“Monckton is wrong”

John P Abraham has taken the time to go through one of Christopher Monckton’s talks and check whether the references that Monckton cites say what Monckton claims they do. Of course, as anyone who has checked Monckton’s work can discover, they don’t. But Abrahams has gone the extra mile and checked with the authors of the papers as well and again and again gotten replies from the scientists saying “Monckton is wrong”. The presentation is 84 minutes long and is devastating. Even at that length only some of Monckton’s errors are covered. It’s based on a Monckton talk from last year, before he came up with his misrepresentations of Pinker and Snowball Earth, so they’re not included.

Peter Hartmann has compiled a list of all the papers Abraham has cited.

Hat tip: too many people to list.

If you want to see a perfect example of the way Monckton operates, see this example from his self-serving report of an SPPI-sponsored debate:

He glared at the opposition again and demanded whether, since they had declared themselves to be so worried about “global warming”, they would care to tell him – to two places of decimals and one standard deviation – the UN’s central estimate of the “global warming” that might result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The opposition were unable to reply. Lord Monckton told them the answer was 3.26 plus or minus 0.69 Kelvin or Celsius degrees. An Hon. Member interrupted: “And your reference is?” Lord Monckton replied: “IPCC, 2007, chapter 10, box 10.2.” [cheers].

Monckton impresses the rubes with by reeling off facts and figures with great authority and conviction. Monckton is wrong, of course, but who is going to have the IPCC report handy to contradict him in a debate? Box 10.2 concludes:

we conclude that the global mean equilibrium warming for doubling CO2, or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C.

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

Comments

  1. #1 Passing Wind
    June 7, 2010

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

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

    Thanks kindly Marco.

  2. #2 cohenite
    June 8, 2010

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

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

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

  3. #3 jakerman
    June 8, 2010

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

    Cohers comes to try and defend [the indefensible](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570191).

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

  4. #4 MFS
    June 8, 2010

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

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

  5. #5 cohenite
    June 8, 2010

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

  6. #6 pough
    June 8, 2010

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

    warming != warmth

  7. #7 jakerman
    June 8, 2010

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

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

  8. #8 lord_sidcup
    June 8, 2010

    Lee #184

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

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

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

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

  9. #9 Nathan
    June 8, 2010

    Cohenite

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

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

  10. #10 SteveC
    June 8, 2010

    cohenite | June 8, 2010 1:35 AM:

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

    And by “exceptional” you mean…what, exactly?

  11. #11 Marco
    June 8, 2010

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

  12. #12 warren
    June 8, 2010

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

  13. #13 jakerman
    June 8, 2010

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

    The you have to look at the evidence and conclude:

    a) No other known forcing can reproduce current warming;

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

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

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

  14. #14 chek
    June 8, 2010

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

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

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

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

  15. #15 warren
    June 8, 2010

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

  16. #16 warren
    June 8, 2010

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

  17. #17 warren
    June 8, 2010

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

  18. #18 cohenite
    June 8, 2010

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

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

  19. #19 Passing Wind
    June 8, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    >On a longer timescale embracing all of the Holocene, Huang et al (1997) used the global heat flow database (Pollack et al 1993) to establish a composite profile of heat flow versus depth to 2 km beneath the surface. The inversion of this profile revealed a long mid-Holocene warm interval some 0.2–0.6 K above present day temperatures, and another similar but shorter warm interval 500–1,000 years ago. Temperatures then cooled to a minimum of approximately 0.5 K below present, about 200 years ago.”

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

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

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

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

    Food for thought.

  20. #20 Dave R
    June 8, 2010

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

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

  21. #21 jakerman
    June 8, 2010

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

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

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

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

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    June 8, 2010

    cohenite:

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

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

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

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

  23. #23 MartinM
    June 8, 2010

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

    HPS08:

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

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

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

    Not exactly complicated.

  24. #24 Richard Simons
    June 8, 2010

    warren @ 203

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

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

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    June 8, 2010

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

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

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

  26. #26 luminous beauty
    June 8, 2010

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

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

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

  27. #27 J Bowers
    June 8, 2010

    @ 214 luminous beauty

    Stonkingly good explanation! Mind if I use that elsewhere?

