Gavin Schmidt has caught Christopher Monckton in yet another fabrication. Monckton published graphs that purport to show that temperatures and CO2 concentrations haven’t followed IPCC projections, but the IPCC projections Monckton plots are fictional. Schmidt graphs the actual projections, and surprise, surprise they give a very different picture.

And in comments there, Igor Samoylenko writes


With his latest shenanigans in the US, Monkton managed to catch the attention of Private Eye (a satirical current affairs magazine in the UK).

In the latest issue 1235, they noted several things (quite apart from his dodgy science).

One is his reference to himself as “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” in a letter to two American senators. He is not of course and never has been. As Private Eye notes: “Since inheriting the title, Christopher has stood at a “by-election” for a hereditary Tory seat in the Lords, following the death of Lord Mowbray and Stourton two years ago. He received precisely zero votes.”

The other thing Private Eye notes is his logo, which he is using on his graphs and letters – a portcullis topped with a crown, bearing a striking resemblance to the insignia of the House of Parliament. This is also very dodgy indeed as the official parliamentary guide states very clearly that “the usage of the crowned portcullis was formally authorised by Her Majesty the Queen for the two Houses unambiguously to use the device and thus to regulate its use by the others. The emblem should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that its use might wrongly be regarded, or represented as having the authority of the House”.

Compare Monckton’s logo (left) with Parliament’s (right).

i-da60a2420ec584cbc1ded8c382a16bae-moncktonlogo.png i-02f4709e5d3134d94efddbbe2598214d-parliamentlogo.png

He’s replaced the royal crown with a viscount’s coronet, produced a logo that would only be appropriate if he was a Viscount with a seat in the House of Lords.

See also his testimony to a US Congress Committee:

I bring fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments to the Congress of your “athletic democracy”.

He again implies he has a seat in Parliament. Which he doesn’t.

Comments

  1. #1 DavidK
    May 5, 2009

    Is this typical behavior of a fraud, someone who is delusional, or both?

  2. #2 Vagueofgodalming
    May 5, 2009

    Monckton’s logo seems to have several screws loose. Is he trying to tell us something?

  3. #3 Lurker
    May 5, 2009

    Tim Ball and his Magic Resume can’t touch Monckton.

    (Maybe that’s why we’ve heard so little lately from Canada’s 1st PhD in climatology)

  4. #4 Thomas
    May 5, 2009

    Isn’t there laws against pretending to be a member of the UK government? Doing it in private seems harmless enough, but falsely representing your own status in contacts with foreign governments to me seems like treason.

  5. #5 Boris
    May 5, 2009

    Delusional is the right term for Monckton. In his mind, he is, by all rights, a member of Parliament and a climate scientist.

    I heard him on the Michael Savage show last week or so. It was a lunatic’s duel. Savage was obsequious as hell and kept calling Monckton a scientist (may have even said Dr. Monckton a few times). The Viscount never bothered to correct him.

  6. #6 Mike
    May 5, 2009

    Boris – is that the same Michael Savage who’s appeared on the “Banned from the UK” list the UK government released today?

  7. #7 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 5, 2009

    First of all, if it’s between Smith and Monckton, I’m going with Monckton. Secondly, the UN IPCC has already had to correct one report thanks to the watchful eye of Lord Christopher Monckton, The third Viscount of Brenchley.

    This seem to be a rather short piece Tim, if you want to report on lies, why do you review An Inconvenient Truth. From a lie standpoint that should keep you busy for quite some time. Oh wait, Gore’s deliberate lies probably don’t interest you.

    You’ve obviously been trusting the wrong people Tim. Here is a collection of Monckton’s works available at SPPI:
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/ My favorite is a paper entitled Chuck It Again Schmidt in reference to your hero. The feud goes back a long way and I wouldn’t be so quick to put my professional reputation on the line by siding with Smith if I were you.

    Dash RIPROCK III
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com
    http://www.liberalmadenss.com

  8. #8 TrueSceptic
    May 5, 2009

    7 Dash,

    Who is “Smith”?

    Do you *really* want us to look at Lord Munchkin’s “works”? Do we have to explain each of his lies and errors to you, as you appear to be incapable of even the tiniest amount of critical thinking and genuine scepticism?

    Or is your post just a parody of AGW “scepticism”?

  9. #9 DavidCOG
    May 5, 2009

    Dash RIPROCK III,

    One look at Monckton’s ‘climate science’ work: http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.htm

    And an interview with the man: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climatechange

    You should really save your energy for defending the handful of people who have some climate science qualifications, because Monckton is nothing more than an unqualified, delusional, scientifically illiterate liar.

    Although, it is tough finding anyone credible to defend your denial of climate science – so good luck with that.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    May 5, 2009

    Yes, it’s the same michael savage, and it’s a pity, I’d rather have him in the UK than one state south …

  11. #11 Lars Karlsson
    May 5, 2009

    My favourite Monckton piece is his speech at this year’s Heartland Conference:
    Great is Truth, and mighty above all things.
    It starts:

    WHERE are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency – those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds?
    The main message of this conference to the bed-wetters is this. Stop telling lies. You are fooling fewer and fewer of us. However many lies are uttered, the scientific truth
    remains unalterable.

    A truly astonishing intellectual accomplishment. I never grow tired of citing it.

    (Obs! This comment contains irony.)

  12. #12 Former Skeptic
    May 5, 2009

    #5 Boris:

    Yup, I heard the Discount on the Savage show as well. Monckton kept referring to the flawed Scafetta & West paper as though it meant something, and Savage (doesn’t he have a Ph.D. or something?) swallowed it lock, stock and barrel. Must have been a slow news day for the conservatives…

  13. #13 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 5, 2009

    True Sceptic,

    I rather suspected some pedantic “can’t see the forest for the trees” liberal would be more concerned with that typing error (Smith) than the point being made.

    I refuse to have some Al Gore Kool-Aid drinker attack my critical thinking. Please forgive me for not taking the word of a group (UN IPCC) headed by a railroad engineer as the gospel truth.

    To answer your question, I do need you to point out Monckton’s errors if you can. I’d love to hear what
    you comes up with.

    For the record True Sceptic, are you stating that the UN IPCC did not have to correct a deliberate exaggeration thanks to Monckton’s keen and watchful eye? Do I need to educate you on this incident??? Just let me know. No problem as long as I’m here.

    Boris, I’ve seen Monckton speak in person. He began by making it clear that he is not a scientist and that he doesn’t want his audience to simply believe anything he
    says or for that matter anything that Gore says either.
    He encourages his audience to think independently which
    is more than I can say for the former V.P. referred to as
    Ozone Man by the right. Boris, if you don’t believe me, I
    have a recent Monckton presentation on my website. He gave this presentation four days after Gore chickened out and wouldn’t testify beside him (Monckton). Just click on the video tab.

    David, I’ll stack Monckton’s credentials up against Al Gore’s any day. You alarmists are such hypocrites. You constantly attack Monckton’s lack of a formal science background while totally ignoring Al Gore’s lack of credentials. Can’t say I’d expect anything less from your kind.

    Finally True Sceptic, you lefties throw that “Poe’s Law” insult around a lot. In this case, you only implied it. I see it as proof that you people are now so far to the
    left that even views in the center appear as a possible parody to you.

    I can’t wait to hear what errors you find in Monckton’s work. What do you say we have an old fashion Gore supporter vs. Monckton supporter AGW smack down right here on
    this very stage?

    Dash RIPROCK III
    http://www.hootervillegazette.com

  14. #14 Arthur Smith
    May 5, 2009

    (Note: I don’t mind being confused with Gavin Schmidt, but we are indeed two distinct individuals!)

    Believing anything Monckton has to offer is a sure-fire indicator that somebody has not being paying attention to any actual climate science, so he’s a useful idiot in that sense. The more qualified denialists like Spencer or Lindzen or supposedly on-the-fence types like the Pielke’s are usually a little too ambiguously wrong in their claims to accuse their followers of total naivete.

    By the way, I received a note from somebody the other day asking about an article Monckton recently co-authored in a “professional insurance journal”, which had similarly doctored graphs. I don’t have the reference though – has anybody else seen this?

  15. #15 dhogaza
    May 5, 2009

    Check out Riprock’s hilarious website …

  16. #16 Boris
    May 5, 2009

    DASH RIPROCK III=Monckton?

    Show me one piece of empirical evidence that they aren’t the same person. Nothing? That’s what I thought.

    I WON THE ARGUMENT AGAIN!!!!

