feral dogs, ready to pounce on anyone they perceive a challenge - real or otherwise.

The tactic here is simple. Ignore the message. Attack the messenger. Be as rude and as loose with your facts as you like - Tim is. Deltoid focuses on posting material critical of the sceptics, so the rabid dogs can rip in.

Any argument posited is dismissed using a variety of devices, such as labeling arguments debunked and not to be discussed again, or by vilifying the messenger until they give up and go elsewhere. In otherwords, this site is the home of the close minded - home of the bigots.

With regard to this thread. I posted my partial review of Abraham's Monckton take-down because, as far as I was concerned, Abraham failed to make his case, and I backed up my argument. Yet on this site, Abraham was being prepared for sainthood. I could just see it now. In the future, any mention of Monckton would be met with, "Monckton! Hah, Abraham thoroughly debunked him."

Never let the facts get in the way of a good meme and a good group chow-down. eh boys?

Windy writes:
>*Because we don't know anywhere near enough*

What is "enough"? And how would you know that we are "anywhere near" what ever it is?

Windy, did Abraham debunked monckton? We dicussed Monckton's claim the MWP was warmer than today. The papers investigated by Abraham (cited by Monckton) didn't sustantiate Monckton's claim.

Abraham contacted seveal authors; they either confirmed Abraham's debunking of Monckton or refered to authors or material that did so.

So as for your,

>*Never let the facts get in the way of a good meme*

I have to agree in spades.

I'd also add, don't fall for unscientific cherry picking, and also when in doubt consider the best avaiable evidence rather than hiding from it.

And with Windy's attempt to rewrite himself as a Martyr, its worth revisiting [his openig salvo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>*I love this site. Good to see you lot are unencumbered by facts which might otherwise give a reasoning man cause to consider the argument before engaging in gratuitous self-congratulations. Abraham's infantile attempted rebuttal only proves how desperate you lot are for a savior now the Goreacle is silent.*

So much for reasoned curiosity! Not so much as a, 'how's your Mrs'.

jakerman,

Abraham did not debunk Monckton. Abraham stated the method of inquiry - **read the papers or ask the authors if Monckton correctly interpreted their papers.** None of the papers refuted Monckton, and none of the authors did either - with regard to those papers.

Huang is a strange partial exception. I have provided evidence that well know climate researches, such as Mann and Overpeck, as late as 2006 were unclear as to the official status of HPS97. Others, like Deming, view Huang's reversal on HPS97 as politically motivated - which it may or may not be.

I have also provided evidence that Huang co-authored a contradictory paper with Pollard in 2000 (PHS00). At any rate, Huang's 500 year records do not fit the IPCC narrative either as his 500 year temperature graphs show cooling extending back at least 500 years, and are much colder than any of the multiple hockey stick replacements in AR4. Also, his 20,000 year reconstructions show cooling extending back only about 250 then warming again. Hardly consistent.

At least in his 20,000 year reconstructions he still acknowledges the LIA, MWP and HM, albeit, shifted down ever so slightly.

That HPS97 did not include the last 100 years does not mean that the rest of the data was meaningless, only that the graph should not have included the last 100 years. He based the zero axis at his null hypothesis - read HPS97 for an explanation.

Abraham did not approach Monckton based on was there later material that contradicted Monckton. Too suggest he did is pure fantasy. Had he done so, I think Abraham may have faired better at least with regards to HPS97.

Others on in this thread have filled in some of the gaps for Abraham in an attempt to strengthen the argument. Pity Abraham didn't make it himself. Perhaps you should put together your own analysis of Monckton as you might do better.

Posted by: jakerman | June 9, 2010 3:26 AM

Opening Salvo? What browser are you using, Lynx?

[Never mind the post 2 days before it.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

Glad to see you are still keeping your posts fact-free.

@Passing Wind:
This site has had a large number of discussions on the science. Granted, its focus is mainly on the distortions of the science by a certain group of people. Interestingly, those same people are often hailed as saints and heroes on the 'skeptic' websites. Monckton has been shown distorting the science on many occasions (you might want to watch Tim Lambert debating Monckton on the science, the links are on this website (I'm not helping you find it this time)). Abraham is 'just' the umptieth in line who shows him wrong, but unlike most others, this debunking has been more widely reported. There may well be flaws in the line of argumentation, perhaps even the form, and perhaps some quibbles over certain content (i.e., it may be interpreted in two ways). But the fact remains that Monckton distorted a large body of research. The best you have been able to offer is some semantics about Huang.

Oh, and SoD discusses the greenhouse effect. Very well written, but I'm afraid Steve may in the near future have to start moderating as he's attracting more and more crackpots. So far he can use those crackpots to display the real science and show the errors some people make in their desire to disprove AGW. But he'll soon run into the arguments he's debunked many times already being repeated over and over and over again. One day he'll likely get fed up with a RTFFAQ reply and just delete the comment. Upon which people like you start complaining about censorship, of course.

>Abraham did not debunk Monckton.

I think your judgement is impared ([as demonstrated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…))

>None of the papers refuted Monckton..

Windy says with his hands over his eyes and fingers in his ears.

Its not hard to debunk Monckton on this. He's not published on it, and he's made a wild cliam at odds with the best avaliable science. And his process has been an unscientfic one of cherry picking paper to suit his desired answer rather than comparing tempeatures across time and global coverage.

Monckton's claim was that the MWP was warmer. Abrahams showsd that Monckton's claim was not supported papers he cited, and nor by Authors he cited.

That leaves Moncktons swinging in the wind and unsuppored by the [best evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) (which did not employ Moncktons anti-scientific cherry picking method).

I think readers can discrern if that is a debunking.

Monbiot is [doing Monckton again](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/08/monckto…). He also covers 'Chiversgate' (as I think we should call it) and Monckton's medical reseach.

Nice!

Passing wind:

>This site isn't the place to discuss the science. If you are really interested, try scienceofdoom.com. Realclimate.com is barely okay if you are really desperate as it is too one sided. This site seems to exist as a for vent Tim Lambert's venom, and his rabid pack of feral dogs, ready to pounce on anyone they perceive a challenge - real or otherwise.

Actually it is a good place to discuss science, but you have to be willing to discuss actual science.

>Any argument posited is dismissed using a variety of devices, such as labeling arguments debunked and not to be discussed again, or by vilifying the messenger until they give up and go elsewhere. In otherwords, this site is the home of the close minded - home of the bigots.

Science is not democracy. eg. Evolution and Creationism are not both correct. Only one is correct. Discussing them is OK but it doesn't change the outcome. Hence for instance, discussing creationism wouldn't validate it as being a science. Hence logically science is closed minded!

One would also say that Creationism is debunked and closed off from discussion based on science grounds. That isn't bigotry, it's just how science is.

>Never mind the post 2 days before it.

Correction accepted. So you think your [opening to this last 2 days engagement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) fits with your revisionist narrative?

Passing Wind says that the "tactic here is simple":

> Ignore the message.

...right after people have spent quite some time engaging with his "message" in detail. Impressive blind spot.

> Abraham failed to make his case, and I backed up my argument.

And at least 3/4 of your own "argument" to that effect was shown to be fallacious, and subsequently it was revealed by you that you hadn't bothered to view 90% of Abraham's argument in the first place.

This is your key assertion:

> None of the papers refuted Monckton, and none of the authors did either - with regard to those papers.

None of the papers or authors **support** Monckton's claims to represent the state of the science either. **That** was Abraham's point. Do you understand the distinction between the three cases:

1) Refuted

2) Proven

3) Not supported?

Which one does Abraham demonstrate for Monckton's claims?

Just charming, truth machine. Surely you can do better than that?

I gave you better than you deserve. You seem incapable of doing better than repeatedly lying, misrepresenting, and evading. As I said, you are another example of the banality of evil -- a person who is so blithely hypocritical, so willfully immune to changing his view in the light of facts and reason, someone who practices a cargo-cult version of debate and inquiry, lacking all the necessary elements that move rational discussion forward.

Passing Wind,

You write, *This site isn't the place to discuss the science*. You are right. The correct places are conferences and workshopes where the people doing the research - you know, real climate and Earth scientists - present seminars on their work. Another useful activity is to comprehensively go through the empirical data in the peer-reviewed literature. By this I mean a Naomi Oreskes-type exercise, and not the usual contrarian habit of a cursory overview coupled with immsense amounts of selective citing and interpretation.

As a senior scientist, I am frankly bemused at how many laypeople think they somehow azre able to accrue wisdom in fields they have not studied in any way, shape or form. You (and Monckton for that matter, as well as 99% of the denial community) fit snugly into this category. The key is that the denialists are promoting a pre-determined world view, and thus they carry out little or no research on their own (after all, if truth be told, they hate climate science, but they feel it necessary to wade into the field to bolster their own agendas, whatever they are). The anti-science denila crowd appear to think their duty is to cherry pick and distort existing data sets produced by the scientists who are actually doing the research.

Finally, I think it takes remarkable hubris for you to argue that *Realclimate is barely OK*. If you think that a web site set up by senior climate scientists is "barely OK", then either you are a well published climate scientist yourself with years of expertise in the field, or else you are bluffing, as the denialati often do. If the former is correct, then ad hom attacks are way, way out of line. If the latter is correct, then you do not deserve to be taken seriously. Which is it?

As for the "Science of Doom" web site, I found it virtually impossible to find who writes it. Is he or she a climate scientist? I did find indications that the author has contributed to sites like WUWT and CA, staffed by contrarians who publish virtually nothing in the peer-reviewed literature. My guess is that S.O.D. is run by someone who is not a scientist, at least not in a climate-related field. That being the case, how can that site be reputable whereas one run by working climate scientists is not? Please fill me in on your uncanny ability to separate 'sound' from 'shoddy' science.

Jakerman,

You wear the blindness of a bigot well.

As Goldmember told Austin Powers, "Then there is no pleasing you".

Paul UK,

That science now accepts evolution when before it did not, is proof that science is anything but closed minded. Should the creationists come back with some new and compelling evidence valid enough to disprove evolution - obviously such is impossible - science would indeed eventually re-evaluate it, and if correct, accept it.

> Abraham did not approach Monckton based on was there later material that contradicted Monckton.

He did indeed - you just failed to comprehend that he did, in part because you failed to comprehend that Monckton **actually** claimed that 700 **scientists** supported a (hemispherical or global) MWP (that is about as warm or warmer than today), not merely that a certain set of quoted papers (once and perhaps even now) did.

Either way it's a pointless quibble - a distraction tactic. If you **actually** think it's kosher for Monckton to claim that some older papers support the idea of a warmer hemispherical/global MWP **and therefore conclude** that the science (or the IPCC AR4) is wrong, please state so.

And then consider why that conclusion is a fallacy.

as far as I was concerned, Abraham failed to make his case

Yes, as far as you're concerned indeed. But since you're a liar and a moron, that's not nearly far enough.

I backed up my argument

With stupidity and intellectual dishonesty. No intelligent person would mistake what you have offered as a serious or valid argument for your claim.

Passing Wind,

There is absoultely no correlation between climate change science and the science of evolutionary biology in terms of overturning 'dogmas'. If there was, you would actually find that the climate change denialists would closely approximate the creationists.

As I said earlier, the vast majority of so-called sceptics do not conduct their own research. Instead, they rely on data sets produced by working climate scientists that is published in peer-reviewed journals, in many cases selectively interpreting the results of these studies or through outright manipulation and distortion. What is also interesting is how the denialati have shifted their goal posts over the years with respect to climate warming. First, it was a doomsday myth; then, as evidence grew in support of the theory of AGW, the sceptics claimed that the forcings were natural or else unexceptional in geological time scales. Ultimately, as the science continues to vanquish their arguments, the sceptics will eventually admit that the warming is primarily man-made, but that it will be by then too late to do anything except to adapt (many so-called sceptics are now taking this line). One theme remains consistent: nothing is done, business-as-usual remains the only business. The sceptics know that they will never win the scientific argument but that is not their aim; their aim is to sow doubt amongst the public and policymakers in order to ensure that nothing is done to deal with the problem.

As for your suggestion that contrarian blogs are more 'polite', you must be joking. You ought to hone up on some of the things that have been used to describe scientists working on various aspects of global change (including myself). I have spoken at many universities on the various strategies employed by what I broadly describe as the anti-environmental lobby (in which many of the climate change denialists are right at home) and you would change your tune fairly quickly if you were to look under the surface. This is because those anxious to retain the status quo see the entire debate over human-induced global change as some kind of 'street fight' with science as a useful and necessary tool in their arsenal (even though many of them loathe the science, as I said earlier).

There is little doubt in my opinion that the sceptics are winning the PR war. There are many reasons for this: the inability of many scientists to effectively communicate their findings to a broader public, the immensely well-funded and well-organized anti-environmental lobby, and the fact that in debates the contrarians express little doubt as to the validity of their position whereas the scientists on the other side, as is their training, express caution in their findings. We use phrases like 'beyond a reasonable doubt' whereas the contrarians give the impression that the conclusions are cut and dry. Who will the lay public believe? The cautious scientist or the confident contrarian?

