Rosegate: David Rose’s fan letter to Christopher Monckton!

World Exclusive!

Must Credit Deltoid!!

Deltoid can reveal David Rose’s fan letter to Christopher Monckton written after Monckton published his famous Chinese navy disproves global warming article. Rose gushes:

Congratulations on your very important and fascinating article. I have two questions. 1. You write: ‘They also found that the graph’s authors had excluded from their calculations a single dataset covering the later mediaeval warm period, which had been stored in a computer file marked ‘CENSORED_DATA’ Where and how did they find this file? Is there any more known (or discoverable) about who had censored this data, and who knew that it had been? Surely this points to an egregious scientific scandal. I am no climatologist but did read Modern History, and I remember as an undergraduate being impressed by le Roy Ladurie’s History of Climate. And though I have never pursued the matter, for years I’ve had this thought in my mind: “Whatever happened to the medieval warm period?” Thank you for supplying the answer. 2. I did not see a reference to the 1421 Chinese voyage around the Arctic. Could you give me one – I’d like to know more. I write for the Observer and Vanity Fair. While this is far from my area of expertise my investigative reporter’s instincts are reeling. I look forward to you next piece. Best wishes – David Rose

It would be totally, just totally, unfair to use out-of-context quotes from this email to discredit David Rose.

Also of interest is Joe Romm’s summary of the growing Rosegate scandal.

Comments

#1 This really is my last comment
February 17, 2010

While this is far from my area of expertise

Doesn’t stop them contradicting those who do have the expertise, or approaching the subject with some humility, does it?
#2 foram
February 17, 2010

While this is far from my area of expertise

Doesn’t stop them contradicting those who do have the expertise, or approaching the subject with some humility, does it?

[The Dunning-Kruger effect?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Dunning-Kruger-effect-and-the-climate-debate.html) Or just plain vindictiveness?
#3 Dougetit
February 17, 2010

Fortunatly there is no such bias in the Main Stream AlphebetGate Media.
#4 Phila
February 17, 2010

I am no climatologist but did read Modern History, and I remember as an undergraduate being impressed by le Roy Ladurie’s History of Climate.

Apropos of which, here’s a French interview in which Ladurie explains that the current warming trend goes well beyond the MWP.

“Le réchauffement actuel s’apparente t-il selon vous à un retour au petit optimum médiéval ? Voici sa réponse, d’une grande clarté : «Non, le réchauffement actuel va bien au delà.

Unless my schoolboy French misleads me, Ladurie also says that he finds the IPCC “quite convincing”:

Je suis historien et non pas scientifique à part entière, mais les raisonnement du Giec m’apparaissent tout à fait convaincants.»

http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/2009/12/courtillot-enr%C3%B4le-le-roy-ladurie-qui-le-contredit.html

While I’m at it, here’s an interesting TLS review of Ladurie from 1967, which discusses the threat of AGW, and notes that “the race best adapted to withstand heat is the Negro.”

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article6951668.ece
#5 Marion Delgado
February 17, 2010

Tim, you ignorant slut!

… you forgot “DEVELOPING ….”

P.S. We’ll get the Gingerbreadgate files eventually, and when we do, we’ll show you Watts up, doc!
#6 Marion Delgado
February 17, 2010

Phila: scienceblogs, underscores, italics, links, Preview, etc. I’ll link it:

Then & Now – Gavin de Beer on Histoire du climat depuis l’an mil by Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie
#7 Phila
February 17, 2010

Phila: scienceblogs, underscores, italics, links, Preview, etc.

Sorry…not sure why I did it that way. I certainly know better! Just tired, I think.
#8 Dave
February 17, 2010

Here, let me have a go – David Rose on Monckton:

> You [...] CENSORED_DATA [...] and [...] [s]urely this points to an egregious scientific scandal. I am no climatologist but did read [...] Vanity Fair.
#9 Lassi Hippeläinen
February 17, 2010

“I did not see a reference to the 1421 Chinese voyage around the Arctic.”

So they are fanboys of Gavin Menzies? Next they will be praising von Däniken…
#10 Dan Olner
February 17, 2010

Question: I’ve written a complaint to the [UK's press complaints commission](http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html) about the [misleading Daily Mail headline](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fcPvboXA) and article “Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995.”