  17. #17 TrueSceptic
    May 5, 2009

    13 Dash,

    Going through your message in sequence:-

    It is interesting that you assume that I’m a “liberal” on no evidence whatsoever, but thanks for confirming that you are the ignorant, arrogant anti-science Gore-obsessed wingnut I suspected.

    Your carelessness with spelling names reflects the carelessness of your treatment of matters of fact and science, but anyway you *might* have meant Arthur Smith.

    Where do you guys stop with the Al Gore nonsense? We just don’t care over here in Europe, and he’s irrelevant to the science.

    Your uncritical lapping-up of drivel from the likes of Monckton shows that you have no idea what critical thinking is, but it would be futile to attempt to educate the uneducable. As for “Lord Christopher Monckton, The third Viscount of Brenchley”, you are impressed by these quaint and archaic titles, aren’t you?

    Monckton spotted a typo in an IPCC table. This had already been spotted by others. Your claim that the IPCC had to correct this because of Monckton is laughable.

    Monckton is happy to let others call him “Dr.” without correcting them. He’s also happy to claim membership of the House of Lords, which has never been the case.

    This is not about credentials, but anyone unable or unwilling to tell truth from falsehood can hardly be treated as a reliable source or commenter on any topic. It is about what people say, and when what they say is almost always dishonest or delusional they deserve nothing more than contempt and ridicule. You did know that Monckton is not treated as uncritically by all “sceptics” as he is by you? Lucia at The Blackboard, for instance, was not impressed by one of his recent fraudulent graphs.

    Monckton vs Gore: again the Gore obsession.

    I have never attacked Monckton *because* of his lack of credentials; I’ve attacked him for his dishonest and delusional “works” and think I speak for others here too.

    Again the “far left” accusation. That tells us a lot more about you than me. To imply that your views are anything but far-right wingnuttery is just hilarious.

    “AGW smackdown”: once more, the Gore obsession. Just sad, really.

  18. #18 mark c
    May 5, 2009

    “I rather suspected some pedantic “can’t see the forest for the trees” liberal would be more concerned with that typing error (Smith) than the point being made.

    I refuse to have some Al Gore Kool-Aid drinker attack my critical thinking. Please forgive me for not taking the word of a group (UN IPCC) headed by a railroad engineer as the gospel truth.”

    Wow!! Three ad hominems in three sentences. How impressive is that?

  19. #19 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 5, 2009

    First to Author Smith. I am familiar with you, but was referring to Gavin Schmidt. In paragraph three, I clearly referenced one of Monckton’s works entitled “Chuck It Again Schmidt.” In my haste, I not once but twice typed Smith by mistake. Given that, I’m going to do something that true sceptic probably never has, admit to making a mistake.

    I’ve yet to meet an AGW alarmist who wasn’t also Pro-Choice, against the death penalty, and for gun control. If any of these labels have been incorrectly applied to you, please let me know which ones. I’ll print a correction immediately.

    I judged you to be a liberal based on your position regarding AGW. You on the other hand judged me to be ignorant, arrogant, and anti-science based upon my labeling you as a liberal.
    I wish I could learn to take the time to patiently research an opponent like you do before labeling them…LOL

    You don’t care about Gore in Europe. Really? I’m sorry, is Gore not an official advisor to the UK Government? He said he was. He is most definitely irrelevant to the science. This is particularly true since he refers to so very little of it (credible science) when defending his position.

    It is however laughable to criticize Monckton for a lack of scientific credentials while giving Gore a free pass. If you look closely, you’ll see that part of my response was clearly addressed to David who had called Monckton unqualified. Does this mean that your carelessness with names “reflects the carelessness of your treatment of matters of fact and science” or does that only apply when your opponent makes a name related mistake?

    Regarding educating the uneducable, I’m feeling your pain right now as I respond to you. As for Lord Christopher Monckton, The Third Viscount of Brenchley, I am impressed
    with his title but more amused by the response it brings
    from AGW alarmists. You didn’t disappoint.

    I suppose one man’s typo is another man’s exaggeration. I’d be more willing to write it off as a typo if it had gone in the opposite direction. You claim other’s brought it to the attention of the UN IPCC first. Would you happen to have their names? Upon receiving them, I’ll contact the UN IPCC directly for verification.

    I’ve never heard Monckton let anyone call him “Dr.” without correcting them. Is there a video clip or an audio clip of a radio interview available in which he does this? Can you cite any specific examples of this?

    Monckton is member of the House of Lords by right of succession, and certified as his father’s valid successor by the Lord Chancellor, but (since 1999) without the right to sit or vote. He can, however, use the facilities of the House, and is of course allowed to extend polite wishes from your Parliament to our Congress. He is also fully entitled to the vicecomital coronet, and also to use the portcullis as an indication that he is a member of the Peerage of the United Kingdom; though, not being a sitting Member, he cannot use the Royal Crown. Hope that clears it up for you.

    “This is not about credentials, but anyone unable or unwilling to tell truth from falsehood can hardly be treated as a reliable source or commenter on any topic.”
    Excellent point if you’re referring to Al Gore.

    OMG, Lucia at The Blackboard was not impressed by “one” of his graphs. I’ll inform Lord Monckton immediately and ask that he never speak or write on this issue again. Good heavens, Lucia from the Blackboard. I didn’t realize it was this serious.

    For the record, is anyone who doubts AGW a far-right wing nut in your estimation or is that a title you’ve reserved for me? At least unlike sound and stable James Hansen, I’m not suggesting that Obama has four years to save the world or that those who contribute to global warming should be criminally prosecuted. Add that to his comment about sea level rising 246 feet by the end of the century and you have the picture of a real nut. You can save the title of “nut” for your glorious leaders.

    What’s sad is your willingness to accept this highly flawed theory as reality without questioning it. The UK is obviously ahead of the US when it comes to inculcating AGW related fears. Unfortunately, we are catching up here in the states.

  20. #20 David Irving (no relation)
    May 5, 2009

    Damn you, dhogaza @ 15. Now I’ve got to remove coffee from my monitor.

    You can smell the lunacy at Hooterville, and I may never get it out of my nostrils.

    Still, it’s not quite as bad as the Time Cube …

  21. #21 Eli Rabett
    May 6, 2009

    dhogaza, you mean someone got there before denialdipot?

  22. #22 GWB's Nemesis
    May 6, 2009

    Dash Riprock III said: “Monckton is member of the House of Lords by right of succession”

    The formal list of members of the House of Lords is here:
    http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/alphabetical_list_of_members.cfm

    Please point out where Monckton appears on it.

  23. #23 GWB's Nemesis
    May 6, 2009

    Sorry, the link above for the House of Lords members list as a tiny url:
    http://tinyurl.com/adht4

  24. #24 Steve Bloom
    May 6, 2009

    dhogaza: “Yes, it’s the same michael savage, and it’s a pity, I’d rather have him in the UK than one state south …”

    Just keep that petition north of the border and we’ll call it even. Or possibly we could send both to the UK?

  25. #25 cce
    May 6, 2009

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourth-assessment-summary-for-policy-makers/#comment-24730

    Stefan Rahmstorf notified the IPCC of the error the day the SPM was released to the public: February 2, 2007.

    I would ask Dash Riprock III to kindly provide a reference of Hansen declaring that sea level will rise 246 feet by the end of the century.

  26. #26 John Mashey
    May 6, 2009

    None of the following should be taken as an attack upon Texas, which actually does contain many rational people.

    People unfamiliar with Petticoat Junction or Green Acres might want to look up Hooterville, a really small (TV) town.

    “Dash RIPROCK III” would appear to be ~44-year-old Mark G* of Bryan, TX, right next to College Station (Texas A&M University). Bryan + College Station are ~190,000 people, within 1-2 hours of Houston and Austin. I’ve spoken at TAMU a few times, including about the time Mark would have graduated from Bryan H.S.. Like any university town I’ve ever visited, it didn’t seem like Hooterville.

    Texas A&M University has a credible Atmospheric Sciences Department, including the well-known Andrew Dessler, whose book I liked. The department says this about the IPCC, and has seminars, like this one in June.

    He’s been running hootervillegazette since ~Sept 2008, whereas Liberal madness is a few weeks old.

    He’s been spreading references to hootervillegazette across many blogs, and then added Liberal Madness, whose 9-person membership (seems to) have attracted Joanne Nova, although there is as yet not much action either place.

    Apparently Monckton’s April 28 talk at nearby Texas A&M for Young Conservatives of Texas. seems to have gotten him excited. The talk was sponsored by the well-known entity CFACT – Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow or or Sourcewatch version.