The fact is that there are gaps in climate science, as we all know, but that there is more than enough evidence now showing that humans are the primary culprit in forcing recent climate changes. The doubt lies in what the outcomes of these changes are likely to be on complex adaptive systems and ultimately, on human civilization. For their part, the sceptics have seized on this doubt over the outcomes of climate change and have applied it to climate change itself. It is a cunning, dishonest, but albeit successful PR ploy.

Passing wind @92

>He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton's citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004), Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) He tries to do this without actually reading the papers.

You don't actually know that he hasn't read them.

>Has anyone actually watched Abraham's presentation? Some of his 'evidence' is laughable and would not get a passing grade for a first year paper.

Yes I have, from beginning to end. I have also revisited it a few times. Don't you think it is a bit unwise to say "would not get a passing grade for a first year paper" of Abraham whilst at the same time defending Monckton.

That strikes me as being cynical. It also contradicts your later postings here that seem to suggest science isn't being discussed.

If you really want to discuss science, then I suggest you have a go at Monckton as well for his obvious flaws.

>He emails Schweingruber regarding Esper and Schweingruber (2004). Schweingruber tells him he's retired, so he refereed [sic] him to his mate Frank instead. How can Frank refute what Schweingruber wrote? Why didn't Schweingruber say Monckton was wrong. This isn't evidence.

Incorrect. He actually says he is retired, that he was out of touch with the current science and that David Frank was upto date with the latest research. That sounds like a reasonable comment to make as a professional and responsible person who wants to give good advice.
But if you are looking for a conspiracy...

>He emails Keigan. Keigan does not claim Monckton is misrepresenting his research or that the graph Monckton shows is incorrect. Keigan asks for a free trip so he can come down and explain himself, and he also agrees with Monckton regarding constructing nuclear power stations. This isn't evidence.

Erm, by any standards that in itself makes an assumption about Keigans response.
Keigan writes 'You are absolutely right...'
Keigan also states that an area the size of Australia needs to be reforest.

>Next attempts to show Monckton's use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in 1998, Huang et al stated

Erm, you are reversing the issue.
The issue is why did Monckton apparently use out of date material that supported his view, when he should have been using more recent material?
Monckton is a politician, he is a member of a political party and gets involved in politics. That should be a good enough clue.

One tries to read all posts and to see some good in all, even when that someone is espousing nonsense; but the day is too short and the nonsense now overwhelming. So ...

'Tis time for the farty emanations to be bottled and hermetically sealed, methinks.

-->[kill file] --> "...Passing Wind blocked" LOL.

Re: Passing wind

>That science now accepts evolution when before it did not, is proof that science is anything but closed minded. Should the creationists come back with some new and compelling evidence valid enough to disprove evolution - obviously such is impossible - science would indeed eventually re-evaluate it, and if correct, accept it.

You are just stating what I have already stated.
You say it is impossible for creationism to disprove evolution, hence you contradict yourself.

You are saying that there is no argument about it.
Keeping the door open does not further science, it just appeases the creationists and human cultural needs for 'democracy' and 'free speech'

You are playing politics not science.

the fact that in debates the contrarians express little doubt as to the validity of their position whereas the scientists on the other side, as is their training, express caution in their findings.

According to Passing Wind (an appropriate name for such a gaping asshole*), by doing so they are conspiring to "deliberately play-down" their findings rather than "correctly describe the science".

* From his very first post:

Seems the good folk commenting on this site must be too busy to actually watch Abraham's presentation before jumping aboard....

I know it's only one small part of Abraham's presentation, but quite frankly, if the rest is even remotely as well researched as this, then it is unlikely to be worth anyone's time to watch it.

He did indeed - you just failed to comprehend that he did, in part because you failed to comprehend that Monckton actually claimed that 700 scientists supported a (hemispherical or global) MWP (that is about as warm or warmer than today), not merely that a certain set of quoted papers (once and perhaps even now) did.

No, Gaping Asshole comprehended that quite well. He wrote

Abraham's slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton's claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today. He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton's citations

Later, he takes Abraham to task:

Of the 9 graphs Monckton shows on his slide, Abraham tackles less than half of them, 4.

Apparently Gaping Asshole thinks that 4/9 is a far smaller sample than 9/700.

Such banal evil.

>*You wear the blindness of a bigot well.*

Rolls off the tongue of someone who makes indefensible claims and whilst defending [anti-science cherry picking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

You wouldn't been first person who's misplaced belief and eventual embarrassment lead them to make similar unsupported retaliatory claims.

Pissing Wand Passing Wind @ 242:

SteveC, The two statements you point to are completely consistent.

Translation:
If I, Passing Wind, say one thing then say another thing that completely contradicts the first thing, then I am being consistent.

If you, my interlocutor, pass comment on this, you are not contributing to the conversation.

Worse still, if your comments are of 7 words or less, you're a seagull.

@Passing Wind:
The interesting thing about the theory of evolution was that it provided a *new* way of looking at old data. There was plenty of speculation on how to explain loads of observation, it just took a certain Charles Darwin (and Alfred Wallace) to put it on paper in a coherent manner. Science rapidly accepted the hypothesis, thus elevating it to theory, because it explained the observations much better than any description seen before. It even made logical predictions that by-and-large were found to be correct (and any deviations meant the theory had to be (and was) adapted).

We're still waiting for anyone to come with a plausible description of the current climate without having to invoke increases in greenhouse gases. The challenge is out there, and those few that took up the gauntlet have so far failed miserably (Lindzen, Scafetta, Svensmark, to name a few).

An earlier comment from Windy has come through moderation. Windy writes:

>We all make mistakes, and I admit mine.

But his reference indicate he may limit his perceived mistake to misreading the comparison to current temperatures. This is minor in comparison to his Monckton like paper selection criteria.

Windy will you admit the hypocrisy of pushing Huang 2008 [to support Monckton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>*Monckton was also claiming that the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, and Huang [2008] et al does clearly state that the MWP was real and maybe as warm as today, and that there was the mid-Holocene warm period 1-2 deg warmer than today - much to Abbott's pleasure.*

And here is the twist, then Windy immediately [discards the paper and the comparison](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) when he [realized](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) the paper had a result he didn't like:

>*I'm willing to bet you that Huang does not make any real comparison to current temperature, just as he didn't in 1997. What chance is there that Huang's proxy reconstructions correctly map to instrumental data without actually being a amalgam of proxy and instrumental records.*

Can you see what this reveals Windy?

[Posted by: Paul UK | June 9, 2010 5:21 AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

Thank you Paul, at least someone is prepared to examine my points and discuss them, even if you don't agree.

If I may, I'd like to answer some of your points.

*1. He makes no mention whatsoever of the contents of the papers cited, and most certainly does not claim Monckton has misrepresented them. Is this because he didn't read them, or they didn't contradict Monckton. An explanation was clearly due as Abraham did say he was going to "let's either read the actual papers or let ask the authors..."

*2. Regarding "would not get a passing grade for a first year paper", that was made in regard to Abraham claims Chris Monckton "fails to give the full reference again and again", because Monckton is using Harvard style (author - date) in-text notation - perfectly valid. Abraham claims Monckton should be giving the formal (Author, Initials., Year. Title of article. Full Title of Journal, Volume number (Issue/Part number), Page numbers. ) citation instead. Perhaps Abraham is unaware of the Harvard Reference System.
Where is Monckton expected to fit such lengthy citations on a slide with 9 graphs. Monckton always offers a full list of references quoted by request and from his SPPI.org blog.

Secondly, by ignoring the written work in favor of asking the author as in the Scheingruber case below is laughable.

Thirdly, Abraham posited a methodology for inquiry but did not apply it. That's akin to doing an economy test on a motor vehicle by stating you are going to fill the tank and seal it, reset the odometer and check how far you can get before the fuel runs out. Instead you forget to seal the tank, didn't reset the odometer, so you ask the manufacturer what mileage you should've got. It produces an answer, that might even be correct, but you failed by your own standards.

*3. Regarding Scheingruber, Abraham says, "I contacted Scheingruber to ask if Chris had correctly **had correctly interpreted his findings** he's retired and he said "you know what talk to David Frank he's up to date on this stuff".

The question asked was **"correctly interpreted findings"** was clearly a question for Scheingruber to answer. Yes he did, or no he did not. Whether Esper and Scheingruber (2004) was still valid was not asked by Abraham. It was not part of Abraham's stated method of inquiry, nor is it what he asked Scheingruber.

*4. Regarding Keigwin. There is no context as to what Keigwin is referring to or exactly what Abram asked him. Abraham makes no mention of the contents of Keigwin (1996). Assume whatever you like, Keigwin does not claim Monckton misrepresented him, he agrees with Monckton's idea for Nuclear reactors and says forest the size of Australia.

The question if Monckton misrepresented the existence of a MWP from Keigwin (1996) is not refuted regardless on what steps Keigwin thinks are needed for the future.

*5. Regarding Huang. Does Abraham read Huang et al (1997) as he said he would - who knows as he certainly doesn't mention it. Does he ask Huang - who knows he certainly doesn't mention it or show any emails. Abraham did not apply either of his 2 stated methodologies, yet somehow we are supposed to give him a passing grade with Huang because Huang's later paper has shifted the LIA, MWP and HM down slightly.

Now let me restate this another way. If it was Monckton that was trying to disprove Abraham and was as sloppy with his methodology as Abraham was, you lot would tear him to pieces.

Abraham did not support his argument using the methodologies he set out.

If Abraham would've said. Let's examine if Monckton's claims are misleading because they are ignore superseding papers by the same authors, and if possible, let's ask the authors too. Then he would have made a case, at least with Huang, and maybe with David Frank too. Otherwise, he posited an argument and did not support in with evidence.

My personal view is that Huang et al (2008) does not at refute Huang et al (1997) it just moves the LIA, MWP, and HM down by about a degree. Keigwin may have refuted Monckton, but sadly Abraham did not tell us enough to know for sure. With Scheingruber, I just don't know if Frank was a suitable choice as it is not clear if Frank is continuing Scheingruber's work or not.

Paul UK, once again, thank you for this opportunity to restate my case, and I hope I cleared up some points.

Tim can you delete the last post of 'passing wind' @275?

The comments are attributed to me but are not my text at all.

jakerman,

>Windy will you admit the hypocrisy of pushing Huang 2008 to support Monckton:

No. But I admitted my error about the MWP compared to the 1961-1990 reference level regarding Huang et al (2008) already.
See [post 161](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

I misstated the bet offer. What I wanted to say, was what chance is their that Huang is using the equivalent of Mike's Nature trick by combining thermometer records with borehole reconstructions. Looks like I completely stuffed up that sentence doing the cut-n-paste rewrite shuffle.

>We then invert this composite 2,000 meter temperature versus depth profile, synthesized from the instrumental record, the century-long temperature trends of HPS00, and the integrated heat flux versus depth data from HPS97, to yield a reconstruction of the surface temperature history over the past 20,000 years (Huang et al, 2008 p3).

Looks like that is exactly Huang did. Used the findings from HPS97, modified them to fit with HPS00, and worked in the temperature record to boot. I am not criticizing this approach.

Paul UK wrote:
>Tim can you delete the last post of 'passing wind' @275?
The comments are attributed to me but are not my text at all.

What rubbish. Not one comment is attributed to you as you claim, but I do address your [@266 post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…). Please feel free to point to one quote I attribute to you in my [@275 post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

Passing wind.

You have successfully mis-referenced one of my comments.
Are you sure you are not related to Monckton?

Not one comment is attributed to you as you claim, but I do address your @266 post.

Your link at the top of #275 is to Paul's #268, not his #266, fool. And the form of your link is idiotic and confusing, making it appear that your text was posted by Paul.

To be clear Windy has [just confirmed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) he thinks [this Monckton styled selection criteria](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) for evidence is fine:

>Windy will you admit the hypocrisy of pushing Huang 2008 [to support Monckton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>Monckton was also claiming that the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, and Huang [2008] et al does clearly state that the MWP was real and maybe as warm as today, and that there was the mid-Holocene warm period 1-2 deg warmer than today - much to Abbott's pleasure.

And here is the twist, then Windy immediately discards the paper [and the comparison](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) when he [realized](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) the paper had a result he didn't like:

>I'm willing to bet you that Huang does not make any real comparison to current temperature, just as he didn't in 1997. What chance is there that Huang's proxy reconstructions correctly map to instrumental data without actually being a amalgam of proxy and instrumental records.

Can you see what this reveals Windy?

Posted by: truth machine

Your link at the top of #275 is to Paul's #268, not his #266, fool. And the form of your link is idiotic and confusing, making it appear that your text was posted by Paul.

How so, author attribution is always the last item in a post, not the first. Not so confusing is it?

Paul's @266 post has been removed. Here's Paul UK's post in full.

>Passing wind @92

>> He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton's citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004), Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) He tries to do this without actually reading the papers.