Has anyone else been complaining, out of interest? This article, to my mind, definitely breaches the PCC’s first code of practice clause, and others surely do the same where they’re completely misrepresenting what people have said? In the first instance, complainants get their complaint sent to the editor, who has to respond.

Anyway, the PCC code of pratice; I used the very first one for the Daily Mail article.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html

I don’t know if complaints have to come from the UK…?

Rather amusingly, the web article URL for that Daily Mail piece adds an extra word to the headline: “Climate U-turn Astonishment!” What I love most about papers like this is their constant attribution of outrage/astonishmnent to some unspecified body of people. “There was outrage today at… ” “There was astonishment today at…” Was there?? Where? Who? We never learn. Maybe it was just free-floating astonishment.
#11 Paul UK
February 17, 2010

Dan Olner:
>Has anyone else been complaining, out of interest?

I complained to the BBC about a Newsnight programme that was biased. But got a standard reply about ‘impartial and balanced coverage’.
#12 guthrie
February 17, 2010

Dan – I never bothered, because the PPC will just ignore it. I did prod CRU, and they are busy with press releases and stuff, but there isn’t a lot they can do either.
#13 Dan Olner
February 17, 2010

“I never bothered, because the PPC will just ignore it.”

Maybe they’ll be less likely to if many complaints start coming in? (Or maybe they’ll just dig their heels in, who knows?)

I can’t believe – particularly with the Mail story – how it’s possible to get away with such a blatant 180 degree distortion of what someone has said… could be wrong.
#14 guthrie
February 17, 2010

We know the system is broken, not that it was properly functioning in the first place (Concerns about press power go back into the 19th century, and some of the most egregious examples involved the Mail and Express back in the 1920′s, or indeed if you want lying the Sun is still boycotted in Merseyside because they lied about what happened at the Hillsborough disaster, and I could go on, and on.) There seems no proper open way for defamed organisations to get redress short of legal action, and the same goes for individuals, unless they are very rich in which case the papers will be nice because they don’t want to be sued. Because parliament is mostly a talking shop full of dummies, it is very hard to get anything done there either, unless your campaign catches someones eye.

And at the same time we don’t want to give the government an excuse to do something stupid. So few people like them that actually its better not to have them endorsing anything, although as usual their lack of action is clear.

On the other hand maybe I will complain, just to see how useless they all are. Think of it as an experiment, the hypothesis being that the IPCC will bin or ignore your complaint, probably because you don’t have standing, in their deliberately small definition of it. Let us know how you get on.
#15 Louis Hissink
February 17, 2010

Tim,

I have received a copy of the PDF of your presentation for the Lambert-Monckton debate.

I note citations to Monckton and Plimer are general, (unspecific, in other words), while those supporting your position more specific.

I would appreciate getting specific citations for Plimer’s Text, Heaven and Earth in your publicised presentation, especially for the recent ice age which some of the audience interpreted to be a discussion of a “Snowball Earth”. (That idea cannot be applicable to the last ice age, Pleistocene, since Snowball Earth hypotheses seem restricted to Proterozoic times).

Hope this is not too much an imposition on your busy schedule,

Kind regards

Louis Hissink. M.Sc. M.AIG. M.IEEE
#16 mark2
February 17, 2010
#17 Jeff Harvey
February 17, 2010

Mark2,

I voted in your poll. Clearly the optimum amount of C0 2 depends on the long-term history of the system under investigation – that would mean 150-300 ppm given the history of the planet over the past several million years or more. What struck me was the number of idiots putting figures in like 600-1000 ppm or over 1000 ppm on an ealier poll. These morons have no understanding of the effects a short-term rise of C02 to these levels would have on complex adaptive systems across the biosphere. A short-term rise of this magnitude would have our species staring extinction squarely in the face, as ecological systems collapse around us due to the inability of their biota and the network webs they are part of to respond. This is because a dramatic rise in levels of atmospheric C02 would have attendant effects on climate and on other critically vital processes that are largely deterministic. It would constitute a short-term experiment with horrific consequences.