  28. #28 luminous beauty
    June 8, 2010

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

  29. #29 guthrie
    June 8, 2010

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

  30. #30 P. Lewis
    June 8, 2010

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

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

  31. #31 Passing Wind
    June 8, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  32. #32 cohenite
    June 8, 2010

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

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

  33. #33 Andrew
    June 8, 2010

    gee Cohenite

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

    And from that position your dude says

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

  34. #34 jakerman
    June 8, 2010

    Windy writes:

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

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

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

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

  35. #35 Andrew
    June 8, 2010

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

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

  36. #36 cohenite
    June 8, 2010

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

  37. #37 Passing Wind
    June 8, 2010

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

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

    >All of modern scientific theory is empirically determined.

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

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

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

    Therefore, statements like the following quote are meaningless.

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

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

  38. #38 pough
    June 8, 2010

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

  39. #39 Lee
    June 8, 2010

    @225, Lingering Fart:

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

    Bullpucky.

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

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

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

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

  40. #40 jakerman
    June 8, 2010

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

  41. #41 Passing Wind
    June 8, 2010

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

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

    Don’t you own a dictionary?

    >**conspire**

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

    Or as Harvey claims, conspire to minimize the situation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  42. #42 luminous beauty
    June 8, 2010

    Windy,

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

  43. #43 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    >Don’t you own a dictionary?

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

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

  44. #44 SteveC
    June 9, 2010

    Passing Wind @ 229:

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

    Passing Wind @ 130:

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

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

  45. #45 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

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

    A recap of [what this moron so quickly forgot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570207):

    Windy writes:

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

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

    >*reconstructions show the temperatures of the mid-Holocene warm episode some 1–2 K above the reference level, the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1 K below the reference level, and end-of-20th century temperatures about 0.5 K above the reference level.*

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

    Interesting to see what Windy calls “higher standards”.

    You are no skeptic Windy.

  46. #46 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

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

    >@225, Lingering Fart:

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

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

    Really?

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

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

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

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

  47. #47 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

    the AGW lobby

    Hey, no pejorative there.

    You are another example of the banality of evil.

  48. #48 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

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

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

    Even boundary problems are sensitive to initial conditions

    You have no idea what you’re talking about.

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

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

    You are yet another example of the banality of evil.

  49. #49 MFS
    June 9, 2010

    Passing Wind,

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

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

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

  50. #50 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

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

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

  51. #51 John
    June 9, 2010

    Excuse Passing Wind. Paranoid denialists see conspiracies everywhere.

  52. #52 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

  53. #53 Marco
    June 9, 2010

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

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

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

  54. #54 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    jakerman,

    We all make mistakes, and I admit mine.

    >[My apologies, Robert Murphy is correct. Huang said at or slightly below the (1961-1990) reference level.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570192)

    >[Apologies to Lotharsson too. Huang does claim temperature today is 0.5c warmer than the MWP. Wow. 0.5C over 1200 years.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570192)

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

    >[I stated my case why I did not think Abraham's take-down particularly worthy of gratuitous self-congratulation, and conceded points to other's views along the way. ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2574967)

    SteveC,

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

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

    >like fraud, liar, scam.

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

    >[No. Deluded might be a better word.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2568357)

    >[And by "exceptional" you mean...what, exactly?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2572581)

    >[Now while you've got your dictionary out, look up the word hypocrite.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575056)

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

  55. #55 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

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

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

  56. #56 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

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

    He did, but you [avoided addressing that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575083). Much like you opted out of [addressing MFS's contribution](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575085).

    Hat Tip to SteveC for [showing Windy the mirror](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575056).

  57. #57 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

    What observed phenomena are you referring too?

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

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

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

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

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

  58. #58 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2010

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

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

    Concern troll expresses concern using various mostly false denialist memes.

    Film at 11.