>You don't actually know that he hasn't read them.

>> Has anyone actually watched Abraham's presentation? Some of his 'evidence' is laughable and would not get a passing grade for a first year paper.

>Yes I have, from beginning to end. I have also revisited it a few times. Don't you think it is a bit unwise to say "would not get a passing grade for a first year paper" of Abraham whilst at the same time defending Monckton.

>That strikes me as being cynical. It also contradicts your later postings here that seem to suggest science isn't being discussed.

>If you really want to discuss science, then I suggest you have a go at Monckton as well for his obvious flaws.

>> He emails Schweingruber regarding Esper and Schweingruber (2004). Schweingruber tells him he's retired, so he refereed [sic] him to his mate Frank instead. How can Frank refute what Schweingruber wrote? Why didn't Schweingruber say Monckton was wrong. This isn't evidence.

>Incorrect. He actually says he is retired, that he was out of touch with the current science and that David Frank was upto date with the latest research. That sounds like a reasonable comment to make as a professional and responsible person who wants to give good advice. But if you are looking for a conspiracy...

>> He emails Keigan. Keigan does not claim Monckton is misrepresenting his research or that the graph Monckton shows is incorrect. Keigan asks for a free trip so he can come down and explain himself, and he also agrees with Monckton regarding constructing nuclear power stations. This isn't evidence.

>Erm, by any standards that in itself makes an assumption about Keigans response. Keigan writes 'You are absolutely right...' Keigan also states that an area the size of Australia needs to be reforest.

>> Next attempts to show Monckton's use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in 1998, Huang et al stated

>Erm, you are reversing the issue. The issue is why did Monckton apparently use out of date material that supported his view, when he should have been using more recent material? Monckton is a politician, he is a member of a political party and gets involved in politics. That should be a good enough clue.

Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons's sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false [See slide 115](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) [CM 23] for a problematic example. Where; . (Nice word salad attempt at bluster thought by Windy).

BTW Windy, why do you cite Huang 1997 instead of 1998 like Monckton does?

Scheingruber having retired refers to Frank who clear says that "**data indicates that temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than during Medievil times".**

It is disingenuous to claim:

>*There is no context as to what Keigwin is referring to or exactly what Abram asked him.*

When approched about his paper, to side with either Monckton's or Abraham's interpretaion, Keigwin clearly says that **"[Abraham is] absolutely right"** and goes on to ridicule Monckton for having **no background in science**.

Windy's sophistry with Huang's work is obvious and indefensible. Huang's early paper made no comparison with current temperatures. And Huang's subsequent studies (that did not meet Monckton's highly biased selection criteria) did make the comparison and moreover it showed that current temperatures are warmer than at MWP. Is that selection methodology an example of truth seeking practice Windy?

Out of interest, do you really judge that Monckton makes a credible case for the MWP being warmer than today?

Paul's @266 post has been removed

Uh, [no](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

jakerman,

>Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons's sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false See slide 115 [CM 23] for a problematic example. Where; . (Nice word salad attempt at bluster thought by Windy).

jakerman, I have never claimed Monckton's sources were adequately resourced other than the graphs Monckton displays are in the cited papers, a point Abraham does not comment on. Nor does Abraham suggest that the graphs were used out of context - which may have been a valid point with regard to HPS97 stating data did not include the 20th century.

>No. I only suggested Abraham did not prove Monckton wrong.

jakerman, you are guilty of using a classic strawman argument. From my very first post in this thread, I have clearly stated my review was limited to slides 25 - 32 because Abraham made the MWP central part of the argument when he said

>_**"If 700 scientists say the medieval warm period was warmer than it is today, why are we concerned? That's a legitimate [garbled] If, if it was warmer than it is today then maybe we are in a natural warming period."**_

and as I most delicately put it @ 158:
>If we are in a natural warm period, who gives a $hit about the rest of the presentation

that's why it is central.

@ 92 Passing Wind wrote:
> Abraham's slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton's claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today.

>I know it's only one small part of Abraham's presentation, but quite frankly, if the rest is even remotely as well researched as this, then it is unlikely to be worth anyone's time to watch it.

@134 Passing Wind wrote:
>In just the segment of his takedown on the existence of the MWP, Abraham claims he is going to check Monckton's claims by reading the actual papers cited or asking the authors. Of the 9 graphs Monckton shows on his slide, Abraham tackles less than half of them, 4.

@ 142 Passing Wind wrote:
>Abraham's slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton's claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today.

@152 Passing Wind wrote:
>More the pity that Abraham made the question of the MWP being warmer than today central to his argument.

@158 Passing Wind wrote:
>I haven't watched, or dissected all of Abraham's presentation - as I have made clear on many occasions. I also made it clear that I chose this part of Abraham's presentation because Abraham states

>>"If 700 scientists say the medieval warm period was warmer than it is today, why are we concerned? That's a legitimate [garbled] If, if it was warmer than it is today then maybe we are in a natural warming period."

Other than commenting on Abraham scolding Monckton's used of the Hardvard in-text Reference System (see slide 8), I make no comment about any other section of Abraham's presentation, as I have made abundantly clear many times above.

Feel free to point out any other part of Abraham's discussion I have written about.

> What rubbish. Not one comment is attributed to you as you claim, ...

So, when you began your post in the following fashion (my emphasis):

> Posted by: **Paul UK** | June 9, 2010 5:21 AM

> Thank you **Paul**, at least someone is prepared to examine my points and discuss them, even if you don't agree.

> If I may, I'd like to answer some of **your** points.

...you were **intentionally** addressing someone other than Paul's points whilst writing such that the **only** reasonable interpretation was that you were attributing the points to Paul?

And after it was pointed out to you, you doubled down with "What rubbish. ..."?

Are you **sure** you're not Monckton? Because you're poor on logic and constitutionally incapable of admitting plainly visible error.

> ...at least someone is prepared to examine my points and discuss them.

What a load of rot!

If you want to adopt a martyr complex to garner sympathy or imply bias and error or deflect attention from the paucity of your argument, it certainly [helps](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) ... [to](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) ... [ignore](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) ... [countervailing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) ... [evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) ... and I'm only up to post #166 - readers can assay the rest for themselves).

It also helps especially to ignore [highly pertinent questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

> did Monckton misrepresent the current beliefs of scientists or the overall state of the science?

...and to [make questionable assumptions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

> Monckton has not shown that a warmer-than-today MWP would invalidate the current scientific concerns about AGW; indeed whilst opinions remain divided on this point, there's concern that such a finding would plausibly point to a higher climate sensitivity than is currently considered to be the case.

...in favour of quibbling.

Windy writes:

Regarding [Windy's claims that Abraham] "would not get a passing grade for a first year paper", that was made in regard to Abraham claims Chris Monckton "fails to give the full reference again and again", because Monckton is using Harvard style (author - date) in-text notation - perfectly valid. [...].

Then when I provided and examle [demostrating Windy's claim was wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…), Windy switched the story, writing:

>*I have never claimed Monckton's sources were adequately resourced other than the graphs Monckton displays are in the cited papers, a point Abraham does not comment on.*

And windy has the gaul to accuse me of attacking a strawman:

>*jakerman, you are guilty of using a classic strawman argument. From my very first post in this thread, I have clearly stated my review was limited to slides 25 - 32 because Abraham made the MWP central part of the argument.*

How can you calim Abraham is off target in his critique by excluding parts of the presentation which substantiate Abrahams critique? Obviously your latest excuse shows you were ill informed to make the judgement you made about Moncktons citations.

Again, congratulations on the handwaying attempt to distract from the issue and flaws in Monckton's work.

> Thirdly, Abraham posited a methodology for inquiry but did not apply it.

Seriously? **That's** your big beef? You (clearly) don't care whether Monckton's claims are even remotely plausible; you don't care whether Abraham's criticisms are trenchant; you **just care whether Abraham precisely followed his stated methodology or not**?

Folks, amongst other things, we have a process troll on our hands.

>Folks, amongst other things, we have a process troll on our hands.

A very [distored process](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) troll.

>Folks, amongst other things, we have a process troll on our hands.

Make that, a very [distorted process](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) troll.

Lotharsson,

You have proved time and time again that you are a pathological distorter of the truth. Post [266](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) is back and is clearly authored by Paul UK.

Your false claim is significantly more than mere rubbish, it it patently dishonest. My [275](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) post directly answers questions and points raised by Paul UK and nobody else.

That you and Paul UK would claim otherwise only serves to highlight how utterly morally bankrupt you are. Neither of you deserve any civility whatsoever. The same applies to such potty-mouthed buffooons as truth machine, SteveC, and to a much lesser extent, jakerman.

Lotharsson, the linked video might help you overcome your [compulsive lying](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ScC-kJJY0). There may be hope for you yet. Good luck.

The rest of you potty-mouthed buffoons should not be allowed access to a computer until you can do some with a least a modicum of civility. Grow up.

Windy writes:

>*You have proved time and time again that you are a pathological distorter of the truth.* [...]Your false claim is significantly more than mere rubbish, it it patently dishonest. [...] That you and Paul UK would claim otherwise only serves to highlight how utterly morally bankrupt you are. Neither of you deserve any civility whatsoever. The same applies to such potty-mouthed buffooons as truth machine, SteveC, and to a much lesser extent, jakerman.

Enough wiggling Windy,

Do you or do you not beleive Monckton substantiated his claim that the MWP was warmer than today?

> You have proved time and time again that you are a pathological distorter of the truth.

Ooooooh, am I? Do tell! "Time and time again" should mean you can quote, I don't know - half a dozen, ten, twenty instances? Fortunately we have a publicly visible record right here, so you'll be able to quote and link to them to show how precisely how they are distortions.

Actually, your charge is stronger than that - "pathological" implies very frequent to universal distortion. You really need to prove that just about each and every comment I make is a distortion of the truth.

Go for it!

Or is your claim itself a distortion of the truth?

> Post 266 is back and is clearly authored by Paul UK.

I see the source of my misunderstanding - you wrote a comment that looked to be falsely quoting Paul, further encumbered by linking to the wrong comment, and then claimed you weren't falsely quoting Paul without adequately explaining that point. Fair enough, and apologies for the mistaken interpretation.

But you're throwing a little tantrum if you argue that I'm a "pathological distorter of the truth" who needs hypnosis therapy for "compulsive lying" and is "utterly morally bankrupt" merely because I misunderstood something you wrote very unclearly. Although at least the charge - coming from you, especially in a post where you tell others to "grow up" - was highly amusing, so all was not lost ;-)

And I should probably refrain from pointing out your hypocrisy by demanding civility from others but declaring that some of us deserve none whatsover - especially since one of my earlier comments is still in moderation...

So, back to the questions which I predict you mostly won't answer.

1) How much of the rest of Abraham's presentation is valid critique of Monckton - and what does it say about the strength of Monckton's case?

2) The first three Abraham slides on Monckton's MWP argument clearly show he's relying on a fallacy to argue that the IPCC "erased the MWP" (between the 1990 and 2001 report). Given that I don't recall you arguing this point, what impact does that have on the rest of Monckton's MWP argument - essentially that "the IPCC erased the MWP because it refutes AGW" argument - when the case for the predicate that the IPCC "erased" the MWP is itself mendacious?

3) Who said that critics of Monckton must be sticklers for the 8-ball/pool "call your shot or it doesn't count" rule? And why should such a claim not be met with gales of uproarious laughter? How **exactly** does Abraham enhancing the methodology he stated up-front - in cases when it is clear it won't be sufficient - **invalidate** his conclusions?

4) How exactly does Schweingruber's paper on historical climate in **West Central Asia** support Monckton's claim that the IPCC suppressed evidence of a (**synchronous hemispherical/global**) MWP? And if Abraham updated his presentation to additionally point this out, would you agree that it was valid criticism?

5) How exactly does David Frank writing (and if you read his e-mail carefully, he does so based on a recent **compilation of "pretty much all possible estimates for temperature change over the last 1000 years"**) that Monckton is wrong about the MWP...not severely damage Monckton's broader claims about the MWP? (One might also be tempted to consider that a compilation of almost all temperature estimates covering the date range of the MWP bears on the claim that "700 scientists support an MWP" - and even be moved to wonder why Monckton doesn't present any compilation, aggregate or survey paper to support his claim.)

And in what strange parallel universe does countervailing evidence NOT EXIST because it wasn't referenced in the original argument?

6) If a warmer (synchronous global) MWP means climate sensitivity is likely to be even **higher** than scientists currently think, which Monckton conclusions does that invalidate or weaken, and by how much?

7) When will you apply your considerable analysis powers to a similar critique of Monckton's presentation? And when you do, what do you expect to find?

I'm bored with the MWP; let's talk about warming rates in the last 150 years:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4503452885_79b5c09c4f_o.jpg

I'm also bored with Monckton, let's talk about a real royal:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save…

Is that you at the bottom right of the second photo jakerman?

> My personal view is that Huang et al (2008) does not at refute Huang et al (1997) it just moves the LIA, MWP, and HM down by about a degree.