This is exactly why the legions of contrarian armchair experts out there have no clue whatsoever of what they are talking about. It also explains, at least partly, why so many of them listen to the pseudo-scientific gibberish of the anti-environmental lobby.
#18 SteveF
February 17, 2010

r.e. complaining, the PCC operates by policing a voluntary code of practice devised by a body called the Editor’s Code Committee. The chairman of the Editor’s Code Committee is Paul Dacre. Incidentally, the editor of the Daily Mail is one Paul Dacre.
#19 Lotharsson
February 17, 2010

Louis, I suspect you’re partially mistaken – start with this thread about the debate (which might be a more suitable place to ask too, in case anyone else is wondering).

In particular on that post Tim writes [my emphasis]:

The only new argument he had was that Snowball Earth proves that climate sensitivity is low because it was really cold despite high CO2 levels. … I wasn’t ready for this argument (the Snowball Earth one…), so I didn’t have the best counter.

And from my rough live commentary (from the streaming audio during the debate (original post), not necessarily accurate!) Tim said something like:

Let’s look at last Ice Age – best way to get a handle on climate sensitivity is to look at a very different climate; bunch of factors (drawn from Plimer’s Heaven & Earth) – ice albedo, vegetation cover, dust, CO2, and so on…

And from the same rough live commentary:

Monckton’s 1st question: how can the 750M year-ago ice age have 300,000ppm in the atmosphere and still have huge mile thick ice sheets at the equator?

I’m sure there will be a correction if this is wrong, but I believe it was Monckton’s 1st question that (was interpreted as) raising a Snowball Earth scenario, not Tim talking about Heaven and Earth.
#20 P. Lewis
February 17, 2010

This from the WCCC fans forum is germane to the cricket story.

And BBC head of religion and ethics disputes Sunday Telegraph article is probably germane to the Distortion-laden-rag-gate shenanigans.
#21 Tim Lambert
February 17, 2010

Louis, I only cited Plimer for conditions in the last Ice Age. YOu can easily find the relevant pages by looking up “Ice Age” in the index.
#22 DavidCOG
February 17, 2010

Dan Olner:

> Has anyone else been complaining, out of interest?

I was just about to ask them same in this thread. As others have, I will also submit a complaint. Even if it does appear to be largely futile:

> The chairman of the Editor’s Code Committee is Paul Dacre. Incidentally, the editor of the Daily Mail is one Paul Dacre.
#23 Dan Olner
February 17, 2010

Oh – got this response: “the PCC will normally only consider complaints from people who are directly affected by the matters about which they are concerned. Indeed, only in exceptional circumstances will the Commission consider a complaint from someone not directly involved. For the PCC to take this matter forward, it would be likely that we would require a complaint from Professor Jones to complain that his views have been misrepresented.”

That was probably clear from the website and I missed it somewhere. Prof Jones should get on to them!
#24 P. Lewis
February 17, 2010

DavidCOG:

The Editors’ Code of Practice Committee has no say in the day-to-day running of the PCC, and membership of the Committee does not overlap with that of the Press Complaints Commission.

… and the latter would investigate. Not that it matters it seems.
#25 P. Lewis
February 17, 2010

Actually, having read a bit further, perhaps a letter to the ECPP might elicit a response. Presumably Dacre would have to absent himself from discussion of a case involving the Mail.

This Committee takes account of public and Parliamentary comment as well as of reports from the Press Complaints Commission itself. The Code is therefore constantly developing and responding quickly to changing practices and technology in the industry and to the concerns of readers.

The Editors’ Code of Practice Committee has no say in the day-to-day running of the PCC, and membership of the Committee does not overlap with that of the Press Complaints Commission.

If you have suggestions for changes to the Code these should be put in writing to:

The Secretary,
Editors’ Code of Practice Committee,
PO Box 235,
Stone House,
Gloucester GL10 3UF

Email: ianbeales@mac.com
#26 Joseph
February 17, 2010

Am I being reasonable in presuming that “censored data” probably refers to the statistical technique of censoring, and not the political tool?
#27 MapleLeaf
February 17, 2010

Dan Olner,

Thanks for going to the trouble. Do not be discouraged! That lame excuse clause they have is not written in stone they say “normally”. OK, well, this is not a normal situation, not even close!

We cannot adopt a defeatist attitude here, the denialati are counting on that.