  59. #59 SteveC
    June 9, 2010

    Passing Wind @ 243:

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

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

    Translation:

    1. When the models all agree:

    (a) the models are wrong; and

    (b) it’s a conspiracy

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

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

  60. #60 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    Marco,

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

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

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

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

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

  61. #61 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

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

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

  62. #62 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

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

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

    So as for your,

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

    I have to agree in spades.

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

  63. #63 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    And with Windy’s attempt to rewrite himself as a Martyr, its worth revisiting [his openig salvo](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2569943):

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

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

  64. #64 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    jakerman,

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

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

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

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

    That HPS97 did not include the last 100 years does not mean that the rest of the data was meaningless, only that the graph should not have included the last 100 years. He based the zero axis at his null hypothesis – read HPS97 for an explanation.

    Abraham did not approach Monckton based on was there later material that contradicted Monckton. Too suggest he did is pure fantasy. Had he done so, I think Abraham may have faired better at least with regards to HPS97.

    Others on in this thread have filled in some of the gaps for Abraham in an attempt to strengthen the argument. Pity Abraham didn’t make it himself. Perhaps you should put together your own analysis of Monckton as you might do better.

  65. #65 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    Posted by: jakerman | June 9, 2010 3:26 AM

    Opening Salvo? What browser are you using, Lynx?

    [Never mind the post 2 days before it.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2566905)

    Glad to see you are still keeping your posts fact-free.

  66. #66 Marco
    June 9, 2010

    @Passing Wind:
    This site has had a large number of discussions on the science. Granted, its focus is mainly on the distortions of the science by a certain group of people. Interestingly, those same people are often hailed as saints and heroes on the ‘skeptic’ websites. Monckton has been shown distorting the science on many occasions (you might want to watch Tim Lambert debating Monckton on the science, the links are on this website (I’m not helping you find it this time)). Abraham is ‘just’ the umptieth in line who shows him wrong, but unlike most others, this debunking has been more widely reported. There may well be flaws in the line of argumentation, perhaps even the form, and perhaps some quibbles over certain content (i.e., it may be interpreted in two ways). But the fact remains that Monckton distorted a large body of research. The best you have been able to offer is some semantics about Huang.

    Oh, and SoD discusses the greenhouse effect. Very well written, but I’m afraid Steve may in the near future have to start moderating as he’s attracting more and more crackpots. So far he can use those crackpots to display the real science and show the errors some people make in their desire to disprove AGW. But he’ll soon run into the arguments he’s debunked many times already being repeated over and over and over again. One day he’ll likely get fed up with a RTFFAQ reply and just delete the comment. Upon which people like you start complaining about censorship, of course.

  67. #67 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    >Abraham did not debunk Monckton.

    I think your judgement is impared ([as demonstrated](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570207))

    >None of the papers refuted Monckton..

    Windy says with his hands over his eyes and fingers in his ears.

    Its not hard to debunk Monckton on this. He’s not published on it, and he’s made a wild cliam at odds with the best avaliable science. And his process has been an unscientfic one of cherry picking paper to suit his desired answer rather than comparing tempeatures across time and global coverage.

    Monckton’s claim was that the MWP was warmer. Abrahams showsd that Monckton’s claim was not supported papers he cited, and nor by Authors he cited.

    That leaves Moncktons swinging in the wind and unsuppored by the [best evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570042) (which did not employ Moncktons anti-scientific cherry picking method).

    I think readers can discrern if that is a debunking.

  68. #68 lord_sidcup
    June 9, 2010

    Monbiot is [doing Monckton again](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/08/monckton-gift-climate-denial). He also covers ‘Chiversgate’ (as I think we should call it) and Monckton’s medical reseach.

    Nice!

  69. #69 Paul UK
    June 9, 2010

    Passing wind:

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

    Actually it is a good place to discuss science, but you have to be willing to discuss actual science.

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

    Science is not democracy. eg. Evolution and Creationism are not both correct. Only one is correct. Discussing them is OK but it doesn’t change the outcome. Hence for instance, discussing creationism wouldn’t validate it as being a science. Hence logically science is closed minded!

    One would also say that Creationism is debunked and closed off from discussion based on science grounds. That isn’t bigotry, it’s just how science is.

  70. #70 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    >Never mind the post 2 days before it.