    Mark is one of those truly-fortunate people who could easily attend (within 8 miles’ drive) lectures by world-class people on climate, hear them, ask questions, and learn. However, he seems to prefer Monckton.

  27. #27 frflyer
    May 6, 2009

    “The target audience of denialism is the lay audience, not scientists. It’s made up to look like science, but it’s PR.”
    David Archer

    RipRock

    “What’s sad is your willingness to accept this highly flawed theory as reality without questioning it. The UK is obviously ahead of the US when it comes to inculcating AGW related fears. Unfortunately, we are catching up here in the states.”

    No, the UK doesn’t have the wing nut extremist, anti science, anti reason right wing that we have in the U.S. They don’t listen to far right raving blowhards like Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

    The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the AGW theory. Your statements to the contrary are just sound bites repeated over and over enough times, that they are believed by the gullible and ideologically biased. Taking care of the environment is common sense. Opposing that effort is not common sense, and can only be due to some other bias. And it’s absurd to think that scientists as a group would somehow be all of the same political stripe to have such motives to begin with. Do you honestly believe that the scientific world somehow became overwhelmingly socialist by some magic over the last 20 years?
    I mean come on, get a grip!

    Maybe the late Johnny Rook can help here.

    “Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context, support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them and start all over again.”

    “The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise. You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical thinking. Isn’t that how scientists approach these problems? They’re skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with ones that better describe the facts.”

    “Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in an ideological struggle. They don’t even care if “facts” are correct or not, since their intention is not to establish that something is true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war.”

    “I’m not talking about people who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue. Nor, am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists over the details of global warming.”

    “For conservative/libertarian ideologues who compose the overwhelming majority of denialists, Climaticide is just such a case. If a conservative/libertarian ideologue were to accept global warming as real then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so big and so complex that government action is required to deal with it. But for an conservative/libertarian ideologue that is impossible because he/she believes that government is the cause of ALL problems and that the solution to all problems is ‘freedom’.”

    “Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the ‘liberals’ concerned about climate change of having invented it as an excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that I’ve encountered is that none of the science in support of global warming need be taken seriously because it is the product of government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic masters’ bidding, apparently forgetting that the current ‘masters’ are themselves Climaticide denialists.”
    (Bush was President when he wrote this)

    “Government science is corrupt science because it’s government science. ‘Scientists’ in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the other hand are free of this corruption because they are doing science for the capitalist heroes who defend our ‘freedom’.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/12/143145/743/173/513430

    I think he pretty much nails it.

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t most basic research in every branch of science at least partially funded by the government?

    I would recommend reading “The Carbon Age” by Eric Roston where you will learn about all the fun things we are doing to the short term carbon cycle that may be unprecedented in the history of the planet. And then come back and tell us how it’s all just a natural cycle that we shouldn’t worry about.

    And if you believe the oil companies are the heroes protecting our freedom, (while at the same time believing a preposterous conspiracy theory about scientists selling their souls to the socialist devil, a theory that isn’t even plausible) you might at lest want to get the whole story from books like “Censoring Science”, “The Heat is On” and “The Boiling Point”. At least you will know who’s paying who to fool you and many others.

    As far as convictions for polluters. No, just for those deliberately waging a disinformation campaign to confuse the public on such a critical issue as our own survival as a species, for their own short term gain.

  28. #28 Chris O'Neill
    May 6, 2009

    DRIII:

    Add that to his comment about sea level rising 246 feet by the end of the century and you have the picture of a real nut.

    I think I know who the real nut is. Someone with the name of a character from a Pixar movie.

  29. #29 Paul
    May 6, 2009

    >Given that, I’m going to do something that true sceptic probably never has, admit to making a mistake.

    Bang!
    owwww…
    I would put that gun away and get that foot to the hospital.

    The only ‘scientists’ that have stated that sea levels would rise 246ft by the end of the century are the climate sceptic variety. Some people will have to think about that one, or maybe not?

  30. #30 frflyer
    May 6, 2009

    Johnny Rook did leave out one component of the denial camp.

    Religous fundamentalism plays a part for some climate change skeptics.
    In the words of Edward Blick, Professor Emeritus of the Mewbourne School of Petroleum and Geological Engineering, Universtity of Oklahoma, who is on both Inhofe’s list and the list of evolution deniers from the Discovery Institute.

    “The predecessors of today’s unbelievers replaced the Holy Bible’s book of Genesis with Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Now with the help of Al Gore and the United Nations they are trying to replace the Holy Bible’s book of Revelation with the U.N.’s report Anthropogenic Global Warming.”

    And did you notice where he is a professor? With all that going for him, how could he not be a climate change denier?

  31. #31 Ezzthetic
    May 6, 2009

    I’ve never heard Monckton let anyone call him “Dr.” without correcting them.

    I’ve never heard Margaret Thatcher let anyone call her “Permanent Ruler of the Entire Planet” without correcting them.

    I have never heard anyone call Margaret Thatcher “Permanent Ruler of the Entire Planet”. But it’s also therefore true that I have never heard Margaret Thatcher let anyone call her “Permanent Ruler of the Entire Planet” without correcting them.

    Is there a video clip or an audio clip of a radio interview available in which she does this?

  32. Dash — for a review of one of Monckton’s pieces, look here:

    http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Monckton.html

  33. Dash writes:

    I’ll stack Monckton’s credentials up against Al Gore’s any day. You alarmists are such hypocrites. You constantly attack Monckton’s lack of a formal science background while totally ignoring Al Gore’s lack of credentials.

    Dash, Al Gore was one of Roger Revelle’s students in the ’60s. (Do you know who Revelle was? Do you know what he did?) We know, therefore, that Gore has taken at least one course in climate science. That’s one more course than Monckton has taken.

  34. Dash writes:

    I’ve yet to meet an AGW alarmist who wasn’t also Pro-Choice, against the death penalty, and for gun control.

    I’m someone who accepts the science on AGW, which in your view makes me an “AGW alarmist.” I am pro-choice. I have no problem with the death penalty, and would certainly execute all multiple murderers, rapists, child molesters, and pirates. I think people have the right to own guns for self-defense but don’t need to own assault weapons or other military hardware.

    Sometimes things are a little more complex than left-right.

    Add that to his comment about sea level rising 246 feet by the end of the century

    James Hansen never said sea level would rise 246 feet by the end of the century. As far as I can tell, nobody but you ever said such a thing.

  35. #35 David Marjanović
    May 6, 2009

    Ms or Mr RIPROCK, you’re making yourself ridiculous in front of the whole world. This unhealthy obsession with Gore that the US AGW denialists have never ceases to amaze me. Outside the USA, most people haven’t even seen his movie, nor is he perceived as a climatologist (which of course he isn’t anyway).

    But then, outside the USA, acceptance of science is not a left-right issue either.

    The world is larger and more complicated than your philosophy can dream, Ms or Mr RIPROCK.

  36. #36 Bernard J.
    May 6, 2009

    Further to cce’s interesting observation at #25, about Stefan Rahmstorf’s notifying the IPCC about that error, I am curious – when is Monckton first recorded as having found the error?

    Unless he can provide incontrovertible time-stamped evidence of his own ‘discovery’, he can’t claim to have ‘found’ it if the finding of the error had already been put into the public domain.

  37. #37 John Mashey
    May 6, 2009

    1) “Dash Riprock III” almost certainly is Mark G* of Bryan, TX, right next to College Station (Texas A&M University or TAMU), in the middle of a ~190,000-person metropolitan area.

    I’ve spoken at TAMU a few times, including once about the time Mark graduated from Bryan H.S., and like any big university town I’ve ever visited, it is *not* a Hooterville. (Those unfamiliar with TV shows Petticoat Junction and Green Acres can look that up. I am curious if people would be pleased by the comparison.)

    Mark has been busy broadcasting his message & advertising his websites (where posts are under “mark”):

    Google: hooterville gazette …

    even turned up one in our local paper. Reading an article almost entirely about Chris Field (a fine scientist here locally, an Co-Chair of IPCC WG II), Mark took the opportunity to discuss Al Gore.

    Mark apparently got excited by the April 28 visit of Viscount Monckton, sponsored by CFACT, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, whose banner includes a tree, with a background whose texture looks like (green) astroturf. This is somewhat ironic, in light of Sourcewatch on CFACT, as the experienced reader will recognize a few names.