Apart from the interesting hubris embedded in that declaration, I've got to say I'm still struggling to understand how Passing Wind can argue that (in the context of Monckton's reference to Huang 1997) with a straight face. Or even argue that Huang - the scientist - supports a (synchronous hemispherical/global) MWP that is warmer than today.

Huang 2008 (as cited by Abraham) seems to pretty clearly say otherwise, and that seems sufficient to refute Monckton's use of Huang as a scientist supporting the MWP.

But even with Passing Wind's ...shifting...standards for refutation of denialism aside (i.e. changing from dealing with Monckton's claim that [700 *scientists* support the MWP](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) to refuting the individual papers as in the quote at the start of this comment)...if you take a quick look at Huang 2008 it CLEARLY says that you cannot use Huang 1997 (as Monckton does) to compare current and MWP temperatures:

> Below we ... show why the results of HPS97 cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century.

This clearly contradicts the Passing Wind quote (when used in support of Monckton's claims) at the start of this comment, no?

Lotharsson,

>I see the source of my misunderstanding - you wrote a comment that looked to be falsely quoting Paul, further encumbered by linking to the wrong comment, and then claimed you weren't falsely quoting Paul without adequately explaining that point. Fair enough, and apologies for the mistaken interpretation.

I see what you mean now. Clearly I too am partially responsible for the misunderstanding. I also agree that pathological liar is too strong a label, and using it reflects poorly on me. Shall we call this issue dropped?

I pretty much have had an absolute gutful of the personal attacks and potty-mouthed language that passes as discourse on this site. I have tried to remain civil, but the constant harassment makes it a difficult task, and clearly I could also do better.

Let's hope other will do the same.

p.s. I will answer your post @293 later tomorrow, as I have another engagement to attend to.

Shorter cohers:

>Look over here, .

Poor cohers, watching as his poster boy's false claims are exposed.

BTW cohers, do you support Moncktons claims about ocean acidificiation being a non issue?

Yep.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_…

I'd put up some Pete Ridd references too but until you tell me which one you are in the audience listening [sic] to bonny prince charlie I won't bother.

> Shall we call this issue dropped?

Sure, no problem.

Passing Wind complains about personal abuse and potty language he has experienced on Deltoid. Fair enough. So what has Passing Wind said about J.P. Abraham's presentation? Here are some excerpts from Passing Wind on Deltoid:

1. Dribble (?!)
2. Some of his 'evidence' is laughable and would not get a passing grade for a first year paper.
3. Abraham's infantile attempted rebuttal only proves how desperate you lot are for a savior...
4. Abraham has failed and were [sic] supposed to applaud him for this rubbish.

And so on...

I have seen the entire presentation and, give or take a few mute points that PW has raised, it is a demolition job. Monkcton ought to go intoi hiding for a while to let the dust settle.

Those in denial with respect to AGW have a variable bag of tricks, but one of their most tried and trusted methods is to take single, often minor flaws in the work of a climate researcher, and to use that as a means of debunking the entire field. The 'hockey stick' graph is a case in point. Published in Nature in 1998, it has become an icon in the denialist's arsenal. Forget the fact that climate change was on the scientific radar for at least ten years before Mann et al's paper was published, it has become something of an icon.

Everett bases his diagnosis on the question of wheather or not CO2 rising fater or slower than projected rates.

>*However there are some major problems with the science. The wisdom at the time of the IPCC 2007 report was that half of CO2 emissions would remain in the atmosphere and that we would have 712 ppm (IS92a) by 21002. This would require the atmosphere to more than double the present rate of growth of CO2 to 3.05 ppm, yet the growth rate seems to be leveling off, if not declining*

Everett erroneously says that CO2 is not rising as fast as expected and hence he projecte concentrations of 560ppm CO2 by 2100.

>*The CO2 scenarios are literally falling flat and need revision. [...] Using the average rate of increase for the past 10 years (1.87/year), and assuming a straight-line
growth, my projection for 2100 is 560 ppm.

Everett's eyeballing technique and lack of rigour has misled him. CO2 growth rates are tracking on the highest predicted emissions scencarios. (See figure 1 (page 9) of the [Copenhagen Diagnisis](http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/)).

Moderation-delayed [comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) appears.

Everett doesn't eyeball anything; he specifically compares the IPCC forecasts with actual NOAA measurements in Fig's 1 and 2; IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is monotonic something found in the Knorr paper which Everett refers to. The point is, even if CO2 levels do reach IPCC forecasts [which I hope they don't as I have uranium and thorium shares] the oceans will not become more acidic but less akaline; it is a logarithmic scale.

> IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is **monotonic**...

[In heavy Spanish accent:] "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

> ...the oceans will not become more acidic but less akaline...

[In heavy Spanish accent: as above]

Less alkaline is precisely what people are worried about when they talk about "ocean acidification". (In common terminology "more acidic" and "less alkaline" mean the same thing.)

You don't seem to know even the basics behind what you're talking about.

Cohers writes:

>Everett doesn't eyeball anything; he specifically compares the IPCC forecasts with actual NOAA measurements in Fig's 1 and 2;

You really are a desperate cohers. Everett puts two charts of different scales side by side and eyeballs them. And unsurprising given the scale difference, he gets it wrong. [I referred you to the comparison](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) of actual versus the scenarios on the same chart.

Cohers continues:

>IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is monotonic something found in the Knorr paper which Everett refers to.

Please show me where in the Knorr paper the 'actual growth' is shown to be different to that in the Copenhagen Diagnosis.

pH and synonymous terms, for the hard of understanding or for those for whom semantics is a game:

---> increasing alkalinity --->

<--- decreasing alkalinity <---

1 ----------- 7 ----------- 14

----> decreasing acidity ---->

<---- increasing acidity <----

[Hope the formatting doesn't go awry! In which case, the above will look pretty stoopid.]

[Here is](http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_seq…) the Knorr paper to help cohers and any interested readers.

@Jeff Harvey #210:
I've been in a brief discussion with someone else who pointed to Glassman's piece. While I do not recommend to read all of it (it's in part Scafetta-with-a-twist), you could read the section on CO2 increase (not) being anthropogenic. It's semantics trying to claim the IPCC says something that is incorrect (and if it says what Glassman claims, it actually *is* incorrect based on the literature), followed by loads of numbers and analyses thrown around to confuse the ignorant reader. Ultimate conclusion Glassman draws? CO2 increase is not caused by anthropogenic emissions, but by the ocean outgassing.

Glassman also wrote another piece about that CO2 increase, in which the Mauna Loa record is considered suspicious, since it's on a volcano and right next to an outgassing ocean...that'll give you an idea on the circular reasoning of this Glassman. Heck, even Eschenbach has recently argued the increase in CO2 *is* anthropogenic (with a somewhat coherent argumentation).

@cohenite, regarding CO2 growth rates:
Using data from Mauna Loa, I found the following 10-year average growth rates:

1960-1969 0.85
1970-1979 1.27
1980-1989 1.59
1990-1999 1.5
2000-2009 1.98

With one exception, every decade shows a higher average of per-year CO2 increase. Note also for the last 10 years of 10-year periods we get this:
1990-1999 1.50
1991-2000 1.54
1992-2001 1.60
1993-2002 1.81
1994-2003 1.91
1995-2004 1.87
1996-2005 1.93
1997-2006 1.98
1998-2007 2.00
1999-2008 1.87
2000-2009 1.98

Hmmm...what to conclude? Well, a linear increase with 1.87 (the lowest value of the last five 10-year periods) would be kind of a cherry pick. And that with temperatures that have not increased as much as in the previous decade.

[Cohenite](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Several people have already pointed out that you're wrong, and wrong again, but it really deserves to be repeated for emphasis of the sheer lack of understanding involved on your part.

IPCC has accelerating growth whereas the actual growth is monotonic something found in the Knorr paper which Everett refers to.

[Inigo was a perceptive man](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk)... H/T Lotharsson.

You are simply showing more of your scientific/mathematical ignorance. An accelerating trajectory can indeed be [monotonic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function), and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic.

The point is, even if CO2 levels do reach IPCC forecasts [which I hope they don't as I have uranium and thorium shares] the oceans will not become more acidic but less akaline; it is a logarithmic scale.

[P. Lewis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) very considerately drew a simple diagram that even one as scientifically uneducated as yourself should be able to follow. However, given that you may not be convinced of your own inadequate knowledge, perhaps you could explicitly detail exactly how it is that your statement is correct, and H+ ion concentration does not increase as pH decreases.

You may like to revise the discussion on the very entertaining [Tim Curtin Mark II thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…), and especially the posts following [the one I made at #74](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/tim_curtin_thread_now_a_live_s…).

The thread provides bucketloads of hilarity, reflecting Curtin's complete unfamiliarity with simple high school chemistry. I note that you appeared several times on that thread, so I am just that little more surprised that you thought to push that clumsy line of Denialatus gobbledegook here.

Seriously, if you can't get introductory curve construction and introductory chemistry correct, you have no business attempting to comment on something as complex as climatology, and you certainly have no business being involved politically in the field, in the manner that you are.

Cohentite, and Curtin... it's really not rocket science, boys. Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend?

Cohenite,

Imaging you are a marine calcifying organism, such as the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, or Gephyrocapsa oceanica. You live happily in a slightly alkaline ocean, pH 8.1. The pH of that ocean you live in has been constant or nearly so for most of your evolutionary history, you like it, it's comfortable, it feels like home. It is, for your intents and purposes, and those of all other marine microbes perfect, because you have evolved for it to be perfect. The point those hoomans have determined by convention to be neutral is lower than your environment, at 7.

Then the pH starts to drop (acidify, or become less alkaline, but be careful of your semantics, alkalinity means something else entirely - the buffering capacity as opposed to the H+ ion concentration - , which is why we use the term acidity), at an unprecedented rate. Suddendly the carbonate-bicarbonate-carbonic acid equilibrium changes, and drops below the aragonite saturation horizon, and inches closer and closer to the calcite saturation horizon. In terms of our convention, it has become closer to neutral, or less alkaline. In terms of marine life in the ocean, the concentration of H+ ions has increased and the water has become more acidic, it all depends on your point of view. Bugger, you can't move home when the neighbourhood goes to the dogs! You shells start to become malformed, and weigh less, they provide less protection against photodamage and predators. In fact there is evidence this may already be happening. Poor Ehux. Well, moving on, why should we care?

This is important because the calcite and aragonite shells of coccolithophores, pteropods, and forams, falling as marine snow, form a large part of the permanent export of inorganic carbon (from CO2) from the atmosphere to the oceand and through to the lithosphere (rock). If they are disadvantaged enough to decrease in abundance compared to other (non-calcifying) organisms that can take advantage of the changing conditions, we will lose a negative feedback that permanently takes CO2 out of the system.

As to logarithmic pH scales, dude! Really? Who'd have thought! And the point is?

MFS is, of course, technically correct on alkalinity. Basicity would have been a better choice perhaps in my little diagram, except then with regard to seawater we are talking of carbonates/bicarbonates neutralisation and so we're back to alkalinity.

And to pick up on another point MFS makes, the reason we talk of acidity/acidification is because the pH is defined in terms of the [H+], or more strictly perhaps [H3O+]. There is also the point that CO2 in solution is an acid and in adding it to seawater it is acting as an acidifier to acidify (i.e. add acid to) that seawater.

Anyone trying to convince someone that the oceans aren't acidifying because the sea is only getting less alkaline is [some uncharitable epithet of your choice] morally bankrupt.

>You are simply showing more of your scientific/mathematical ignorance. An accelerating trajectory can indeed be monotonic, and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic.

Shooting down denialist talking points like Cohenite's really is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Step 1 - Identify that the denialist is ignorant, and is pontificating on a term or subject that they don't understand: 350 milliseconds

Step 2 - Identify an internet source that shows the denialist to be wrong: up to 2 minutes, depending on how technical the subject is. In this case, I'm guessing about 3 seconds if Bernard's got a fast connection.

Step 3 - Link to source and post comment: 10 seconds. 20 if you take the time to write anything more than a brief summary of your rebuttal.

Easy? Yes. Satisfying? Sometimes. But in the end, Cohenite isn't going to change his mind. You can only educate a troll so far, and even then he'll probably repeat the mistake here or somewhere else in the future. I suppose one function it provides is you've got yet another post to link to if anyone ever doubts that Cohenite is wrong.

NB: Step 4 - ??? and step 5 - PROFIT!!! are not included in this offer.

Stu.

[Exactly](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Nothing else needs to be said except that if it's so easy to learn, why is it that the denialists refuse to do so?

Is it really better to look stupid than to concede that they have screwed up the science? Even in the pursuit of their ideological ends?

>*Nothing else needs to be said except that if it's so easy to learn, why is it that the denialists refuse to do so?*

They learn, but they have different selection criteria to those practicing genuine truth seeking.

They end up with a rich knowledge of unrepresentative cherry picked factoids.