    Correction accepted. So you think your [opening to this last 2 days engagement](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575200) fits with your revisionist narrative?

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2010

    Passing Wind says that the “tactic here is simple”:

    > Ignore the message.

    …right after people have spent quite some time engaging with his “message” in detail. Impressive blind spot.

    > Abraham failed to make his case, and I backed up my argument.

    And at least 3/4 of your own “argument” to that effect was shown to be fallacious, and subsequently it was revealed by you that you hadn’t bothered to view 90% of Abraham’s argument in the first place.

    This is your key assertion:

    > None of the papers refuted Monckton, and none of the authors did either – with regard to those papers.

    None of the papers or authors **support** Monckton’s claims to represent the state of the science either. **That** was Abraham’s point. Do you understand the distinction between the three cases:

    1) Refuted

    2) Proven

    3) Not supported?

    Which one does Abraham demonstrate for Monckton’s claims?

  72. #72 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

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

    I gave you better than you deserve. You seem incapable of doing better than repeatedly lying, misrepresenting, and evading. As I said, you are another example of the banality of evil — a person who is so blithely hypocritical, so willfully immune to changing his view in the light of facts and reason, someone who practices a cargo-cult version of debate and inquiry, lacking all the necessary elements that move rational discussion forward.

  73. #73 Jeff Harvey
    June 9, 2010

    Passing Wind,

    You write, *This site isn’t the place to discuss the science*. You are right. The correct places are conferences and workshopes where the people doing the research – you know, real climate and Earth scientists – present seminars on their work. Another useful activity is to comprehensively go through the empirical data in the peer-reviewed literature. By this I mean a Naomi Oreskes-type exercise, and not the usual contrarian habit of a cursory overview coupled with immsense amounts of selective citing and interpretation.

    As a senior scientist, I am frankly bemused at how many laypeople think they somehow azre able to accrue wisdom in fields they have not studied in any way, shape or form. You (and Monckton for that matter, as well as 99% of the denial community) fit snugly into this category. The key is that the denialists are promoting a pre-determined world view, and thus they carry out little or no research on their own (after all, if truth be told, they hate climate science, but they feel it necessary to wade into the field to bolster their own agendas, whatever they are). The anti-science denila crowd appear to think their duty is to cherry pick and distort existing data sets produced by the scientists who are actually doing the research.

    Finally, I think it takes remarkable hubris for you to argue that *Realclimate is barely OK*. If you think that a web site set up by senior climate scientists is “barely OK”, then either you are a well published climate scientist yourself with years of expertise in the field, or else you are bluffing, as the denialati often do. If the former is correct, then ad hom attacks are way, way out of line. If the latter is correct, then you do not deserve to be taken seriously. Which is it?

    As for the “Science of Doom” web site, I found it virtually impossible to find who writes it. Is he or she a climate scientist? I did find indications that the author has contributed to sites like WUWT and CA, staffed by contrarians who publish virtually nothing in the peer-reviewed literature. My guess is that S.O.D. is run by someone who is not a scientist, at least not in a climate-related field. That being the case, how can that site be reputable whereas one run by working climate scientists is not? Please fill me in on your uncanny ability to separate ‘sound’ from ‘shoddy’ science.

  74. #74 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    Jakerman,

    You wear the blindness of a bigot well.

    As Goldmember told Austin Powers, “Then there is no pleasing you”.

    Paul UK,

    That science now accepts evolution when before it did not, is proof that science is anything but closed minded. Should the creationists come back with some new and compelling evidence valid enough to disprove evolution – obviously such is impossible – science would indeed eventually re-evaluate it, and if correct, accept it.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2010

    > Abraham did not approach Monckton based on was there later material that contradicted Monckton.

    He did indeed – you just failed to comprehend that he did, in part because you failed to comprehend that Monckton **actually** claimed that 700 **scientists** supported a (hemispherical or global) MWP (that is about as warm or warmer than today), not merely that a certain set of quoted papers (once and perhaps even now) did.