    2) TAMU is the home of a large (see p.2), credible Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, including Andrew Dessler, whose book I certainly liked. The department faculty has a statement on climate change, i.e., agrees with IPCC.

    They offer frequent lectures and seminars open to the public. The next big one is a big 3-day session June 8-10 @ Annenberg Conference Center on campus, less than 8 miles’ drive from Mark’s house. Mark is one of the few people fortunate to be that close to a strong climate science department like this. That’s a great deal for $60! I’d go if I were nearby.

    3) Mark G *could* attend this (and other lectures) and:

    a) listen to the talks

    b) ask questions of the speakers, hear others’ questions

    c) talk informally with people during breaks

    d) compare their credibility to that of Monckton

    e) Learn some science from real scientists

    f) And maybe, write the meeting up on his blogs

    OR

    f) he could take his Monckton-derived “knowledge”, challenge these scientists, prove them wrong, in person, under his own name, which will make him famous …

    g) and if they don’t agree with him, he could publicly campaign to get TAMU to stop wasting money and government funds on researchers who are clearly ignorant of Monckton’s science, and somehow have turned the heart of Aggie-land into a hotspot of liberal madness. Who would have thought… :-)

    SUMMARY:

    If Mark wishes to learn, he is fortunate to have a strong climate science department about 20 minutes’ drive away.

  38. #38 dhogaza
    May 6, 2009

    dhogaza, you mean someone got there before denialdipot?

    Unfortunately, Riprock appears to be real, though the Poe factor has to be considered.

  39. #39 Marion Delgado
    May 7, 2009

    I am not one of those “can’t see the forest if it’s been logged” liberals who believes in the existence of carbon.

    6,000 years (the length of time the universe has existed) is simply not long enough to establish weather trends. Therefore, the prudent policy is to ignore the AGW communists and wait at least another 6,000 years before acting.

  40. #40 DavidK
    May 7, 2009

    Umm, hate to tell you Marion … the planet has only been around about 6k, the universe a tad longer at 15k. Which just goes to prove there was no such thing as the stone-age and Al G is still fat.

  41. #41 Jeremy C
    May 7, 2009

    I’m not sure but wasn’t Monckton’s grandfather a labour politician who was granted a hereditary peerage? If thats correct it would’ve made his grandfather one of the last hereditaries. I also think Monckton is related by marriage to the ex journalist Nigel Lawson. If thats correct it explains a few things.

    I think there only 90 places reserved for hereditaries in the House of Lords now, all the rest are Life Peers i.e. the UK government appoints you and you serve life.

  42. #42 Jeremy C
    May 7, 2009

    Oh, and another thing. I saw via, the Marohasy blog that the caped crusader Marc Morano had labeled Monckton as previously a science adviser to Maggie Thatcher when she was British PM. I pointed out on Marohasy’s blog that its a bit hard to believe Monckton was a science adviser as Maggie has a degree in chemistry and was one of the first leaders to point to the perils of climate change (perhaps the only constructive thing she ever did). I think it was that Monckton was one of a number of young policy wonks working in her offices but interesting that the caped crusader touted it (or perhaps expected).

    I was very surprised to subsequently get a note from Marohasy thanking me for the info about Monckton not being a science adviser.

  43. #43 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 7, 2009

    Dear Mr. Mashey,

    Thank you so much for the kind advice. I am more than aware of Andrew Dessler’s position at Texas A&M. I purchased his book a very short time ago and will have it completed before the June conference. There are a few other books I want to complete first, but The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change A Guide to the Debate is certainly on my short list. I will add a few of your papers on climate science to that list as well. I’ll will also try my best to be at the conference. If you change your mind about attending, let me know and I’ll save you a seat.

    Given your extremely impressive credentials, I don’t have to explain the fact that the internet is a global communication tool. I’m therefore curious as to why you of all people would assume that the name of my website has anything at all to do with the community in which I happen to reside? That’s old school thinking my man.

    It should be pointed out that the Hooterville Gazette name was chosen after Barack Obama made his famous remark regarding bitter small town Americans who cling to their guns, religion and antipathy toward those who are unlike them. After hearing his remark, I said to myself, this guy thinks everyone who lives in a small town is living in Hooterville. When I created the website, Hooterville Gazette was chosen as the name because the comment (by Obama) was still on my mind.

    Speaking of assumptions, I assume if I have questions on computer climate modeling I may submit them to you?

    Mark G.

    P.S. Even though things can get a little wild at the Dixie Chicken, Liberal Madness has not set in yet :-)

  44. #44 John Mashey
    May 8, 2009

    I’m glad to hear that you’ll be going. That looks to be a fine conference and a good deal,and certainly, anybody handy in TX should think about going. Fortunately, I’m lucky to be able to hear such people talk several times a month.

    re: Bryant/College Station != Hooterville: I thought I was clear, but maybe not enough. In an Internet era, it’s a lot easier for small towns to represent themselves if they want to.

    Bryant/CS is “a really big, sophisticated city” by comparison, with a serious university, golf courses, nice suburbs, a large public school system. Its TM’d phrase is “The Good Life, Texas Style” and that seems plausible, especially as university towns often have stronger economies and more amenities than other similarly-sized towns, much less tiny rural towns.

    Questions on climate modeling:
    Sure, I can answer some questions, but… post them (in an open thread) at RealClimate or maybe Austin-based) Only In It For The Gold, so that you can hear from real climate modeling experts as well.

    I’m certainly not one of those, just have architected supercomputers used for it, talked with relevant scientists and software engineers over the years, and looked at bits of code now and then.

    But first, if you want to know about modeling (after reading Dessler) read RC FAQ #1, and RC FAQ #2 and maybe different kinds of simulations and why people get confused.

    Of course, Dessler is an expert, and hopefully you’ll be ready to ask him questions.

  45. #45 John Mashey
    May 8, 2009

    Oops, after all that, I forgot the other key thing to do:

    TX has 3 big problems with climate change:

    1) TX has a lot of seacoast, sea levels will rise, and hurricane intensities increase, buy at least Bryan isn’t there. (And if I misspelled it earlier as Bryant, sorry).

    2) Average temperature rises.

    That means more air conditioning, but more importantly, higher evaporation rates.

    3) As it gets warmer, Hadley Cell circulation expands, moving rain out of the SouthWest, which includes TX and (at least part of) CA.

    1) = more water [in CA, we'll have the sea-level rise, not the hurricanes]

    2)+3) = less water [in CA,we'll have that, although more of our problem is the lessening snowmelt in the Sierras]

    Climate models are easily good enough to:

    a) do long-term global forecasts [well, for average temperature, physicists did that without computers decades ago]

    b)they are certainly good enough to predict the general effects above

    c) but they are still working hard to refine the more detailed, higher-resolution models. TX is complicated. I’ll give an example later.

    TX has a bunch of good climate scientists, and just last month, they (and some other good ones) had a conference Effects of climate change on Texas Water Resources.

    Even better, the presentations are here. CA residents are also obsessed with hydrology, so I looked at some, and you might also, as there are many good talks.

    For example:

    See TAMU’s Gerald North, who explains the Hadley Cell issue I mentioned. He ends by asking “Is Texas the most vulnerable state?” He also asks:

    “Is the dividing line I35 or I45?” meaning, to the West of one of those highways, it’s going to rain less, (and to the East, more) but right now, the models aren’t yet good enough to be sure where. Some of the (upstream) Brazos watershed is almost certain to lose rain, but the actual boundary may matter.

    See Andrew Dessler on making decisions under uncertainty.

    See Katharine Hayhoe of TexasTech, especially the Texas part, pp15-28, noting that the “high emissions scenarios” are more like where we’re headed currently.

    Anyway, there is a wealth of up-to-date material by good people from TX and elsewhere.

  46. #46 Bernard J.
    May 8, 2009

    Some more [reading](http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateVol1.pdf) for Mark G.

    In fact, all of the [material](http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html) offered by Ray Pierrehumbert may be of benefit to both Mark G. and to Monckton, in their endeavours to learn some real climatology.

    Hat-tip to [Geoff Russell](http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/#comment-13314) at BraveNewClimate for the lead.

    I wonder how long it will take for the “sceptics” to start a ‘deconstruction’ of this book about climate? I’ll be curious to see their science…

  47. #47 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 8, 2009

    Mr. Mashey,

    As you noted, Liberal Madness was started a few weeks ago. All members are approved by me. The “action” is fine for a site just getting started. As for the Hooterville Gazette, all tracking is done internally so I’m curious as to how how you determined the “action” there?