Monckton cited Noon et al (2003) as supporting evidence, see Abraham's [slide 23](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/).

Noon et al 2003:

>P.E. Noon et al., âOxygen Isotope (Î18o) Evidence of Holocene Hydrological Changes at Signy Island, Maritime **Antarctica**,â
The Holocene, vol. 13, no. 2, March 2003, pages 251â263.

Abraham uses a quote about the _**arctic**_ from Viv Jones's website as evidence Moncktom misrepresented a paper about the _**antarctic**_

>The Arctic is currently undergoing rapid climate warming

Somewhat poles apart, eh? (pun intended)

[Smol et al (2005)](http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/102/12/4397.pdf), of which Vivienne Jones is a co-author states:

>Although the instrumental record of temperature across the Arctic is incomplete and generally of short duration, warming appears to be concentrated in the decades between approximately anno Domini 1915â1940 and approximately anno Domini 1965â2000 (5). However, proxy data indicate that much of the Arctic began to warm considerably earlier, in the mid-19th century (6)

But I guess that part most relevant for you is this:

>These data show that striking and often unprecedented ecological changes have occurred within the last ~150 years, following several millennia of relatively stable communities.

No support for a MWP in the Arctic from Vivienne Jones.

> Abraham uses a quote about the arctic from Viv Jones's website as evidence Moncktom misrepresented a paper about the antarctic.

Yes, I noticed that - it was one reason I felt Abraham could have done better in his MWP section.

Lotharsson,

It's a question of probity.

I'm trying to get Abraham to provide question and answer pairs from his emails with Schweingruber and Keigwin to eliminate cherry picking or out of context quoting too. I see no reason to contact the authors directly as I doubt Abraham has fabricated emails.

I am waiting for Monckton to release his "defense letter" to Abraham so I can apply exactly the same analysis to his work. Except in his case, I'll also compare what he presented in St Paul with his rebuttal.

I was chatting to a Geophysicist friend last night, and conversation came around to temperature reconstructions from boreholes. His comments were hardly complementary, as he thinks they overstate certainty, but will read Huang et al (97, 00, & 08) and report back.

A update regarding Abraham's email correspondence with Keigwin 1996, and Monckton.

John Cook, over at [skepticalscience.com](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-Chronicles-Part-IV-Medieval-Wa…) posted an update in response to a request from me for the full email exchange with Keigwin. So far, John has posted the email to Keigwin.

>Dear Dr. Keigwin,

>Pardon this interruption but I am a professor of thermal sciences and I frequently give public lectures on global warming. I noticed that recently, Christopher Monckton has been giving presentations where he uses your research to suggest that the MWP was significantly warmer than today and that the recent warming is not of concern. I donât believe that is your conclusion but I wanted to verify this. Can you tell me, very briefly, whether your understanding of current temperatures is that they are higher than the MWP and/or are a cause for concern?

>Thank you very much

>Dr. John Abraham
University of St. Thomas
School of Engineering
jpabraham@stthomas.edu

Before you get too excited thinking this totally vindicates Abraham's claim, I would like you to reflect on how loosely Abraham frames the argument. If one hadn't seem Monckton's presentation, and Keigwin claims to have never heard of him, one might think Monckton's presentation was solely about, or focused on Keigwin's work, rather than a reference out of 9 or was it 700 - take your pick.

Please also note that Abraham does not provide Keigwin with any more supporting information, such as a [link to the video presentation](http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=5324) or a transcript.

Abraham also **misrepresents** the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim _**the recent warming is not of concern**_, a statement Monckton does not make in the video (32:40 to 37:39). Monckton is using it, along with the 9/700 others to claim there was a MWP until the IPCC **disappeared it.**

So when Keigwin writes back and says **"You are absolutely right"**, what question is he answering? The only possible answer is he is responding to is __**"I donât believe that is your conclusion [that the recent warming is of no concern] but I wanted to verify this."**_. Which is correct because that was not what [Keigwin's paper](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=3842&pid=12455&tid=282) concluded. It did not claim the current warming was of no concern. There is a letter by Deming explaining the scope and applicability of his work [included here](http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org/pdf/Misleading.pdf) as an attachment.

Monckton is arguing that the IPCC conspired to eliminate the MWP? A claim Monckton repeats at 32:40, and very much the central theme of Monckton's MWP argument. Which is, in a nutshell:

Starts @32:40

1975 - Ken Overpeck contacts Deming to _**"get rid of the medieval warm period"**_ See [David Deming's US Senate testimony](http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543). Monckton claims:
>"Not we have to check whether there was one. Check how big it was. Check where it happened and where it didn't. No. We have to get rid of it."

1990 - IPCC graph includes a MWP much warmer than then.

2001 - Goodbye MWP, hello hockey stick. Also usual critique of same using M+M argument/evidence.

Now Monckton's evidence that the MWP exists in the literature:

> And now here is the truth about the MWP. Here are just a few papers, 8 or 9 of them out of the papers contributed over the last 20 years by more than 700 scientists from more than 400 institutions in more than 40 countries establishing that the medieval warm period **was real**, **was global**, and **was warmer than the present**. That is the scientific consensus, if you do science by consensus, that the UN says it does. But on the question of the medieval warm period the UN refuses to accept the scientific consensus. Instead it uses made up graphs.

Ends @37:59 - 5 minutes, 19 seconds in total.

Does Keigwin 1996 support Monckton's claims or not?

On the question that IPCC deliberately disappeared the MWP? Of course not - N/A as it predates the hockey stick.

On the question of was the MWP real? Keigwin 1996 does claim the existence of the MWP.

On the question of was it global? Keigwin 1996 was not a global study - it only covered the Sargasso Sea.

On the question of was it warmer than present? Keigwin 1996 indicates the MWP was about a degree or so warmer.

So the only points I can score to Abraham regarding Keigwin is that Monckton incorrectly displaying Keigwin's graph of Sargasso Sea temperature as support for his claim the MWP was global. An error Monckton could correct by simply stating his global MWP claim is made up from many global, as well as local reconstructions, like Keigwin 1996, and Esper and Schweingruger 2003.

Apologies for the lengthy argument. I wanted to capture as much of the subtlety as possible.

Is Gaping Asshole still here trying to defend Monckton?

I wanted to capture as much of the subtlety as possible.

Heh heh.

truth machine,

Thank you kindly for taking the time to acknowledge my posed comments, and I also thank you for your comments.

>Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern,

Windy, gone back to poor old habits.

You misrepresent Monckton by isolating your sample to a few slide. Those paying attention could have little doubt that Abraham surmised Monckton's case accurately.

We know this because Monckton certainly does make claims such as refered to by Abraham. See Monckton's concluding sentances ([here @4:28 sec](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTshxSPMAcI&feature=related)). Its the basis of his presentations.

jakerman @ 324

>We know this because Monckton certainly does make claims such as refered to by Abraham. See Monckton's concluding sentances (here @4:28 sec). Its the basis of his presentations.

Err. That's Monckton's Sydney presentation, not the St Paul presentation. I am not misrepresenting Monckton as I present Monckton's MWP section in full.

Monckton's case is that the IPCC caused the MWP to disappear, and here are 9/700 paper proving it existed in the literature before the 2001 hockey stick. Abraham claims Monckton is wrong about the IPCC by showing the multi-proxy IPCC Northern Hemisphere graph but does not address Monckton's claims Overpeak tried to influence Deming to delete the MWP. Neither does he address any of the so-called climate-gate emails not available at the time of Monckton's St Paul lecture. He could have emailed Deming and Overpeck, and others discussing same in stolen/leaked emails as he emailed others for opinion.

Would you be happier if I concluded in @ 321 that Monckton lied claiming Keigwin 1996 supported the existence of a warmer than today global MWP?

If so, the point would still be trivial, as I explained above. As well, Monckton need only state that one reason IPCC authors claim the MWP was not global is that virtually all the studies are local - (except of course HPS97 & 08 which are clearly global). But add up all the local studies and you get a global picture. If he adds that line, then Keigwin is more than valid support for a warmer MWP, albeit Keigwin's contribution is only local.

I'd seem Monckton's presentation before. I though it comparable with its **liberal use of facts** as Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". I did side with it slightly more than Gore's because I don't like horror films and I do like happy endings. If you find Monckton loose with facts, where do you stand regarding Al Gore?

I do so enjoy my occasional soirees at Deltoid; lest I be accused of not caring about the liitle beasties, "coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, or Gephyrocapsa oceanica", gasping in the human caused acid/putrification of the oceans, let me say that the atmospheric amount of CO2 is about 720GT and the ocean amount is about 37400GT; there is little evidence that the oceans are saturated, although a study by Park et al found some overturning circulation reduction on the edges of the Japanese sea. So, while the cute little things have to toughen up a bit they should be reassured that there is considerable slack left in the system before the oceans become an excellent dumping ground for the victims of Dexter and other criminal types.

If one accepts that all the 20thC increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic then the significance of the Knorr paper is that while ACO2 emissions have been increasing in a non-monotonic fashion and there has been a slight rate of increase in the Keeling curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processesâand these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years. I guess that conforms to BJ's witty admonition that, "An accelerating trajectory can indeed be monotonic, and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic." That is, while ACO2 emissions are increasing and atmospheric CO2 is increasing the proportion of ACO2 in the atmosphere is constant; now, which of those 3 variables [sic] are monotonic?

>Err. That's Monckton's Sydney presentation, not the St Paul presentation. I am not misrepresenting Monckton as I present Monckton's MWP section in full.

Errr. Your logic is laughable! Are you seriously claiming the Abraham is wrong to state that Monckton's argument is tht AGW is not a problem?

What is your evidence for this? You haven't got Monckton's presentation which Abraham attended, and it would be remarkable if Monckton didn't make this his central claim in that presentation give that is basically his central claim when ever he speaks.

You deserve ridicule.

Cohers, where is your apology for [misstating Everett's evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)?

Never mind, its a denialist trait to fail to correct errors.

Dear jakerman,

Thank you for taking the time to read my posting and follow up with constructive criticism. Rarely does one get to enjoy open and fair discussion online without opponents resorting to puerile remarks in place of reasoned argument.

>What is your evidence for this? You haven't got Monckton's presentation which Abraham attended...

And where does Abraham claim he attended [Monckton's Bethel University Minnesota](http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=5324) lecture on the 14th of October?. Feel free to quote the slide number if you have it. As you can see, I do have a copy of Monckton's presentation, The section of Monckton's presentation regarding the disappearance of the MWP is between 32:40 and 37:59, and corresponds to Abraham's slides 22 to 32 inclusive.

It was remiss of me to link to Monckton's video presentation only once, see [@321](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…). A quick Google search for "MONCKTON ST PAUL LECTURE" or MONCKTON ST PAUL PRESENTATION", or even "MONCKTON BETHEL PRESENTATION" would have returned the video either first or within the top 4 results. Not hard to find at all.

Does this mean perhaps that you have been arguing Abraham's case without having possession of Monckton's presentation to compare it too? It does appear to be the case, doesn't it. One might go so far as to suggest you don't have a leg to stand on.

Once again, jakerman, thank you for your questions and the opportunity to respond and engage in open and frank discussion.

jakerman, Everett does compare an anomaly graph with an absolute value graph; so what? He also says the average increase in CO2 over the last 10 years is 1.87ppm; NOAA says 1.98ppm but with an uncertainty of 0.11ppm; maybe Everett deducted the uncertainty; why don't you ask Abrahams to ask him?

So you have no evidence that Abraham is misrepsenting Monckton?

And I on the other hand have provided you with evidence that supports Abraham's view of Moncktons claims.

Let me repeat, **What is your evidence that Abraham is misrepresenting Monckton on this point?**.

>jakerman, Everett does compare an anomaly graph with an absolute value graph; so what?

Did Everret get an an accurate answer with [his sloppy method](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…), or did his lack of rigor mislead him?

jakerman,

Once again thank you for your question. Regretfully, I must point out that repeatedly asking the same question and expecting to get a different answer is pure folly. My post @ 321 contains more than enough evidence that Abraham is misrepresenting Monckton.

>Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons's sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false [See slide 115](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) [CM 23] for a problematic example.

You bizarrely claim this is demonstrably false and propose slide 115 as supporting evidence. Please specify what point you are trying to make with regard to slide 115 because Abraham does not present any evidence in his final slide. The only point he seems to make is to assure viewers that he did the hard work so they do have to.

You were wrong to claim I did not have a copy of Monckton's presentation because it is freely available. And you are avoiding answering if you have seen both presentation and compared them. You have not answered where in Abraham's presentation he claims to have attended Monckton's lecture as you have asserted above.

Conveniently, you ignore posts like the one showing Abraham's error regarding Viv Jones's web quote. Why are such clear errors by Abraham acceptable to you?

It seems you don't expect Abraham's work should be held up to the same standards he demands from Monckton, or the standards you are trying to apply to me.

It's a two way street, jakerman. You keep making brash statements then skirt away from the answers claiming some mute point hasn't been addressed. In fairness, answer the question put to you.