    Either way it’s a pointless quibble – a distraction tactic. If you **actually** think it’s kosher for Monckton to claim that some older papers support the idea of a warmer hemispherical/global MWP **and therefore conclude** that the science (or the IPCC AR4) is wrong, please state so.

    And then consider why that conclusion is a fallacy.

  76. #76 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

    as far as I was concerned, Abraham failed to make his case

    Yes, as far as you’re concerned indeed. But since you’re a liar and a moron, that’s not nearly far enough.

    I backed up my argument

    With stupidity and intellectual dishonesty. No intelligent person would mistake what you have offered as a serious or valid argument for your claim.

  77. #77 Jeff Harvey
    June 9, 2010

    Passing Wind,

    There is absoultely no correlation between climate change science and the science of evolutionary biology in terms of overturning ‘dogmas’. If there was, you would actually find that the climate change denialists would closely approximate the creationists.

    As I said earlier, the vast majority of so-called sceptics do not conduct their own research. Instead, they rely on data sets produced by working climate scientists that is published in peer-reviewed journals, in many cases selectively interpreting the results of these studies or through outright manipulation and distortion. What is also interesting is how the denialati have shifted their goal posts over the years with respect to climate warming. First, it was a doomsday myth; then, as evidence grew in support of the theory of AGW, the sceptics claimed that the forcings were natural or else unexceptional in geological time scales. Ultimately, as the science continues to vanquish their arguments, the sceptics will eventually admit that the warming is primarily man-made, but that it will be by then too late to do anything except to adapt (many so-called sceptics are now taking this line). One theme remains consistent: nothing is done, business-as-usual remains the only business. The sceptics know that they will never win the scientific argument but that is not their aim; their aim is to sow doubt amongst the public and policymakers in order to ensure that nothing is done to deal with the problem.

    As for your suggestion that contrarian blogs are more ‘polite’, you must be joking. You ought to hone up on some of the things that have been used to describe scientists working on various aspects of global change (including myself). I have spoken at many universities on the various strategies employed by what I broadly describe as the anti-environmental lobby (in which many of the climate change denialists are right at home) and you would change your tune fairly quickly if you were to look under the surface. This is because those anxious to retain the status quo see the entire debate over human-induced global change as some kind of ‘street fight’ with science as a useful and necessary tool in their arsenal (even though many of them loathe the science, as I said earlier).

    There is little doubt in my opinion that the sceptics are winning the PR war. There are many reasons for this: the inability of many scientists to effectively communicate their findings to a broader public, the immensely well-funded and well-organized anti-environmental lobby, and the fact that in debates the contrarians express little doubt as to the validity of their position whereas the scientists on the other side, as is their training, express caution in their findings. We use phrases like ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ whereas the contrarians give the impression that the conclusions are cut and dry. Who will the lay public believe? The cautious scientist or the confident contrarian?

    The fact is that there are gaps in climate science, as we all know, but that there is more than enough evidence now showing that humans are the primary culprit in forcing recent climate changes. The doubt lies in what the outcomes of these changes are likely to be on complex adaptive systems and ultimately, on human civilization. For their part, the sceptics have seized on this doubt over the outcomes of climate change and have applied it to climate change itself. It is a cunning, dishonest, but albeit successful PR ploy.

  78. #78 Paul UK
    June 9, 2010

    Passing wind @92

    >He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton’s citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004), Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) He tries to do this without actually reading the papers.

    You don’t actually know that he hasn’t read them.

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

    Yes I have, from beginning to end. I have also revisited it a few times. Don’t you think it is a bit unwise to say “would not get a passing grade for a first year paper” of Abraham whilst at the same time defending Monckton.

    That strikes me as being cynical. It also contradicts your later postings here that seem to suggest science isn’t being discussed.

    If you really want to discuss science, then I suggest you have a go at Monckton as well for his obvious flaws.

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

    Incorrect. He actually says he is retired, that he was out of touch with the current science and that David Frank was upto date with the latest research. That sounds like a reasonable comment to make as a professional and responsible person who wants to give good advice.
    But if you are looking for a conspiracy…

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

    Erm, by any standards that in itself makes an assumption about Keigans response.
    Keigan writes ‘You are absolutely right…’
    Keigan also states that an area the size of Australia needs to be reforest.

