Worth noting: Open Letter to Christopher Monckton.
I fully support Dr. John Abraham’s presentation which I found to be a very thorough debunking of your many misrepresentations. Contrary to your own libelous accusation, I could find no point at which Dr. Abraham “told lies, knowingly and willfully misrepresenting what (you) had said.”
On the other hand, there are documented instances where you have lied and knowingly and willfully misrepresented issues of science and details of your own resume…
For those with the patience to do so, study A detailed list of the errors in Monckton’s July 2008 Physics and Society article.
The following critique has reference to the article "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" by Christopher Monckton published in the APS Forum on Physics and Society Newsletter "Physics and Society", July 2008…
Also please note that simply itemizing errors in an article doesn’t prove one way or another whether the central premise of the article is wrong or not (the "fallacy fallacy"). Monckton’s central question is on climate sensitivity. The magnitude of that sensitivity is a central question of climate science as a whole, and in particular centers on the sign and magnitudes of various feedbacks to temperature increase in Earth’s climate system. The most recent IPCC report (AR4, Working Group 1, 2007) presented a robust collection of evidence from physical modeling, paleoclimate, and observed recent response of the climate system for their conclusions of a temperature response to CO2 doubling of between 2 and 4.5 K, with a best estimate around 3 K. The substantial collection of errors in Monckton’s article renders his arguments against this IPCC conclusion quite unconvincing…
See also some earlier entries here.
The more I see of this guy the more I think his adulation, fading though it may be, has been a distinct sign of insecurity and/or desperation on the part of the global warming blindfold camp.
Kind of related
Noted this in The New York Times.
During an unparalleled heat wave, President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia steps up his climate warnings. “Everyone is talking about climate change now. Unfortunately, what is happening now in our central regions is evidence of this global climate change, because we have never in our history faced such weather conditions in the past,” he says. “This means that we need to change the way we work, change the methods that we used in the past.” [Kremlin]
Russia halts grain exports as drought, heat and fire devastate crops. [The New York Times]
Single weather events prove nothing, but events such as the current Russian summer and even the degree of magnitude of the current Pakistan floods may be something to expect more often, that is may be building a pattern that time will reveal as climate change outside of what may have been expected without the anthropogenic factors now in play. President Medvedev certainly seems to think this is already clear.
Sunday: More on Lord Strudel
See Monckton makes it up by Barry R. Bickmore, Brigham Young University.
I have shown here that in order to discredit the IPCC, Lord Monckton produced his graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature anomaly in the following manner:
- He confused a hypothetical scenario with a prediction.
- He falsely reported the data from the hypothetical scenario he was confusing with a prediction.
- He plugged his false data into the wrong equation to obtain false predictions of time-series temperature evolution.
- He messed up the statistical analyses of the real data.
These errors compound into a rather stunning display of complete incompetence. But since all, or at least nearly all, of this has been pointed out to Monckton in the past, there’s just no scientifically valid excuse for this. He’s just making it up.
See also John Quiggin in January 2010:
The plot, according to Monckton is led by President Obama and supported by Kevin Rudd, who are, it seems, communists who ‘piled into the environmental movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall’.
In an interview with Alex Jones, host of the conspiracy-theoretic radio/TV show Prison Planet, Monckton attributed the plot to a ‘“deliberate desire to control population by killing people in large numbers deliberately if necessary”. His co-speaker, Ian Plimer, assented to similar views on the same program.
It might be thought that such views should be enough to consign Monckton to the lunatic fringe. But his conspiracy theory has received enthusiastic endorsement from large sections of the media including such prominent commentators as Andrew Bolt and Janet Albrechtsen (though Albrechtsen later backed away a little).
And Monckton doesn’t lack political support. Opposition Senate Leader Nick Minchin echoed his views a couple of months ago, saying ‘”For the extreme Left [global warming] provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of deindustrialise the Western world … you know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the Left, and … they embraced environmentalism as their new religion. ’…
In the same program as his interview with Plimer, Jones explained how the Obama Administration’s apparently modest health care reforms are actually a genocidal plot.
It is tempting to dismiss all this as overblown hyperbole. But the continuous attacks on the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only make sense if the whole scientific consensus on climate change is the product of a fraudulent conspiracy. This claim has been made repeatedly, most notably with the recent discovery of a couple of erroneous or poorly-source claims in the 1600 page IPCC report released in 2007.