    Dash RIPROCK III

  48. #48 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 8, 2009

    Bernard J.

    Many thanks. I will read it. I recently ordered a few more books by AGW supporters. Unlike most of the people I meet who support one side or the other, I do believe in balancing the information I take in.

    By thw way, which part(s) of the book did you find most impressive?

    ooooooooh boy, “real climatology”, I just can’t wait to start turning those pages. (Seriously, I will read it.)

    Mark

  49. #49 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 8, 2009

    Monckton is happy to let others call him “Dr.” without correcting them. He’s also happy to claim membership of the House of Lords, which has never been the case.
    – True Sceptic

    Ezzthetic,
    I’m very familiar with Monckton and have never observed anyone calling him Dr. He goes to great lengths at the beginning of each one of his presentations to make it clear that he is not a scientist. Given True Sceptic’s comment above, he or she should be prepared to cite at least one example of Monckton having done this.

  50. #50 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 8, 2009

    CCE & Barton,

    I stand corrected. He didn’t put a time line on the rise in sea level, but he did say it would be 246 feet. He was too smart to get caught putting a deadline on it. A lesson learned from Gore I’m sure. Never predict an event within your lifetime. It’s harder to be proven wrong that way.

    When Hansen makes these types of statements, the press picks them up and runs with them. The general public assumes the disaster is imminent. Still an example of fear mongering no matter how you slice it.

  51. Dash writes:

    He didn’t put a time line on the rise in sea level, but he did say it would be 246 feet.

    Where and when did he say that? Cite, please.

  52. It would be unwise to rely on “Real” Climate on any scientific matter: Schmidt, the blogger, has a substantial financial vested interest in promoting and exaggerating the “global warming” scare. A refutation of Schmidt’s latest less-than-temperate, less-than-accurate posting will appear shortly at http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org.

    Briefly, CO2 is indeed accumulating in the atmosphere at less than half the rate predicted by the IPCC, a fact with the IPCC itself admits in its 2001 report. Schmidt, take note. The IPCC also predicts that global temperature will rise more rapidly as a result of “global warming” than it had been doing for 300 years as a result of natural causes, but the rate of warming between 1975 and 1998 was no greater than that which had been observed from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940 (see Lord Hunt’s recent answer to a Parliamentary Question in the House of Lords), and, since 1995, there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all. Since a phase-transition in the global-temperature record late in 2001, all measures of surface temperature show a rapid and continuing cooling of seven and a half years’ duration. For five years the oceans have also been cooling – and that, according to Hansen et al. (2005), cannot be happening if anthropogenic “global warming” is as significant as the IPCC and its adherents would like us to believe.

    Other measures of the now-abject failure of the high-climate-sensitivity hypothesis are the absence of the predicted threefold differential between the warming rate at the tropical surface and in the tropical upper troposphere; and the escape of outgoing long-wave radiation to space at 7-10 times the predicted rate, implying a climate sensitivity approximately one-seventh to one-tenth of that imagined by the IPCC. Revisionist attempts by the usual suspects to overturn these two oft-repeated and well-established results are not, as you may think, compelling enough to warrant closing down five-sixths of the West’s economies.

    Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House. The portcullis is a generic heraldic device; the vicecomital coronet is a device that I have the specific right to use (and, indeed, I shall be wearing it when His Majesty King Charles III invites me, as he will invite all hereditary Peers, to his coronation). I am fully entitled to combine the portcullis and the vicecomital coronet and use it as a badge or logo, for the United Kingdom, unlike Deltoid, is a free country, whether you like it or not.

    Finally, I do not claim, and have never claimed, to hold a doctorate or any other scientific qualification. However, I gave scientific advice to Margaret Thatcher on a number of questions, including the hydrodynamics of warships (resulting in the payment of $1 million to an inventor who would otherwise have been cheated by a public body), the prediction of election results (to one seat in 1983), the epidemiology of retroviral transmission (I predicted tens of millions of deaths worldwide unless HIV were treated like any other incurable, fatal infection and made notifiable, and – sadly – 25 million have since died, most of them needlessly), and the optimization of public-investment rates (leading to savings of £20 billion to the UK taxpayer: I wish I’d been on commission). And, until I retired through ill health three years ago, for 20 years I ran a very successful consultancy corporation that specialized in giving technical advice to governments and corporations. So far, my prediction that the temperature change arising from anthropogenic effects will be small, harmless, and generally beneficial seems to be very much closer to observed reality than the increasingly desperate predictions of the “global warming” profiteers. Who funds Planet Deltoid anyway? I think we should be told.

    Can it be, perhaps, that those who – like puir wee Schmidt at NASA, or puir wee Lambert at Deltoid – do not have the technical competence or scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the scientific questions I raise find it easier to argue dishonestly ad hominem than honestly ad rem? Magna est veritas, et praevalet. – Monckton of Brenchley

  53. #53 DavidK
    May 8, 2009

    Can we dispense with the formalities and call you Chris, if that is really who you are?

    Would you like to engage in some serious dialogue?

  54. #54 luminous beauty
    May 8, 2009

    —“Can it be, perhaps, that those who – like puir wee Schmidt at NASA, or puir wee Lambert at Deltoid – do not have the technical competence or scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the scientific questions I raise find it easier to argue dishonestly ad hominem than honestly ad rem?”

    Pure Ad hominem drivel. Pot, meet kettle.

  55. #55 luminous beauty
    May 8, 2009

    Chris,

    I’d point out that giving political advice on scientific matters does not qualify as scientific advice, but I’m well aware that recognition of this fact would undermine the field of psychological projection upon which your ego depends, and isn’t likely to happen.

  56. #56 Robin Levett
    May 8, 2009

    @Monckton of Brenchley:

    However, I gave scientific advice to Margaret Thatcher on a number of questions

    Is this correct; or did you give advice to the good Baroness on a number of scientific questions? If this is correct; where did you get the expertise to advise on, for example, hydrodynamics? And why would a chemistry graduate require scientific advice from a Journalism graduate?

    While you’re here; why did you describe yourself as “a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature” to two US Senators?

    Again, you claim that:

    I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there. I do, however, have acccess to all other facilities of the House.

    Taking the second point first: I was under the clear impression that the 1999 Act removed all rights to use the facilities of the House from the non-excepted hereditaries, and the Explanatory Notes to the Act confirm that. How do you “have acccess [sic] to those facilities”?

    Back to the first point; your testimony to the The Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives on Wednesday, 25 March, 2009 started with the words “I BRING fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments”. What exactly gave you the status to do so? I would say that this is an implication that you have some connection with, even membership of, “the Mother of Parliaments” – but you have no more connection than do I.

    You may call this ad hominem; so be it. While you seek to rely upon some kind of authority from having been an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, or allegedly being a member of the House of Lords, you have put in issue those very points. You have also given reason to doubt – if those claims of authority are unwarranted – the credibility of your pronouncements of fact.

  57. #57 Tim Lambert
    May 8, 2009

    Christopher Monckton, I didn’t have to take Gavin Schmidt’s word for anything. I’d already checked the CO2 concentrations in the projections for AR4 and had discovered for myself that you had misrepresented them, just as Schmidt says.

    Furthermore, [John Nielsen-Gammon](http://atmo.tamu.edu/profile/JNielsen-Gammon) (Texas State Climatologist) has also checked your claims and [concluded](http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post%3a034c2c74-fb0a-4be0-9392-0fcbe54528c0)

    >Let’s recap: (1) The graph lies by representing an envelope from a single scenario as “the” IPCC prediction. (2) The graph lies by asserting that an observed CO2 trend outside that envelope would require a downward adjustment in the IPCC’s central temperature projection. (3) The graph lies by depicting the spread of IPCC projections for even this single scenario as zero, when the actual spread is 60 ppm. (4) The graph lies by creating an imaginary envelope of projections for this single scenario that does not correspond to the actual envelope of projections, thereby generating a supposed IPCC prediction of CO2 that increases much more rapidly than does even the IPCC projection for the most extreme emissions scenario. The only part of this graph that is correct is the observed CO2 concentration; the envelope labeled “IPCC” is completely and utterly bogus.

    Deltoid is funded by Seed Media Group (did you bother to look at the page footer?), who sell ads on these pages to make their money.

    Now, could you enlighten as to the funding of SPPI?

  58. #58 sod
    May 8, 2009

    basically all of us could always claim, to be A (potential) MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

    most of us don t need to do this. Monckton obviously needs these claims.