    >Next attempts to show Monckton’s use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in 1998, Huang et al stated

    Erm, you are reversing the issue.
    The issue is why did Monckton apparently use out of date material that supported his view, when he should have been using more recent material?
    Monckton is a politician, he is a member of a political party and gets involved in politics. That should be a good enough clue.

  79. #79 P. Lewis
    June 9, 2010

    One tries to read all posts and to see some good in all, even when that someone is espousing nonsense; but the day is too short and the nonsense now overwhelming. So …

    ‘Tis time for the farty emanations to be bottled and hermetically sealed, methinks.

    –>[kill file] –> “…Passing Wind blocked” LOL.

  80. #80 Paul UK
    June 9, 2010

    Re: Passing wind

    >That science now accepts evolution when before it did not, is proof that science is anything but closed minded. Should the creationists come back with some new and compelling evidence valid enough to disprove evolution – obviously such is impossible – science would indeed eventually re-evaluate it, and if correct, accept it.

    You are just stating what I have already stated.
    You say it is impossible for creationism to disprove evolution, hence you contradict yourself.

    You are saying that there is no argument about it.
    Keeping the door open does not further science, it just appeases the creationists and human cultural needs for ‘democracy’ and ‘free speech’

    You are playing politics not science.

  81. #81 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

    the fact that in debates the contrarians express little doubt as to the validity of their position whereas the scientists on the other side, as is their training, express caution in their findings.

    According to Passing Wind (an appropriate name for such a gaping asshole*), by doing so they are conspiring to “deliberately play-down” their findings rather than “correctly describe the science”.

    * From his very first post:

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

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

  82. #82 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

    He did indeed – you just failed to comprehend that he did, in part because you failed to comprehend that Monckton actually claimed that 700 scientists supported a (hemispherical or global) MWP (that is about as warm or warmer than today), not merely that a certain set of quoted papers (once and perhaps even now) did.

    No, Gaping Asshole comprehended that quite well. He wrote

    Abraham’s slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton’s claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today. He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton’s citations

    Later, he takes Abraham to task:

    Of the 9 graphs Monckton shows on his slide, Abraham tackles less than half of them, 4.

    Apparently Gaping Asshole thinks that 4/9 is a far smaller sample than 9/700.

    Such banal evil.

  83. #83 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    >*You wear the blindness of a bigot well.*

    Rolls off the tongue of someone who makes indefensible claims and whilst defending [anti-science cherry picking](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570207).

    You wouldn’t been first person who’s misplaced belief and eventual embarrassment lead them to make similar unsupported retaliatory claims.

  84. #84 SteveC
    June 9, 2010

    Pissing Wand Passing Wind @ 242:

    SteveC, The two statements you point to are completely consistent.

    Translation:
    If I, Passing Wind, say one thing then say another thing that completely contradicts the first thing, then I am being consistent.

    If you, my interlocutor, pass comment on this, you are not contributing to the conversation.

    Worse still, if your comments are of 7 words or less, you’re a seagull.

  85. #85 Marco
    June 9, 2010

    @Passing Wind:
    The interesting thing about the theory of evolution was that it provided a *new* way of looking at old data. There was plenty of speculation on how to explain loads of observation, it just took a certain Charles Darwin (and Alfred Wallace) to put it on paper in a coherent manner. Science rapidly accepted the hypothesis, thus elevating it to theory, because it explained the observations much better than any description seen before. It even made logical predictions that by-and-large were found to be correct (and any deviations meant the theory had to be (and was) adapted).

    We’re still waiting for anyone to come with a plausible description of the current climate without having to invoke increases in greenhouse gases. The challenge is out there, and those few that took up the gauntlet have so far failed miserably (Lindzen, Scafetta, Svensmark, to name a few).

  86. #86 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    An earlier comment from Windy has come through moderation. Windy writes:

    >We all make mistakes, and I admit mine.

    But his reference indicate he may limit his perceived mistake to misreading the comparison to current temperatures. This is minor in comparison to his Monckton like paper selection criteria.