Windy, [your link](http://wideeyecinema.com/?p=5324) to Monckton's talk proves my case. At 1:34 min Monckton suma up his case and tells the audience there is no problem with the climate.

You own Abraham an apology.

>*Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons's sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false See slide 115 [CM 23] for a problematic example.*

That is an error in my citation, but not my point. The slide that [demonstrates your referencing claim wrong](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) is Abraham's 109 [Monckton's 23].

If you went through the pretension you would have found others yourself.

Now how about that [apology you owe Abraham](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)?

ROFL

jakerman,

Surely you didn't have to watch Monckton all the way to end to figure out he doesn't think the climate is a problem? You must have been enjoying yourself.

Monckton has expressed his opinion

>**"that there is no problem with the climate"**

I might add, that it is a view supported by many others, and would be an entirely appropriate view even in complete isolation, regardless of what view you, or I may hold.

Now, answer the questions put to you in response to you claims, or talk to the hand.

ROTFL

Windy's sudden swithch:

>*Surely you didn't have to watch Monckton all the way to end to figure out he doesn't think the climate is a problem?*

No Windy, I aready knew this. [Only a moron would argue that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>*Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern*

> If one hadn't seem Monckton's presentation, and Keigwin claims to have never heard of him, one might think Monckton's presentation was solely about, or focused on Keigwin's work, rather than a reference out of 9 or was it 700 - take your pick.

This is a total red herring - it does not show that Abraham's presentation implies in any way that "Monckton's presentation was solely about/focused on Keigwin's work". Nor does it matter whether Keigwin thought that or not, as it has no bearing on the question asked of Keigwin, nor the answer.

> So when Keigwin writes back and says "You are absolutely right", what question is he answering?

Common interpretation of English is that Keigwin was responding to the question he was asked, namely:

> [I don't believe these are your beliefs, but...] Can you tell me, very briefly, whether your understanding of current temperatures is that they are higher than the MWP and/or are a cause for concern?

Common construction of English, when faced with a multi-component question for which you cannot give the same answer to all of them is to give multiple answers and explain which part(s) each one applies to. But if you apply the same answer to each part, you may shorten this by only providing a single answer, as in the example "you are correct".

There's still no evidence that Abraham is misinterpreting Keigwin.

> ...by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern,...

You're desperate if you think that line of argument will hold water. The entire thrust of every single Monckton presentation is "don't worry, business as usual, and here's a reason why - and if you don't believe that here's another...and if that isn't convincing here's one more ...and would you believe this one?"

> Keigwin 1996 does claim the existence of the MWP.

You have to be very careful with the term "MWP". Some use it to mean a few centuries where different regions at different times appear to have experienced unusually warm conditions. Others use it to mean a synchronous warming experienced globally or at least hemispherically. There are people who are more than happy to show evidence of the former and imply it's evidence of the latter. Especially when they're trying to argue that it has some bearing on the serious of the scientific case for concern over AGW.

> An error Monckton could correct by simply stating his global MWP claim is made up from many global, as well as local reconstructions, like Keigwin 1996, and Esper and Schweingruger 2003.

No he can't - because to draw the conclusion that fixes Monckton's error you HAVE TO have good reason to believe that the chronologies derived from separate methods and separate geologies have sufficient resolution to show that the warming was synchronous around the globe, and follow other good practices in creating global temperature reconstructions from a set of regional records. Monckton has not done this.

I strongly suspect this is precisely why Monckton does NOT cite any such reconstruction study by qualified scientists - because when they produce them, they find that the synchronous level of warming was not very significant at all. (Maybe someone with more insight into the field than I can comment.)

> Monckton's case is that the IPCC caused the MWP to disappear,...

Do you accept that this is a lie, given that the northern hemisphere **reconstructions** used in the 2001 report had not happened when the original "MWP" graph that Monckton cited was produced for the 1990 report?

And - [as I have asked before](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) - where does that lie alone leave Monckton's case?

> ...and here are 9/700 paper proving it existed in the literature before the 2001 hockey stick.

You appear elsewhere to accept that many of these are regional in extent - a fact that Monckton failed to point out - and yet you argue that their existence proves what Monckton claims. That's a scientific argument for which you have provided no evidence - as Monckton failed to do.

How many of the "700 scientists" are left after purely regional results are removed? Why didn't Monckton say? Is his use of "700" misleading? How many hemispherical or global reconstructions are there before the 2001 IPCC report - and what do they say, what are their uncertainties and how robust are they believed to be, and how do they compare to the 2001 IPCC report - and particularly the gray region of the chart (Abraham's slide 23) which shows **uncertainties** in the reconstruction? Were there good reasons for giving more weight to some over others? And finally, how has the science of such reconstructions progressed in the almost 10 years since that report?

> It seems you don't expect Abraham's work should be held up to the same standards he demands from Monckton, ...

Well, in some respects I for one don't - and if you do, you're committing a fallacy.

Monckton is attempting to make a case. To do this he needs all the parts of his case that are essential to that case to hold up to scrutiny. All you have to do to refute his argument is to demonstrate that enough of it doesn't hold water. You don't have to refute every single claim, you don't have to "call your shot" first, and you don't need every single objection you make to survive scrutiny, as long as those that do mean that Monckton's case does not survive.

jakerman, since you are the authority on both Monckton and the IPCC reports perhaps you can answer this: at 1.15 Monckton says that j* = ÏT4 does not appear anywhere in those IPCC reports; is that correct?

> I might add, that it is a view supported by many others, and would be an entirely appropriate view even in complete isolation, ...

Weird - so you're arguing Monckton's view is entirely appropriate; it's just a shame that he tried to *justify* it with scientific claims that don't appear to be true or accurate? Or did I misread that?

> ...at 1.15 Monckton says that j* = ÏT4 does not appear anywhere in those IPCC reports...

cohenite, since you're such a climate science authority, perhaps you could specify precisely how the equation Monckton refers to applies? (And why one should believe that the appearance or otherwise of the equation in the IPCC report means anything like what Monckton claims it means?)

Silence? Or how about [that apology](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) you own Abraham?

Cohers I see you've [confirmed my expectations](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Lotharsson,

Keigwin's response, **"You are absolutely right"** can only be in reply to a statement of fact. Of which, there are three statements of fact contained in the body of the email.

>1. **"Pardon this interruption but I am a professor of thermal sciences and I frequently give public lectures on global warming."**
>States a) Abraham is a professor that, b) frequently gives GW lectures.

>2. **"I noticed that recently, Christopher Monckton has been giving presentations where he uses your research to suggest that the MWP was significantly warmer than today and that the recent warming is not of concern."**
>States a) Monckton has been giving presentations. b) Uses Keigwin's research to suggest the MWP was significantly warmer than today, and c) that the recent warming is of no concern.

>3. **"I donât believe that is your conclusion but I wanted to verify this."** States Abraham does not believe that is the conclusion Keigwin.

The final sentence, which is composed of a two closed questions, asks:
> 4.**"Can you tell me, very briefly, whether your understanding of current temperatures is that they are higher than the MWP and/or are a cause for concern?"**

Could be answered by Yes and Yes. No and No, No and Yes, and Yes and No. No other permutations exist. **You are absolutely correct** is not a suitable answer to a two-part closed question. It is, of course, a suitable answer to any of the three proceeding questions, with the most likely candidate being the third question.

Simply stated, **You are correct to say my 1996 paper did not conclude that the MWP was significantly warmer than today or that the current warming is of no concern.**

It's worth noting that Abraham has amped up Monckton's claim that the MWP was warmer than today, to **significantly warmer**. Also, if you would care to take a look at [Keigwin's 1996 graph](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=38…) is **significantly warmer** than the 1996 present it applied to. Keigwin's graph shows current temperature at 22.8, and peak MWP at about 24.2 - 1.4 C warmer. What isn't so clear is exactly where year zero BP is. Even if year zero was 1900, 1.4 C gives us plenty of latitude for observed warming since then and still allow the MWP to qualify as warmer than today - 2010.

Here are some quotes from [Keigwin 1996](http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=3842&pid=12455&tid=282)

>These results are exciting for a few reasons. First, events as young and as brief as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have never before been resolved in deep sea sediments from the open ocean.

> The Sargasso Sea data indicate that the Medieval Warm Period may have actually been two events separated by 500 years, perhaps explaining why its timing and extent have been so controversial.

>Second, it is evident that the climate system has been warming for a few hundred years, and that it warmed even more from 1,700 years ago to 1,000 years ago.

And some quote from Keigin in a [letter to ExxonMobil](http://www.campaignexxonmobil.org/pdf/Misleading.pdf) dated December 2000.

>I should point out here, a key element in this discussion centers on the Medieval Warm Period. Most authors would acknowledge that this interval was probably warmer in the North Atlantic region, but few feel strongly that it was global. My data make it seem that it was warmer then than now, but it is very misleading to use those data to argue against important climate changes that began a century ago.

Read the letter for yourself.

Enough for today.

Windy, disappointing that you just run from [your misrepresentation](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

After arguing black is white for a day, you just ignore your error when its exposed for what it is.

Lotharsson,

>Weird - so you're arguing Monckton's view is entirely appropriate; it's just a shame that he tried to justify it with scientific claims that don't appear to be true or accurate? Or did I misread that?

It is entirely appropriate to hold view contrary to the main stream, and it's a shame that some of his arguments are poorly put and sometimes rely on a narrow interpretation of the literature.

Some people believe in God, yet cannot justify their beliefs with scientific claims, although occasionally some try.

jakerman is still taking to the hand.

Windy [argues black is white](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) for [more than](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) 20 hours!

Then Windy finally [calls himself out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

>*Surely you didn't have to watch Monckton all the way to end to figure out he doesn't think the climate is a problem?*

Leaving the obvious response:

>No Windy, I aready knew this. Only [a moron would argue]((http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)) that:

>*Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern*

Where is your apology to Abraham? I assumed you had some honor. Your credibility has is no coming back from this gaff unless you accept it and apologize

jakerman,

How desperate are you that you have to quote yourself to stay in the conversation.

You're like the little kid that gets picked last to be on the footy team, and then nobody will pass the ball to him anyway.

Answer the questions put to you. Or go away.

Windy, another shameful attempt at evasion.

I guess you are satisfied with zero credibility. This episode can [follow you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) everytime you post.

I suggest you make your apology so you can move on.

(BTW I don't know what questions you are referring to, but I bet they are an attempt to distract from [the point I've taken you to issue on](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)).

Stop wiggling Windy you are evolving from a train crash to an epic fail.

Passing Wind: "1975 - Ken Overpeck contacts Deming to "get rid of the medieval warm period" See David Deming's US Senate testimony. Monckton claims:

>"Not we have to check whether there was one. Check how big it was. Check where it happened and where it didn't. No. We have to get rid of it."

1990 - IPCC graph includes a MWP much warmer than then."

So Deming gave that testimony in 2006 about a conversation from 1995 (am I correct in that? It's not 1975?).

Deming says in his 2006 testimony...

"Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies."

But that can't be correct. The work was published in the peer reviewed literature, which in itself means that there was much criticism, surely? As we all know, it is possible to overturn 100 years of previous work with a single paper unless others publish debunking the new paper. If there was no such follow up then that gives credence to the conclusion that the new paper has overturned 100 years worth of previous scientific thought on a subject, for the time being at least.

I suspect your argument, and Monckton's, is pure straw man.

I'll also add that it's actually wrong to state that MBH "got rid of" any warmer Medieval Warming Period.

It was still there in the error bars which, IIRC, encompassed both North's reconstruction and Wegman's. One of the main reasons that MBH were so novel in their approach, which North commends them for because it was groundbreaking, was because they clearly showed their error estimates openly and honestly. All prior reconstructions of the MWP did no such thing.

> You are absolutely correct is not a suitable answer to a two-part closed question.

Don't be silly - it's quite clear from the context. The answer is to the **whole inquiry** which incorporates the question and the assumptions Abraham has about Keigwin's beliefs. This is how practically any disinterested party would interpret it. Only someone desperately trying to frame the correspondence away from its plain reading would attempt to "parse" (in the political spin doctor sense) it the way you do.

J. Bowers,

Thank for picking up the typo. You are indeed correct. The year was of course 1995, as Deming confirms in his testimony I linked to.

>The work was published in the peer reviewed literature, which in itself means that there was much criticism, surely?

All peer review should do is eliminate obvious errors. It should never stand in the way of theories properly argued. It should not, in theory be possible to overturn a previous held belief with a single paper, but blocking such a paper is not within the realm of peer review.

Part of the reason sceptics feel Mann Hockey stick was political was the speed at which it was accepted.

Special relativity was published in 1905, but wasn't [generally accepted until 1911](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_special_relativity)

> It was still there in the error bars...

...which is why [I asked Passing Wind about them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) - with no answer thus far - never mind to [several other relevant questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Passing Wind: "Part of the reason sceptics feel Mann Hockey stick was political was the speed at which it was accepted.