Now, unlike McI, I am not going to tell everyone to complain just because, or tell you which stories to complain about. However, there are more than enough articles to make legitimate complaints about. Also, go to their competitors and major sponsors. Maybe even consider writing to the scientists who have been misrepresented and encouraging them to take action– they would probably welcome the support.

There has to be something that can be done, this ludicrous assault on the science and scientists cannot go unchecked.

So what if they do not act on your complaint. At least down the road one can say, “yes, they received over 1000 complaints and elected to do nothing”. If enough people complain they will be forced to take action.

And one perhaps lame suggestion, start an online petition (assuming the relevant authorities would consider that legitimate). One could start with scientists and take it from there.

Two questions, 1) as Canadian, can I file a complaint with the PCC?; 2) Can someone in the UK request email correspondence of a journalist or their editors under FOIA?
#28 Ian Musgrave
February 17, 2010

Lotharsson at #19

I’m sure there will be a correction if this is wrong, but I believe it was Monckton’s 1st question that (was interpreted as) raising a Snowball Earth scenario, not Tim talking about Heaven and Earth.

Yes, you are correct. My take on how Monckton misuses “Snowball Earth” is at http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/02/snowballs-snowjobs-and-lambert-monckton.html
#29 Dave Andrews
February 17, 2010

Jeff Harvey,

Yes many people are ignorant of lots of things and that is why no reasonable person pays any attention to online polls let alone votes in them.

Oh you did vote!
#30 Michael
February 17, 2010

Dave Andrews deosn’t even seem to bother much with trolling on the issues any more.

Could it be that the outrageous lying of the faux-sceptics and their friendly scribblers in the tabloid press is finally penetrating his thick skull?
#31 Marion Delgado
February 17, 2010

Lassi Hippeläinen

I don’t think we should take any hasty countermeasures until we’re SURE ancient astronauts are not the real cause of so-called global warming. Are you sure? I’M not so sure.

We need to study this more and let both sides have a voice.
#32 Marion Delgado
February 17, 2010

Louis Hissink:

Just out of curiosity, can you answer any of Monbiot’s questions to Ian Plimer? The ones Plimer always refuses to comment on, even, I mean.

I only ask because they’re really awfully specific. They would probably even help you with Tim’s references, you know?

Or do you not know Plimer’s work very well? More of a Monckton man?
#33 Rattus Norvegicus
February 17, 2010

guthrie, at least you can rest assured that the Daily Mail can’t send you a form letter about fair and unbiased coverage
#34 Lotharsson
February 17, 2010

I imagine Louis will update his blog post on his questions, presuming that’s the same Louis Hissink.
#35 Louis Hissink
February 18, 2010

Tim #25

Thanks Tim,

I’ll use that query criterion.
#36 Louis Hissink
February 18, 2010

Marion Delgado #32

I would be quite happy to answer Monbiot’s question put to Ian Plimer, but you need to reproduce those with full references to Plimer’s text in order for me to follow on your question here.

I have not read Plimer’s text (and do have a hard covered copy) for the prosaic reason that it’s basically, putting it in theological terms, another version of the geological litany which the profession accepts.

As for the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, both he and I are driven by empiricism compelled by physical, real-world, measurements.

But if you want me to answer your first question, please produce an explicit list of questions Monbiot put to Plimer together with specific references to the sources.

Unfortunately I, as a climate realist, have a day job and if my response seems tardy, please excuse me if a reply is not quickly forthcoming.

Ball in your court.
#37 Louis Hissink
February 18, 2010

Lotharsson # 34

Please don’t point to general URL’s for my attention because I am not interested in trawling them for the specific issue you wanted me to look at.
#38 gracilis from Lower Thorbit
February 18, 2010

Hissink at 15: ‘I would appreciate getting specific citations for Plimer’s Text, Heaven and Earth in your publicised presentation, especially for the recent ice age which some of the audience interpreted to be a discussion of a “Snowball Earth”.’
Hissink at 35: ‘I would be quite happy to answer Monbiot’s question put to Ian Plimer, but you need to reproduce those with full references to Plimer’s text in order for me to follow on your question here.’
Hissink at 36: ‘Please don’t point to general URL’s for my attention because I am not interested in trawling them for the specific issue you wanted me to look at.’
#39 Hasis
February 18, 2010

Shorter Louis

Give me your data and code!
#40 Lotharsson
February 18, 2010

Louis, Monbiot’s questions to Plimer complete with references to Plimer’s book.