  59. #59 Robin Levett
    May 8, 2009

    @Monckton of Brenchley:

    a Journalism graduate

    Ooops – “Classics graduate”

  60. #60 Arthur Smith
    May 8, 2009

    I note that Monckton not only comes up with some new whoppers in his commentary here, but continues to repeat long-debunked ones as well.

    Briefly, CO2 is indeed accumulating in the atmosphere at less than half the rate predicted by the IPCC, a fact with the IPCC itself admits in its 2001 report.

    This is a new one – but obviously false as documented here and at RealClimate (and why a reference to the 2001 (TAR) report? Page number, please?)

    … since 1995, there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all. Since a phase-transition in the global-temperature record late in 2001, all measures of surface temperature show a rapid and continuing cooling of seven and a half years’ duration.

    This is an old repeat (see my list of errors in his Physics and Society article for instance).

    For five years the oceans have also been cooling

    Another old one. Weather is not climate (also on my list).

    the absence of the predicted threefold differential between the warming rate at the tropical surface and in the tropical upper troposphere

    Ah, the tropical troposphere confusion, not a new one at all, and Realclimate dealt with it perfectly well over a year ago (also on my list).

    the escape of outgoing long-wave radiation to space at 7-10 times the predicted rate, implying a climate sensitivity approximately one-seventh to one-tenth of that imagined by the IPCC

    This is a new one to me. A 7-10-fold increase in outgoing longwave radiation would cool the Earth’s surface close to absolute zero in less than a month. What on earth is his source for this claim? The satellite measurements I’ve seen are completely in accord with spectroscopy, it’s very hard to get that theory wrong.

    closing down five-sixths of the West’s economies.

    Obviously not a new argument at all, though I haven’t seen those numbers quoted elsewhere. Wow, climate is totally non-predictable to the point that theories are off by a factor of 7 to 10, but economic theory is so accurate we can predict exactly how much policy changes that have not yet even been substantively agreed on yet will cause the world’s economy to decline? Amazing stuff! In reality, *all* real economic analyses show at most small negative, and very likely positive, impacts from action on climate, not even taking into account the benefits from preventing massive warming, sea level rise, etc.

    Nonsense, repeated ad nauseum. Perfect Monckton style.

  61. #62 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 8, 2009

    Barton:

    Hopefully this will clear the spam filter:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal/print

    I put so many links in my last response to you that the spam filter is holding it for review.

  62. #63 san quintin
    May 8, 2009

    Like many here, I look forward to Mr Monckton’s papers on these issues in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. the message has been said so many times I (and no doubt others) are tired of hearing it. But if we are to take Mr Monckton seriously then he needs to publish all these points. So far he has done so only in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper (towards the tabloid end of the British broadsheets) and in various internet sites. I guess like all sceptics he isn’t really interested in finding out about science, just in maintaining a policy of ‘do nothing’.

    One point…If he can prove that climate sensitivity is low then he has to explain the glacial/interglacial record as well as the recent historic record of climate change. I look forward to him doing this!

  63. #64 guthrie
    May 8, 2009

    Tune in next week for what the House of Lords says about Moncktons claims.
    As for heraldry, what is the coat of arms of the Monckton family anyway? All the internet throws up is something without any portcullis’s, and anyone who takes their heraldry seriously wouldn’t use a random cheesy logo like Monckton does, unless they are trying it on, which we know Monckton is. Using the Portcullis as a logo seems to be alright, as long as the device including the portcullis is not already claimed as someone elses coat of arms.

    I look forwards to the inevitable legal threats against Private Eye, Seed media and anyone else. For reference, it is Private Eye number 1235, 1 to 14th May, page 7, titled ‘The crowned clown’.

  64. #65 Ken
    May 8, 2009

    Is this really the same Monckton that advocated the use of biological weapons in the Faulklands conflict? I think anyone who advocates ignoring bans on biological weapons shows a lack of understanding that actions have consequences beyond the obvious. Such as that burning lots of fossil fuels can have results like changing climate as well as powering our apparent prosperity.

  65. #66 Chris O'Neill
    May 8, 2009

    Dash Incredible:

    I stand corrected. He didn’t put a time line on the rise in sea level, but he did say it would be 246 feet.

    Still an example of fear mongering no matter how you slice it.

    So no-one should mention the consequences of burning all the fossil fuel into the atmosphere. Is that because no-one would be stupid enough to burn it all?

  66. #67 Bernard J.
    May 8, 2009

    Can it be, perhaps, that those who – like puir wee Schmidt at NASA, or puir wee Lambert at Deltoid – do not have the technical competence or scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the scientific questions I raise find it easier to argue dishonestly ad hominem than honestly ad rem?

    No.

    Schmidt and Lambert do have the technical competence and the scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the “scientific” questions nonsense that you raise.

    If you disagree, you could remind us exactly how it is that you have the required technical understanding, and they don’t.

    Note: repetition of your claims to having been a “scientific adviser” for Thatcher does not demonstrate in any way, shape or form that you have actually acquired the requisite scientific understanding. That’s just hot air.

  67. #68 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 8, 2009

    Chris,

    Do you think the period of time over which it is burned would make any difference at all?

    I’m sure Gore and Hansen know they are working with a very narrow window of opportunity. I’d say they have less than four years to make it happen. In their minds that justifies
    the fear mongering and exaggeration they employ.

    Dash

  68. #69 Chris O'Neill
    May 8, 2009

    Dash:

    Do you think the period of time over which it is burned would make any difference at all?

    The time line related to the the time over which the sea level rise would occur, not the time it takes to burn the fossil fuel. Please try not to be confused.

  69. Christopher Munchhausen–I’m sorry, Monckton–writes

    Can it be, perhaps, that those who – like puir wee Schmidt at NASA, or puir wee Lambert at Deltoid – do not have the technical competence or scientific integrity to address in a balanced and reasoned manner the scientific questions I raise find it easier to argue dishonestly ad hominem than honestly ad rem?

    Why don’t you bring up one of the “scientific questions” and see what happens?

  70. Dash writes:

    Hopefully this will clear the spam filter:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal/print

    I put so many links in my last response to you that the spam filter is holding it for review.

    Dash, I went to that site and could not find any mention of a 246 foot rise in sea-level. I thought I might have missed it, so I did a text search for “246” and “two hundred.” It isn’t there.

  71. #72 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 9, 2009

    Barton,

    Search for 75 meters. It is there.

    Dash

  72. #73 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 9, 2009

    Chris,

    The issue here is that once making that comment, Hansen knows full well the headline is going to read: Expert Says Sea Level to Rise 246 Feet!!! We’re All Going to Die!!! The majority of time, the press leaves out a reference to time line unless it’s very short. (See comment below.)

    I would put this up there with his other statement to the press: Obama Has Four Years to Save The World!!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

    It is this quote that resulted in my saying they (Gore and Hansen) have a narrow four year window.

    Dash

  73. #74 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 9, 2009

    Mr. Mashey,

    Thank you for gathering the links for me.

  74. My apologies to Christopher Monckton. He did indeed bring up some science-related points in his post. I guess I just missed them in the wake of the long bit sniping at Gavin and James Hansen.

    I’ll just deal with one. The Viscount writes:

    since 1995, there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all.

    Well, I took the annual land-ocean temperature index from NASA GISS for 1995-2008 and regressed the 14 figures against elapsed time, using the year as the independent variable. The coefficient is 1.516 (temperature advancing 0.15 K per decade) with t = 2.557, which is significant at the p < 2.5% level. This is highly statistically significant, so the Viscount’s point here is falsified.

  75. #76 cce
    May 9, 2009

    SLR of “246 feet” is what you’d get if there was no ice left on the planet. Incidentally, this was the state of the earth the last time temperatures were as high as they are expected to go if we stay on a BAU track. The question is how long it will take for the ice sheets to disintegrate. The papers published since AR4 are clustering around a 1 meter rise this century, which is more than enough to cause misery for millions of people. Of course, SLR would not stop in 2100, and would continue for centuries until each ice sheet (Greenland, West Antarctica, and East Antarctica in that order) fully disintegrates.

  76. #77 Chris O'Neill
    May 9, 2009

    Dash:

    The issue here is that once making that comment, Hansen knows full well the headline is going to read: Expert Says Sea Level to Rise 246 Feet!!! We’re All Going to Die!!!

    Where do they say “We’re All Going to Die!!!”? Why should Hansen try to hide the expectation of a 75 metre sea level rise. Shouldn’t responsible people know about this? Are you saying everyone should be treated like children?