Special relativity was published in 1905, but wasn't generally accepted until 1911"

Well, unless you've done statistical comparisons for changes in speed of access to scientific papers since 1905, I suggest your reasoning is probably flawed.

As for bringing up Einstein and special relativity, it underwent precisely the same types of attacks that MBH has been undergoing even during the 1920's. http://www.jossgarman.com/?p=584

âThis world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.â

-- Albert Einstein, in a letter to Marcel Grossmann in 1920.

Windy is relieved to be owning up to typo's if it means he can distract from issues of substance. Because on [issues of substance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…), he's ducking and running.

J. Bowers,

>As for bringing up Einstein and special relativity, it underwent precisely the same types of attacks that MBH has been undergoing even during the 1920's.

Which explains why Mann's hockey stick was accepted immediately by the IPCC.

jakerman,

Once again, I thank you for your comments, and remind you if you want to be considered in this discussion, answer the questions put to you, or keep out of it.

Your obfuscation tactics are plainly not working.

> ...answer the questions put to you, or keep out of it.

Wow, who died and made you king of the blog?

And that's ... bold, coming from someone who's [not answering the questions put to them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Windy,

I've already stated that I'm not sure what questions you are referring to, but that I bet they are are an attempt to distract from the [shame you are trying to deny](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Notice how I keep linking you back to the issue of substance. If your questions were more than an attempt at distraction you'd have done the the same before I called you out. Now you're going to have to link to these question and we'll see if I'm right.

jakerman,

I didn't realise that your lack of comment on my posts was an indicator that you didn't actually read them. Here are links to the posts addressed to you containing questions for you.

[@329](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) and
[@333](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

While your at it, you might as well comment on the substance of the discussion.

[@321](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)
and
[@345](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)

[Cohenite protests](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

...lest I be accused of not caring about the liitle [sic] beasties, "coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi, or Gephyrocapsa oceanica", gasping in the human caused acid/putrification [sic] of the oceans...

Cohenite, your poorly-veiled sarcasm indicates that you certainly do not give a flying fuck about these planktonic species, which only serves to demonstrate, to anyone with half a clue about such species' profound significance to humanity, your insincerity in matters remotely relating to ecological sustainability.

Fail.

...let me say that the atmospheric amount of CO2 is about 720GT and the ocean amount is about 37400GT; there is little evidence that the oceans are saturated...

It is completely irrelevant to carbonate biochemistry whether or not the oceans are "saturated". Shifts in carbonate solubility equilibria that do not encompass a "saturation" solubility point, and concordant shifts in H3O+ concentrations, still have significant and profound direct effects for a wide range species, and for species that are trophically dependent upon them. The fact that you do not have the biological understanding, training, or experience to appreciate this only shows the vacuity of your ignorant proclamations.

Fail.

So, while the cute little things have to toughen up a bit they should be reassured that there is considerable slack left in the system before the oceans become an excellent dumping ground for the victims of Dexter and other criminal types.

They "have to toughen up a bit"?! Excuse me, but they don't have any reason to have to do anything according to the whim of denialist humans. They succeed or fail according to what circumstance throws at them, and if they fail... well, guess what - we fail with them, whether or not you understand that this will be so.

That humans have the choice in this instance to determine whether or not such primary trophic-level species go belly-up, and that a significant subset of humanity seems determined to make such a choice in complete and abject ignorance of basic ecological truth, says a lot about the short-sightedness of the "clever" ape...

...and about people who exhibit cavalier disregard for the significance of the ecological webs upon which humanity so unavoidably depends.

Fail.

If one accepts that all the 20thC increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic then the significance of the Knorr paper is that while ACO2 emissions have been increasing in a non-monotonic fashion and there has been a slight rate of increase in the Keeling curve:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MaunaLoaCarbon_Dioxide-en.svg

of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processesâand these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years. I guess that conforms to BJ's witty admonition that, "An accelerating trajectory can indeed be monotonic, and in fact trajectories may accelerate and decelerate in turns, and still be monotonic." That is, while ACO2 emissions are increasing and atmospheric CO2 is increasing the proportion of ACO2 in the atmosphere is constant; now, which of those 3 variables [sic] are monotonic?

It's intriguing to see that you have apparently eventually learned about monotonicity, without even blinking about, nor any mentioning of, your previous ignorant use of the concept.

It's entertaining to see that you subscribe to the idea that the proportion of human CO2 emissions sequestered each year has remained constant over the span of more than a century. Obviously chemical equilibria and anthropogenic manipulations of the biosphere have no place in Cox PhysicsTM, any more than they do in Curtin PhysicsTM.

It's laughable that you now pose the question about which "variables [sic]" [sic] are monotonic, with its underlying scientific non sequitur.

Fail.

Fail.

Fail.

[Q1 @329](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) And where does Abraham claim he attended Monckton's Bethel University Minnesota lecture on the 14th of October?

As I suspected its just bluster you raise a redundant question, as [the point at issue](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) has been answered, [you called out your own erroneous claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

Incidentally, I got the idea that Abraham attended the Moncktion interview [from this](http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/06/telegraph-steps-out…) among other things.

Question 2:

>*Conveniently, you ignore posts like the one showing Abraham's error regarding Viv Jones's web quote. Why are such clear errors by Abraham acceptable to you?*

Another attempt to change the subject and avert attention from your false claim.

As it happens If Monckton is claiming global warming in the MWP and cherry picks the and author's paper on the Antarctic, Abraham is quite right to point out the opposite is the case in the authors finding in the Arctic.

Now enough with the redundant distractions. You owe Abraham and apology for the claim I have been justly holding your account to:

>*Abraham also misrepresents the argument to Keigwin by claiming Monckton is using his paper to claim the recent warming is not of concern*

[Passing wind](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) quotes Keigwin:

>I should point out here, a key element in this discussion centers on the Medieval Warm Period. Most authors would acknowledge that this interval was probably warmer in the North Atlantic region, but few feel strongly that it was global. My data make it seem that it was warmer then than now, but __it is very misleading to use those data to argue against important climate changes that began a century ago.__

Own goal.

cohenite again misleads. Most of the carbon in the ocean is in the deep ocean (35,ooo E9 tons), not the upper ocean above the thermocline. As a matter of fact the amount of carbon in the upper ocean is a of the same order (1200 E9 tons) as in the atmosphere (720 E9 tons).

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/carbon_res_flux.gif

The rapid (a few years) interchange between the atmosphere, the upper ocean and the biosphere tightly link concentrations in the three upper reservoirs. A pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere, quickly gets cut in half but the equilibration with these other two reservoirs.

The flow into the lower ocean, and from there into the lithosphere (the rocks), is limited by the biological pump

The biological pump (things that make shells dying and the shells dropping) is the primary thing that moves carbon from the upper to the lower ocean. Fortunately there are some creatures that can survive a more acidic ocean, so the biological pump will not be broken, but the corals will be toast as we ramp up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Slacktivist nails cohenite (with some editorial changes)

1. He doesnât really believe it himself

2. He passes it along with the intent of misinforming others. Deliberately.

3. He does not respect, or care about, the actual facts of the matter, except to the extent that he views such facts with hostility.

4. Being told that the Bad Thing he was purportedly upset about wasnât real only makes him more upset. Proof that global warming is a real problem and Al Gore is not in league with the Devil makes him defensive and very, very angry.â

I'd seem Monckton's presentation before. I though it comparable with its liberal use of facts as Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth". I did side with it slightly more than Gore's because I don't like horror films and I do like happy endings.

These fucking denialist morons always show themselves sooner or later.

Hi eli, good to see you refreshed and up and at it again after your stoush with G&T. I am well aware of the ocean's biological pump having been apprenticed to Steve Short some time ago; this may answer most of your concerns:

http://landshape.org/enm/oceanic-cayanobacteria-in-the-modern-global-cy…

Also good to see you linking to agitprop sites which quote Robert Heinlein, my favourite fascist; I'm a great believer in graded citizenship; obviously you are too; see you at the meetings soon; assuming we have the same levels of entry.

BJ; I've said it before and I'll say it again: you are uncouth; your attempt to slander me with sanctimonious accusations of indifference to the health of the environment is, as ususal, florid and only partially amusing. More specifically I reject your strident assertion of biological equivalence between planckton and humans; and while I've never met a dog I did not like I am not about to assume existential equivalence with them or with any animal.

As to sustainability, I find it very persuasive that environmental health is generally, BP not withstanding, better enhanced in prosperous countries then in poor or socialistically planned ones, which are usually poor in any event. Prosperity of course is the only effective social contraceptive. And adequate property rights are the best inducement to environmental management as this shows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgqn56_TKKA&feature=channel_page

Unless of course you subscribe to the Glen Albrecht view of about 30000-40000 maximum population for Australia. If you do then I hope you are true to your principles and lead by example in reducing the population.

Special relativity was published in 1905, but wasn't generally accepted until 1911

When it received empirical support. you moron. Einstein said that it was a beautiful theory, and that if it turned out to be wrong then God had missed a good opportunity. MBH is nothing like that.

Part of the reason sceptics feel Mann Hockey stick was political was the speed at which it was accepted.

The reason deniers (who are not skeptics in the normal sense as they gullibly accept anything that confirms their biases) deny is invariably "political", i.e., ideological.

Once again, I thank you for your comments, and remind you if you want to be considered in this discussion, answer the questions put to you, or keep out of it.

What a pompous fucking hypocritical troll. Who gave you the sceptre?

Your obfuscation tactics are plainly not working.

Oh the irony.

Cohenite

What is wrong with you?

I remember way back when I first encountered you on Jennifer Marohasey's Blog. You actually tried to understand things back then, and even admitted when you had made mistakes. Now, you have turned completely into an ideological warrior (read: idiot) who won't admit that his ignorance is the basis of his skepticism of AGW.

Now we know you're a lawyer, and lawyers aren't dumb. But one thing they do is persistently argue one side. That's what you were paid to do. It's your habit. But in this case it doesn't serve you at all, because in arguing the way you are, without acknowledging anything you are getting wrong (this whole ocean acidification thing and the effect it has on planktonic flora and fauna being case in point), is really quite embarrassing. It's simply pig-headed on your part and it's time you had a good look in the mirror and asked yourself 'am I being honest?'.

Alright Nathan, you've shamed me into admitting that jakerman had a point about the Pinker paper with the 1983-2001 overall increase in SW received at the surface, broken up into 1983-1990 and 1990-2001 stages with the first stage showing a decline in received SW and the second an increase but with no corresponding temperature change correlation [actually there is a slight increase in rate of temperature change in the second period but we'll let that pass]. Now, in the spirit of open-mindedness can you or jakerman tell me where that substantial increase in received SW went if it did not affect temperature?

More generally, I'm always interested in real pollution issues; if you want to talk to me about deforestation, overfishing, particulate pollution or the Bhopol mongrels I'm all ears; but I'm not very interested in doomsday scenarios which is what AGW is.

Lotharsson,

After carefully considering the alternatives and ramifications, I have decided to disengage from this discussion because the environment here has once again turned toxic, this time beyond salvation.

Some bloggers here seem to believe they have a God-given right to vilify anyone not singing the party song. There is no room in science or discourse for dogma. Further, I have little desire to provide these buffoons with a target.

Earlier in the discussion I posted the following critique:

>This site isn't the place to discuss the science. If you are really interested, try scienceofdoom.com. Realclimate.com is barely okay if you are really desperate as it is too one sided. This site seems to exist as a for vent Tim Lambert's venom, and his rabid pack of feral dogs, ready to pounce on anyone they perceive a challenge - real or otherwise.

>The tactic here is simple. Ignore the message. Attack the messenger. Be as rude and as loose with your facts as you like - Tim is. Deltoid focuses on posting material critical of the sceptics, so the rabid dogs can rip in.

>Any argument posited is dismissed using a variety of devices, such as labeling arguments debunked and not to be discussed again, or by vilifying the messenger until they give up and go elsewhere. In otherwords, this site is the home of the close minded - home of the bigots.

It would appear that my earlier comments are no less true now and have been confirmed by the many examples evident above.

I wish to pass on my regrets for bowing-out to those following this discussion without participating in the groupthink led vilification. Stay independent and continue to resist dogma in all its forms.

Lotharrson, thank you very much for the robust discussion and especially your willingness to do so civilly. At least there was one adult with enough confidence in their position to argue the issues put without resorting to childish name-calling, rampant fear-mongering and malicious labeling.

Thank you.

[Cohenite]().

BJ; I've said it before and I'll say it again: you are uncouth; your attempt to slander me with sanctimonious accusations of indifference to the health of the environment is, as ususal, florid and only partially amusing.

If you are so concerned about "the environment", then perhap you might consider refraining from patronising ("liitle [sic] beasties") and melodramatic ("gasping in the human caused acid/putrification [sic] of the oceans) comments delivered in the same breath. Such delivery only leads to one conclusion, especially when such delivery comes from one with an agenda such as yours, and with the demonstrated ignorance, such as you display, of basic biology.