BTW, the URL I posted was not a general URL; it was apparently your own blog post where you assert that “Lambert has problems, of a scientific kind”, but no further details other than you’d asked a question here.

I am curious how you know Plimer’s book is “another version of the geological litany which the profession accepts” if you haven’t read it. Do tell! And which profession do you mean? There has been strong criticism of the book by scientists from a number of different fields, so I’m wondering which profession generally accepts Plimer’s arguments.
#41 jemima
February 19, 2010

As you can see Lotharsson, Louis has the attention span of a gnat though possibly fewer social graces. It explains why he’s incapable of making much sense of things, which wouldn’t be so funny were not Louis also science “editor” (or something) for a woebegone clutch of economists trading by the name “Henry Thornton”. Check them out, it’s hilarious! (To their credit btw they too seem to find comfort in humour – when I looked just now they were running this line right under their masthead: “”When I look at John Howard, I see what Harry Potter is going to look like in 50 years” Billy Connolly” … annnywayyyy here’s Louis’ little nook there, where it turns out he’s also been elevated to high office at the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Laugh? – well I always do when Louis’ name pops up!
#42 Lotharsson
February 19, 2010

Jemima,

I wasn’t expecting him to seriously answer Monbiot’s questions.

I had a quick look at what appears to be Louis’ blog, with some fairly astonishing statements, but didn’t think it worth spending too much time on them. He has apparently saved cosmologists a lot of trouble by proving in half a page that neutron stars are impossible, repeats David Rose’s “glacier scientist story” courtesy of WattsUpWithThat, and my favourite (my emphasis):

The following list of physical phenomena are imaginative absurdities because they have not been physically observed.

1. Neutron stars (made of matter comprising 100% neutrons)
2. Dark Matter
3. Dark Energy
4. Black Holes
5. Magnetic Reconnection (physically impossible)
6. Frozen magnetic fields (physically impossible)
7. Biological Evolution (not observed empirically)
8. Plate Tectonics (no physical mechanism)
9. The Big Bang
10. Expanding Universe
11. Curved space
12. Gravity waves

Interesting rationale – everything is absurd unless you have physical observation! (And then he changes target from physical observation to “no physical mechanism”(!) and “not observed empirically” when it suits him.)

Must be a strange world to live in.
#43 Chris O'Neill
February 19, 2010

11. Curved space 12. Gravity waves

Did Louis forget to mention the General theory of Relativity?
#44 Lotharsson
February 20, 2010

Did Louis forget to mention the General theory of Relativity?

I think he did. And the Special. Which is interesting because they are largely constructed from thinking about what it means to be an observer in space-time.

I reckon he is unaware of various biological research findings – I’m pretty sure you can find direct observation of evolution in the literature.

He might also find various (interpretations of) quantum theories rather challenging, given that they have an interesting perspective on “observers”. And Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle must suck if you insist on physical observation – all those things happening that you just can’t see.
#45 Marion Delgado
February 11, 2011

Okay a year later I found this again, and only now do I realize Hissinck was saying “Plimer! That wanker! he falls for the “geology” scam!” I.E. even Ian Plimer of the Iron Sun and the million-year-time-flitches is far too mainstream for Louis Hissinck!

I have not read Plimer’s text (and do have a hard covered copy) for the prosaic reason that it’s basically, putting it in theological terms, another version of the geological litany which the profession accepts.

A firm rule must be imposed upon our nation before it destroys itself. The United States needs some theology and geometry, some taste and decency. I suspect that we are teetering on the edge of the abyss
#46 Bernard J.
February 11, 2011

[Marion Delgado](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/rosegate_david_roses_fan_lette.php#comment-3274796).

Arghhh!!! Please preface your mentions of Louis Hissink with explicit warnings not to venture over to his personal documentation of his own twilight zone.

I ventured there and found that Cyclone Yasi is a [manifestation of the electric universe](http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/cyclone-yasia-strange-one/).

Warning: crazy pseudoscience content – following the link in the previous paragraph may cause intellectual distress, and damage to one’s capacity for rational thought. Proceed with the utmost caution.