  77. #78 Didactylos
    May 9, 2009

    Christopher Monckton, I find it amusing that you reject a claim by Private Eye that is based on an open letter you yourself wrote.

    If you can’t be bothered to stick to the truth on such a simple matter, why should we think you have any credibility at all? Add to this the fact that not once have you been right when discussing global warming, and your credibility lies in tatters. It turns out that a classical education is not a substitute for a scientific education — but I would hope that a classical education would give you the ability to know when you are wrong, and the grace to admit it.

    Please stop being an embarrassment to the United Kingdom, and find some other subject to waste your time with.

  78. #79 John Philip
    May 9, 2009

    Enquiries of the Lord Speaker will establish that I am indeed on the list of hereditary peers whose title has been proven to the satisfaction of the House, though I do not have, and do not pretend to have, a seat or a vote there.

    Balony.

    you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature …

    Letter to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061212_monckton.pdf

    For five years the oceans have also been cooling

    Balony.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    since 1995, there has been no statistically-significant “global warming” at all.

    Balony

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1995/plot/uah/from:1995/trend

    After three instances of ‘making stuff up’ I normally stop reading …

  79. #80 John Philip
    May 9, 2009

    Ooops! Try this for the OHC numbers http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

  80. #81 Anonymous
    May 9, 2009

    I think this blog software will manage to get a URL correct John if you use a backslash before the underscore character, “\\_”. Thus \_HEAT\_. Otherise it takes it upon itself to read underscores as italicizers, who knows why?

  81. #82 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 10, 2009

    Where do they say “We’re All Going to Die!!!”? Why should Hansen try to hide the expectation of a 75 metre sea level rise. Shouldn’t responsible people know about this? Are you saying everyone should be treated like children?

    First of all, the words “We’re all going to die” don’t have to be written, they’re implied. Here’s a pic of what that(a 75 meters sea level rise) would look like. http://www.liberalmadness.com/photo/if-hansen-is-right
    Chris, do think there would be any survivors? Does an article suggesting such a rise is possible have to state the obvious?

    Chris, why can you not see that Hansen and Gore are engaging in alarmism. I notice you steered clear of Hansen’s “Obama has four years to save the world” remark.
    Can’t say that I blame you.

    Yes responsible people should be allowed to hear Hansen’s point of view. They should also be told by the media that many disagree with him. Only giving one side of the story is treating the general public like children.

  82. #83 frankis
    May 10, 2009

    Many disagree with Hansen about the four years part? You don’t think the public is that childlike that it needs to have that explained as being his opinion not a consensus scientific position do you Dash? You must have been hot on the case of the Cheney gang when they were getting unbalanced headlines for the urgency of their intention to go get Saddam. Come to think of it most of the stuff Cheney got away with saying without counteropinion must have had you fulminating for more fairness and balance in journalism.

  83. #84 cce
    May 10, 2009

    I think anyone who can move faster than the Washington monument will survive an inundation that will take centuries.

  84. #85 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 10, 2009

    Frankis, for the record I do think the public needs to have that explained. As for Cheney, I don’t recall taking a public position on that. You’re so right, the media was so in the tank for Bush and Cheney the entire eight years. Disgusting wasn’t it? Please tell me that you’re not suggesting it’s ok for the media to present only one side of the global warming debate because in your opinion they gave Cheney favorable coverage regarding WMD?

  85. #86 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 10, 2009

    CCE,

    Then there is obviously nothing to worry about.
    Thanks for letting us know.

    Dash

  86. #89 Chris O'Neill
    May 10, 2009

    Dash:

    First of all, the words “We’re all going to die” don’t have to be written, they’re implied.

    So when you wrote:

    Hansen knows full well the headline is going to read: Expert Says Sea Level to Rise 246 Feet!!! We’re All Going to Die!!!

    , you were lying to us.

    do think there would be any survivors? Does an article suggesting such a rise is possible have to state the obvious?

    It’s not obvious because it’s just not true. For a start it’s not going to happen in any of our lifetimes.

    Yes responsible people should be allowed to hear Hansen’s point of view.

    Finally. That was like getting blood out of a stone.

    They should also be told by the media that many disagree with him. Only giving one side of the story is treating the general public like children.

    Thanks for the strawman.

    By the way, thanks for not showing there were any mistakes in the pointing out of Monckton’s lies above.

  87. #90 Richard Simons
    May 10, 2009

    cce said:

    I think anyone who can move faster than the Washington monument will survive an inundation that will take centuries.

    Only if they have somewhere they can go to. To give just one obvious example, which country is going to welcome with open arms 150 million Bangladeshis? The US? But they will be trying to resettle millions of Floridians and other coastal dwellers. Look at the difficulties there already are in resettling just a few hundred thousand people from the Maldives.

  88. #91 lenny
    May 10, 2009

    “As for Cheney, I don’t recall taking a public position on that. ”

    That comes as a surprise.

    “You’re so right, the media was so in the tank for Bush and Cheney the entire eight years.

    Way to move those goalposts, Dash.

  89. #92 Robster, FCD
    May 10, 2009

    Dash,

    The debate occurred within the scientific literature, and that debate is over. AGW is happening. The scientific literature is solidly in favor of this point. There are a handful of contrarians, but their work is lacking in credibility or any form of broad support.

    Also, referring to someone as alarmist is a bit of a pointless ad hom. If a building is on fire, is the person who pulls the fire alarm an alarmist? What about the firemen? You see, there is evidence of global warming and that human activity is greatly contributing to it. Since we can change our activity, we can do something about it.

    To follow the above metaphor, the alarmists are trying to save the building, while the denialists, with their PR label of sceptic (in this case, the c should be silent) have a grand time fiddling.

    Am I a liberal? Yes. But I am first and foremost a scientist. Evidence informs by positions, not the other way around. Pro choice policies can decrease the number of abortions, and where abortion is outlawed, women’s health care is lessened. The death penalty is applied unevenly when examined for race and socio economic status, and if such an extreme punishment is to be used, it must be used fairly.

    I am a gun owner, hunter and an accomplished target shooter. My dream guns are a custom bullpup muzzleloader that is in the design stage right now (I will have to completely rework the trigger system), and the P90S for target shooting (partly the inspiration for the former). But I am for responsible gun ownership, in the interest of gun owners, not the version that the NRA supports, which is in the interest of the gun manufacturer.

    Chris,

    I have, since I became aware of you and your disconnect from reality, wanted to say this.

    Sod off, wanker.

  90. #93 cce
    May 10, 2009

    Dash,

    When every major coastal city, low lying country and island, and countless trillions of dollars of infrastructure is erased from the map decade by decade, that might be a problem. But I suppose it’s easier to lie about what Hansen has said, lie about the implications, and then move the goalposts.

    Anyone who wants to see “alarmism” need only turn on CSPAN or talk radio and listen to know-nothings go on and on about how doing anything about Global Warming will throw everyone out of work and destroy capitalism.

    And the 4 years to “save the world” is the amount of time Hansen thinks is left to put us on a track that avoids breaching the tipping points. One fact that skeptics apparently don’t understand is the inertia and cumulative nature of the problem. If these policies are not in place in the next several years, it will be virtually impossible to prevent the worst effects of global warming no matter how hard people try after the fact.

    Richard,

    I am perfectly aware of the refugee problem, which has little to do with the constant lies about “everyone dying.” So-called skeptics paint a picture of SLR as if it were a tsunami that no one can “survive,” and then accuse them of “alarmism.”

  91. #94 dhogaza
    May 10, 2009

    I notice you steered clear of Hansen’s “Obama has four years to save the world” remark. Can’t say that I blame you.

    We never pay much attention to things that Hansen hasn’t actually said.

    We do pay attention when people like you *lie* about what Hansen actually said.

  92. #95 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 10, 2009

    Dhogaza,

    I guess you missed the fact that I had a link in the original post (73) or are you suggesting the Guardian is
    making stuff up about Hansen now. Please at least follow the links before you call someone a liar.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama

  93. #96 Dash RIPROCK III
    May 11, 2009

    Robster,

    Just when I began to think that I wouldn’t find anyone here who agreed with me on anything, along comes the Robster. Like you I am a gun owner and like you I think Chris is a wanker.
    Hopefully with two pieces of common ground we can agree on some other things.

    The science is seldom settled on anything. I’m sure the global cooling supporters of the 1970s thought the science was settled also. As we learned, it was not. Science is not settled by consensus. There was once a consensus that the world was flat. There was once a consensus that the sun revolves around the Earth. I believe that there was once a consensus that objects of different weight did not fall at the same rate of speed or acceleration. The handful of contrarians as you’ve called them now numbers nearly 32,000.