More specifically I reject your strident assertion of biological equivalence between planckton [sic] and humans.

Oh, really?

Perhaps you might point out where I actually made a "strident assertion" about the ["biological" (or "existential") equivalence](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk) of plankton and humans?

As to sustainability, I find it very persuasive that environmental health is generally, BP not withstanding, better enhanced in prosperous countries then in poor or socialistically planned ones, which are usually poor in any event.

Ah, How to Misrepresent Complex Relationships 101...

Several points can be made here.

First, "prosperous countries" are generally so because they have exploited the resources of other countries, whilst protesting those that remain in their own. Japan, many countries in Europe (my native Netherlands included) and the US of A all fit into this category.

Essentially, they 'export' much of their burden of environmental degradation to the Third World.

Second, and not entirely separate from the first point, the relatively poor environmental track record of poor nations is an unfortuante coincidence of the fact of Industrialisation occurring in the West first, of the relative sizes of countries' human populations versus that of their natural resources, and of the interaction of these biogeopolitical factors over a number of centuries.

I'm not about to write an essay on this - you are hardly likely to pay attention anyway, as [Eli pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) - and I have better things to do with my Sunday afternoon. I will simply note that your point is a strawman and a red herring: I guess one should not expect anything else of a former divorce lawyer who has rebranded himself as a politically-active climate denialist.

Cohenite says

>Now, in the spirit of open-mindedness can you or jakerman tell me where that substantial increase in received SW went if it did not affect temperature?

Pinker et al (2005) says:

>the potential climatic effects of a sustained decrease or increase in surface solar radiation require extensive investigation of additional factors, such as the long-wave radiative effects of any associated cloud variations

The increase in SW from a reduction in clouds was likely balanced by a decrease in LW from a reduction in clouds. The net effect could be a postive or a negative forcing depending on where the clouds were.

How very noble of you.

> I reject your strident assertion of biological equivalence between planckton [sic] and humans.

I find it hard to believe your comprehension is that poor, given that you're said to (have been) a functioning lawyer and all. So, that leaves me with the next hypothesis - you're using a blatant strawman in the hope that it will deceive. (And you appear to do this not infrequently...)

All of which makes me curious. Does that actually work in court? Or would you dare not try it on there, reserving it for what you hope are more gullible audiences? Because I can't see it passing without comment even here.

Passing Wind, in [passing once more](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) reiterates his belief, now apparently strengthened, that:

> The tactic here is simple. Ignore the message. Attack the messenger. Be as rude and as loose with your facts as you like - Tim is.

I guess you could say his tactic here is complex - charging that the "tactic here is simple" etc. thereby conveniently ignoring ([as I posted before](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…)) plenty of engagement with his "message" and solid grounding in facts - including many inconvenient to his argument; glossing over his own rudeness and looseness with facts; and avoiding answering [a bunch of fairly straightforward and relevant questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

(I wonder if he's having any more success at skepticalscience?)

Anyone want to bet he'll be back for a 3rd attempt after a break in which he hopes the readership will forget these things?

>*The tactic here is simple. [Ignore the message](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…). [And] [Attack the messenger](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).*

Very interesting and insightful, shame about the projection.

Low clouds are a negative feedback; they reflect more SW than they block LW. Absence of low cloud will be a positive feedback based on that inequality; in short more w/m2 hits the surface as Pinker found; in addition with more SW reaching the BOA there should an increase in backradiation which is what Wang and Liang found;

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml

Even if AGW was stationary during this period [and it should have been increasing] the extra SW and backradiation should have had some effect on temperature.

Windy writes:

>*After carefully considering the alternatives and ramifications, I have decided to disengage from this discussion because* the environment here has once again turned toxic, this time beyond salvation [Windy has been caught in his own web and cannot face providing he [Apology that is due](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…) to Abraham.]

Good to see that everyone agrees that of all the carbon in the ocean only about 3.5% is in the upper ocean where it can interchange with the atmosphere, and the rest is in the lower ocean where it is isolated from the upper ocean, the atmosphere and the biosphere.

This rapid interchange (~5 years) between the three upper reservoirs explains why only about 1/2 of the CO2 pulsed into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels remains, it spreads into the upper ocean and the biosphere, leaving a significant increase in all three rapid interchange reservoirs. '

The slow movement of CO2 from the upper to the lower ocean via the biological pump also explains why an increase in CO2 mixing ratio in all three upper reservoirs and acidification will remain after hundreds of years.

Now us consider, the nonsense that cohenite has been putting out on ocean acidification gives us a choice. Either he is ignorant or he is deceitful. By claiming authority he makes our decision easy.

So how do we approach this. Eli thinks that the best way is a two part reply. The first is lay out the facts, the second that we call him out on his deceit leaving lurkers informed.

Eli predicts that cohenite will now get even more passive aggressive

Upwelling is continuous eli, albeit reduced during +ve PDO, El Nino dominated periods such as between 1976-1998; that upwelling carries, continually, CO2 rich waters downwards where you have overlooked the biggest interchange, or rather deposit, of CO2, into the mantle. 2 questions for AGW luminaries such as yourself:

1 CO2 is rising in the atmosphere but at a rate far less than would be indicated by emissions. Why is that?
2 Is 'acidification' increasing at a rate commensurate with emissions or less indicating another 'missing' sink such as mantle deposition?

And don't brand me as a defender of CO2 emissions, I have always advocated nuclear, the coal industry can look after itself, and solar and wind are junk; where does eli prefer to receive his power to cool his fevered brow?

Eli [predicted well](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…).

The Liberal Conspiracy website is covering the mysterious disappearance from The Telegraph website of the Tom Chivers blog on His Lordship:

[Is the Telegraph censoring criticism of climate-change deniers?](http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/06/16/is-the-telegraph-censoring-crit…)

Monckton has written a piece on WuWt, explaining his role as a science advisor to the iron lady.

as always, his account is in some contradiction to reality...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/16/margaret-thatcher-the-world%E2%80…

lord (what, like wiv yer own 'eraldic symbols an' all? gosh) sidcup @385:

This quote from the site you linked to hits the nail squarely:

Lord Monckton is a fantasist, a blethering popinjay useful only for amusement. He can be safely ignored in all serious scientific debate. But it reflects badly on those people who want seriously to argue against the science of climate change that this capering jester is among the public figureheads of their movement.

Message for Mr. Watts, Mr. Watts to reception please...

I notice George Monbiot presents his readers with a false dichotomy:

Does Viscount Monckton possess so little self-awareness that he couldn't spot the contradiction between the standard of argument he expects of others and his own behaviour? Or does he take his followers for morons?

I see no reason, especially in the case of Monckton, why the answer can't be a resounding "yes" to both.

I'm not very interested in doomsday scenarios which is what AGW is.

Someone said (or implied) that cohenite isn't dumb, but that's mighty dumb -- AGW is an empirical assertion or hypothesis that is true or not.

#386

That is an amazing post from Monckton. He proclaims his own genius, and the ever-credulous denizens of WUWT swallow every word of it (well, not all of them actually).

The denial-o-sphere has recently been putting a lot of effort into reclaiming Thatcher as one of their own. I wonder why? I might see if I can get hold of a copy of Statecraft from a library to see what she really says about AGW.

@390:

I'd barely got 1/4 the way through that thread on WTFUWT before I succumbed to a bout of nausea. Surely there's a law or regulation that prohibits fawning to that extent in a public place ...?

:)

lord_sidcup [said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…): "The denial-o-sphere has recently been putting a lot of effort into reclaiming Thatcher as one of their own. I wonder why"?

At a guess, the gerontocracy running the climate change denial campaign still imagine that the Thatcher/Reagan years were the pinnacle of human achievement and see some mileage in conveying that belief to the credulati who'll believe anything.

Re-writing history can always be put to some use, as Orwell pointed out.

Sod and Chek,

Interesting indeed, since Lady Thatcher's every speech are a matter of public record, as I expanded [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/climate_denial_crock_on_monckt_…)

There is an interesting article from Bob Ward in The Guardian today. Amongst other things, Ward fact checks some of the claims Monckton makes over at WUWT about his role in the Thatcher administration. You won't be surprised by what Ward finds - that Monckton might have exaggerated his importance, just a tad:

[Thatcher becomes latest recruit in Monckton's climate sceptic campaign](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/22/thatcher-climate-scep…)

Thatcher becomes latest recruit in Monckton's climate sceptic campaign

pretty funny read! Monckton and Curtin (who just claimed that he was drinking sea water, when he actually wasn t) can join a "longest nose" competition any day!

383 cohenite,

Are you suggesting that some of the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is going into the mantle? At rates sufficient to explain the discrepancy you mention?

I can only suggest that you ask a geologist about the process that would bring that about. Bob Carter and Ian Plimer spring to mind.

Reading Monckton's piece.

>Margaret Thatcher was very conscious that the Left tries to taint every aspect of life by attempting to politicize it.

What an odd thing to say.

Speaking of Monckton, why is he reminsicing about Thatcher when he should be filming his video reply for John Abraham as promised? Seeing as he criticised John Abraham for taking a long time to create his presentation perhaps he shouldn't be too tardy.

C'mon Chris. Some of us have long memories.

[John](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2…):

What an odd thing to say.

It's also inherently oxymoronic.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

Fans of the Discount Viscount, rejoice! Monckton has released his [response to Abraham](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/monkton_shumps_the_jark.php) (see story on Stoat), via WTFUWT no less, and has gone for the Gish Gallop!

Perhaps you "gurus" can explain to me why we are continually told the current temperature level and magnitude of change is unprecedented and therefore worth worrying about? There is an immense body of research and evidence suggesting temperatures during the medieval, roman and minoan warm periods were as warm or warmer than current levels. We also know that temperatures can fluctuate quite dramatically (1-2c) in a few years and have done several times since the dalton and maunder minimums.

I would also appreciate somebody giving me a definitive paper that proves positive feedback effects are more likely than negative feedback effects. Historically this is clearly not the case so why are you all so convinced now is different? ( by the way a small change in global cloud cover can have a significant influence on climate and this is a quite reasonable explanation for the rather pleasant change in temperature that the planet has seen over the last 30 years.)
The science does suggest without these positive feedback effects a doubling of co2 causes a pleasant 1c increase.
The precautionary principle is all well and good but only if the costs warrant it. Everything the world is suggesting will not change the temperature. To believe otherwise is crazy. Future technology will allow us to reduce global co2, population control can help us control co2. But everything else is basically just platitudes that come at huge cost.....these are the reasons that "sceptics" keep challenging the appalling politics and much of the sceince that is guiding AGW.

Toby Robertson.

Your post is an impressive list of the type of denialist carnards that have been refuted so many times that it boggles the mind that you raise them again. In it I counted 14 errors of fact or of truthful representation before I gave up on the exercise - at that level of inaccuracy I could see no point in actually attempting a response to your nonsense.

Perhaps you should learn to do some research (and learning) of your own before adding to the weight of tripe that persists in popping up again and again like blackberries in a paddock.

Future technology will allow us to reduce global co2...

Please give us some details, Toby. We're all very interested in this idea. Some idea of the cost would be nice, too.

Bernard thankyou for your considered and informative response! There is no definitive report you can point me to.
I am guessing you do not think temperatures have been higher or as high. Which is most likely rubbish. I am guessing you dont think the magnitude of temperature has been greater in recent history which is also rubbish......because it is so inconvenient....i say back to you..don't believe me do some research!
You presumably also believe there is evidence for positive feedback effects causing the planet to spiral out of control. Then how come we are still here!?

May I say finding 14 errors in my short statement kind of sums up the religous belief held by so many and is why so many people are sceptial of much of what is assosiated with AGW.

Do your self a favour and read the comments on this blog with an open mind and tell me they are not a classic example of group think at work.
I listened to much of Abraham's talk and found it far from convincing.

This sums up AGW beautifully ;
http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennCross.pdf

Gaz, exactly..it isnt here yet. All of the current "technology" is too expensive or incapable of supplying sufficient power for our modern lifestyles. When we find it ...and humans are very clever..then co2 will naturally reduce again. Governments rather than wasting money trying to pick political winners should offer a huge prize both for a "battery" capable of storing renewable energy that is practical for running a village, then a town and then a city, and also of course for an alternative low cost source of energy.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.

@ Tony post 66

Some valid points - though let's also be frank, COP15 failed to live up to expectations (we can debate the reasonableness of those). No binding agreements, more slow incremental steps towards binding agreements "at some point" in the future.

The whole situation reminds of what it was like in the finance industry prior to the GFC. The risks were known and openly talked about. Some thought it wouldn't be so bad, others thought the sky would fall and some thought it couldn't happen. I was at a major bank several years prior. People knew about the growing sub-prime mortgage problem years in advance. The implications for the global economy were fully understood. But nobody wanted the good times to end. It would happen "at some point in the future, hopefully when we were not around".

I think I share the view of other posters here: there will be understanding (if not panic) amongst the public after the serious effects kick in. Of course, known tipping points may have been crossed. Too late she cried.