Finally, there is a particular problem for Lord Monckton, given his past career. According to the film The Great Global Warming Swindle, the climate change conspiracy began with a British politician who said, as early as 1990,
I want to pay tribute to the important work which the United Nations has done to advance our understanding of climate change, and in particular the risks of global warming .. The (first) IPCC report is a remarkable achievement … the need for more research should not be an excuse for delaying much needed action now. There is already a clear case for precautionary action at an international level.
The name of this climate arch-conspirator? Margaret Thatcher.
Tony Abbott meets Lord Strudel!
Yes, back in February:
A day after releasing his climate change policy, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has met the world’s most famous climate change sceptic, Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.
While a spokesman for Mr Abbott earlier this month said the Coalition leader would not meet Lord Monckton, Mr Abbott changed his mind and accepted a short visit from the British climate sceptic yesterday.
Mr Abbott said yesterday it was the job of the Opposition Leader to meet people with a significant argument to make and that he was not an ”intellectual snob”.
”I think that you actually come up with better policy if you’re prepared to have a discussion not just with people who say yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir.”
Lord Monckton has been a globally divisive figure. He has previously stated that after the fall of the Berlin Wall communists adopted ”climate change” as a new flag to rally around on the way to one world government.
Mr Abbott added the he had also approached the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists – campaigners for stronger climate policies and other environmental issues – for a meeting.
Peter Cosier, a member of the Wentworth Group, yesterday confirmed that Mr Abbott’s office had approached him for a meeting and he would be happy to talk to anyone.
Speaking to The Age before his speech to the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday, Lord Monckton said he had noted that Mr Abbott was very engaged by climate issues.
Lord Monckton said he told Mr Abbott his $3.2 billion policy to reduce carbon emissions by 5 per cent was unnecessary because carbon affected the atmosphere only one-seventh of what the United Nations said it did.
But Lord Monckton added that Mr Abbott’s policies to encourage tree planting and to help industry save energy would help address ”genuine” environmental problems.
”It is indeed better to have a policy which nods to the issue of climate change for those who still believe, and there are some diehards who still believe, that fixes some of the genuine environment issues that are a lot cheaper than the enormous amounts diverted to this ridiculous climate thing,” Lord Monckton said.
Later Monckton told the National Press Club that human-emitted carbon emissions were not warming the planet, that increased sun activity accounted for recent higher temperatures, and that the draft negotiating text at December UN climate talks had proposed setting up a world government.
Tony Abbott, Alan Jones, and Lord Strudel
ALAN JONES: Are you going to release a policy on climate change?
TONY ABBOTT: Yes, before the Parliament goes back at 2 o’clock next Tuesday we’ll have a policy out there, Alan.
ALAN JONES: You’re under attack already. Apparently the Government has had the bureaucracy working overtime to anticipate this policy and they’re going to say – according to reports – that 30 million hectares of trees would have to be planted for you to meet the minimum greenhouse gas reduction of 5% by 2020.
TONY ABBOTT: Well look I think that’s all just nonsense. I mean what they have done is they’ve taken an exaggerated view of some suggestions that Malcolm Turnbull made back in February last year. Now Malcolm’s speech back in February last year was a perfectly good speech. It was in its way a milestone speech. But I think if the Government is going to run around to try and cost Opposition policies, it would be much better off releasing detailed costings of its own policies instead.
ALAN JONES: Lord Monckton told me on Monday that we’ll be spending trillions of dollars if all this stuff goes ahead to reduce global temperatures by .02 of a degree centigrade. What if any policy in relation to climate change is tackling a problem that doesn’t exist? The problem may not be there?
TONY ABBOTT: Well this is a fair argument that Lord Monckton makes. I mean Lord Monckton, he’s I suppose one of our leading sceptics and a scepticism about scientific hypotheses is fair enough. There are lots of people who disagree with Lord Monckton and what I’ll be doing next week, Alan, is putting forward a policy to try to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and help the environment. Now, it makes sense to try to tread lightly on the planet and the policies that I will be talking about next week will be designed to try to reduce our impact on the planet, which is surely a good thing.
— Source: © Tony Abbott MHR 2010 | Authorised by Tony Abbott MHR, Level 2, 17 Sydney Rd, Manly NSW 2095
Mind you, if you read that carefully you’ll see Tony Abbott was not quite as naive about Strudel as Alan Jones was.