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html

    I’m sure if you boil the list down, not all were qualified to sign the petition. The same could be said of the 2,500 so called climate experts at the UN IPCC.

    Is there a particular contrarian you’d like to single out as having lacked credibility in his or her work? While you’re at it, what’s your opinion of the Mann hockey stick graph?

    I do consider Hansen’s “Obama has four years to save the world” remark to be alarmist.
    There are so many examples of it in the press. Global warming is blamed for everything from
    a higher divorce rate to large snakes. My favorite title was “Large Spider’s Getting Larger!”
    Here is a link to a site that his found 600 issues being caused or exacerbated by global warming.
    You seem honest. Review this list and tell me some of it doesn’t fall under the category of alarmism. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    I don’t know a single skeptic on this issue who does not agree that the earth went through a significant warming during the last quarter of the last century. The disagreement is over whether or not the warming is anthropogenic. When you state that human activity is greatly contributing to it, what do you consider the most impressive piece of evidence that this is true. If you have trouble narrowing down to one piece of evidence, feel free to cite more.

    By the way, hasn’t the Hadley center acknowledged that warming has slowed greatly in the 21st century?

    Following your metaphor, I’ll remind you that it is illegal to pull a fire alarm when the building is not truly burning. Stating that there is a trend that suggests the building might burn in a century or that a computer models says the building is burning probably wouldn’t cut it with the local fire marshal.

    The death penalty is not the only thing not evenly applied when examined for race. Planned parenthood is much more likely to provide a white female true counseling while often times
    rushing young black girls to the abortion table without so much as a pre-abortion physical. A group of college students recently made news by calling planned parenthood and asking if they
    could donate money for black abortions only. Planned parenthood was quick to accept the money and promised the money would be used to abort a black baby. Robster, if you look back into the history of that organization and the ideals of the founders, you’ll see that there is more than a little racism going on there.

    As for the death penalty, I’ll add a complaint to yours. As anyone who has ever taken Psychology 101 will tell you, in order for a punishment to be effective, the penalty must
    follow the undesirable behavior as quickly as possible. In the case of irrefutable video
    evidence, I’m for flipping the switch a little quicker. Your comment regarding extreme punishment being used fairly is on the money. Sorry, you’ll get no argument from me on that.
    If it can’t be applied more fairly, the death penalty shouldn’t be used at all. This lack of fairness
    can be tracked at every level of the judicial system, not just cases where the death penalty might apply.

    I’m not a hunter, but have enjoyed target shooting from time to time. That’s not because I’m a member of PETA, it because I simply do not enjoy it. You didn’t mention if you support
    concealed carry licenses. What’s your take on that? Just wondering.

    I have a few other questions I’d like to ask you because unlike Chris you seem capable of
    intelligent answers.

  94. #97 Chris O'Neill
    May 11, 2009

    Dash:

    like you I think Chris is a wanker

    There wouldn’t be someone else with the name “Chris” in this thread, would there? Hint: have a look in the title.

    In any case I’d rather be called a wanker than be what you are which is a bare-faced liar.

    By the way, thanks for not disagreeing that Monkton, like you, is a bare-faced liar.

  95. #98 Jeff Harvey
    May 11, 2009

    Riprock or whoever you are:

    This comes straight from a senior scientist (me). Learn a little bit about scientific protocol before making fatuous remarks. When you write, “Science is not settled by consensus” you are in fact correct. But you are missing the point. Science is never based on consensus, but *public policy must be based on it*. This is the crux of the matter. If public policy had to based on scientific consensus, then we’d never have seen any regulatory laws passed protecting the environment. The planet would be in an even worse state than it is now.

    Given the uncertainties, there is a very strong agreement amongst *most* of the scientific community that humans are forcing climate. This support is probably quite unprecedented in scientific history. Of course there will always be, for whatever reason, outliers. But the fact that we know most of them by name should be an indication that their actual number is remarkably small.

    As for global cooling in the 1970s, when will people like you give up this dead turkey? This was one scenario that was proposed at the time, based on the effects of aerosols on climate, and not an actual large scale prediction. Like most scientists, we change our minds as empirical data comes in supporting an alternate hypothesis. A few years ago there was a debate regarding the fitness of hybrid zones. Papers were published supporting the argument that hybrids had higher inclusive fitness than the original species. Then papers came in which contradicted this assumption and showed that it was, in fact, association dependent. Scientists originally positing the former hypothesis changed their opinions on the basis of the empirical evidence. A similar debate is now occurring over the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Once more data comes in that may support one or other hypothesis, we can expect scientists to fall in line with the prevailing theory. This is what ‘good science’ is all about.

    If we were to wait until ‘all the data are in’, as you appear to propose, then it would be far too late to take any kind of action to mitigate the most serious effects go AGW. Again, most scientists are well aware of this, even if the lay public (sounds a bit like you) are not.

  96. #99 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 11, 2009

    cce writes:

    I think anyone who can move faster than the Washington monument will survive an inundation that will take centuries.

    The trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure of coastal cities does not move faster than the Washington monument.

  97. #100 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 11, 2009

    Dash writes:

    The science is seldom settled on anything. I’m sure the global cooling supporters of the 1970s thought the science was settled also. As we learned, it was not. Science is not settled by consensus.

    There was never a consensus on global cooling in the 1970s the way there is now on global warming. Here’s what really happened:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

    There was once a consensus that the world was flat.

    Locally, the world is flat. It was a good empirical generalization for the quality of observation possible 3,000 years ago, and is more sophisticated than the obvious inference from visual evidence that the Earth is wrinkled and lumpy.

    There was once a consensus that the sun revolves around the Earth.

    Again, best interpretation of the evidence available at the time. And did you know that geocentric astronomical math is still used for Earth satellites, since it works?

    I believe that there was once a consensus that objects of different weight did not fall at the same rate of speed or acceleration.

    True again, and again from observation, since in general, in our environment, dense things do fall quicker than light things. Air resistance.

    The handful of contrarians as you’ve called them now numbers nearly 32,000.

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html

    Nearly none of the people listed are climatologists, and what in the world do polls prove? I’m getting the impression from all you’ve written above that you think “scientific consensus” means “what the majority vote of scientists in on an issue.” Not quite. It’s what has been acknowledged by the majority of the scientists as not worth debating any more. Nobody is researching the shape of the Earth or geocentric astronomy any more because there’s a scientific consensus that they’re not fruitful areas. You can tell the scientific consensus from how much a subject appears in the peer-reviewed science literature and how often those articles in turn get cited.

    I’m sure if you boil the list down, not all were qualified to sign the petition. The same could be said of the 2,500 so called climate experts at the UN IPCC.

    Why do you think that? What’s the connection? The IPCC searched out qualified scientists. The Oregon Petition was broadcast to anyone who would sign it, and includes signatures from dentists, chiropracters, engineers, and even corporations (how does a corporation sign a petition?).

    Is there a particular contrarian you’d like to single out as having lacked credibility in his or her work?

    Tim Ball, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen (except for the original iris paper, which was a legitimate study), Steve McIntyre, Christopher Monckton, the late Michael Crichton and John Daly, and pretty much all American right-wing talk radio comes to mind.

    While you’re at it, what’s your opinion of the Mann hockey stick graph?

    The first paper of its kind in the historical-temperature-reproduction field, used some suboptimal statistics, but has since had its conclusions validated by dozens of independent studies.

    I don’t know a single skeptic on this issue who does not agree that the earth went through a significant warming during the last quarter of the last century.

    Anthony Watts, Christopher Monckton (on and off), Rush Limbaugh (on and off).

    The disagreement is over whether or not the warming is anthropogenic.

    Not among people who know what they’re talking about.

    When you state that human activity is greatly contributing to it, what do you consider the most impressive piece of evidence that this is true. If you have trouble narrowing down to one piece of evidence, feel free to cite more.

    * CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859)
    * CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958 et seq.)
    * The new CO2 is coming mainly from fossil fuel burning (Suess 1955, Suess and Revelle 1957)
    * Temperature is rising (more sources than I can comfortably list, but let me know if you want them)
    * The variations in temperature for the last 130 years correlate closely (r = 0.86) with the variations in CO2.

    By the way, hasn’t the Hadley center acknowledged that warming has slowed greatly in the 21st century?

    Not that I’m aware of.

Current ye@r *