    Windy will you admit the hypocrisy of pushing Huang 2008 [to support Monckton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570167):

    >*Monckton was also claiming that the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, and Huang [2008] et al does clearly state that the MWP was real and maybe as warm as today, and that there was the mid-Holocene warm period 1-2 deg warmer than today – much to Abbott’s pleasure.*

    And here is the twist, then Windy immediately [discards the paper and the comparison](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570197) when he [realized](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570192) the paper had a result he didn’t like:

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

    Can you see what this reveals Windy?

  87. #87 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    [Posted by: Paul UK | June 9, 2010 5:21 AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575290)

    Thank you Paul, at least someone is prepared to examine my points and discuss them, even if you don’t agree.

    If I may, I’d like to answer some of your points.

    *1. He makes no mention whatsoever of the contents of the papers cited, and most certainly does not claim Monckton has misrepresented them. Is this because he didn’t read them, or they didn’t contradict Monckton. An explanation was clearly due as Abraham did say he was going to “let’s either read the actual papers or let ask the authors…”

    *2. Regarding “would not get a passing grade for a first year paper”, that was made in regard to Abraham claims Chris Monckton “fails to give the full reference again and again”, because Monckton is using Harvard style (author – date) in-text notation – perfectly valid. Abraham claims Monckton should be giving the formal (Author, Initials., Year. Title of article. Full Title of Journal, Volume number (Issue/Part number), Page numbers. ) citation instead. Perhaps Abraham is unaware of the Harvard Reference System.
    Where is Monckton expected to fit such lengthy citations on a slide with 9 graphs. Monckton always offers a full list of references quoted by request and from his SPPI.org blog.

    Secondly, by ignoring the written work in favor of asking the author as in the Scheingruber case below is laughable.

    Thirdly, Abraham posited a methodology for inquiry but did not apply it. That’s akin to doing an economy test on a motor vehicle by stating you are going to fill the tank and seal it, reset the odometer and check how far you can get before the fuel runs out. Instead you forget to seal the tank, didn’t reset the odometer, so you ask the manufacturer what mileage you should’ve got. It produces an answer, that might even be correct, but you failed by your own standards.

    *3. Regarding Scheingruber, Abraham says, “I contacted Scheingruber to ask if Chris had correctly **had correctly interpreted his findings** he’s retired and he said “you know what talk to David Frank he’s up to date on this stuff”.

    The question asked was **”correctly interpreted findings”** was clearly a question for Scheingruber to answer. Yes he did, or no he did not. Whether Esper and Scheingruber (2004) was still valid was not asked by Abraham. It was not part of Abraham’s stated method of inquiry, nor is it what he asked Scheingruber.

    *4. Regarding Keigwin. There is no context as to what Keigwin is referring to or exactly what Abram asked him. Abraham makes no mention of the contents of Keigwin (1996). Assume whatever you like, Keigwin does not claim Monckton misrepresented him, he agrees with Monckton’s idea for Nuclear reactors and says forest the size of Australia.

    The question if Monckton misrepresented the existence of a MWP from Keigwin (1996) is not refuted regardless on what steps Keigwin thinks are needed for the future.

    *5. Regarding Huang. Does Abraham read Huang et al (1997) as he said he would – who knows as he certainly doesn’t mention it. Does he ask Huang – who knows he certainly doesn’t mention it or show any emails. Abraham did not apply either of his 2 stated methodologies, yet somehow we are supposed to give him a passing grade with Huang because Huang’s later paper has shifted the LIA, MWP and HM down slightly.

    Now let me restate this another way. If it was Monckton that was trying to disprove Abraham and was as sloppy with his methodology as Abraham was, you lot would tear him to pieces.

    Abraham did not support his argument using the methodologies he set out.

    If Abraham would’ve said. Let’s examine if Monckton’s claims are misleading because they are ignore superseding papers by the same authors, and if possible, let’s ask the authors too. Then he would have made a case, at least with Huang, and maybe with David Frank too. Otherwise, he posited an argument and did not support in with evidence.

    My personal view is that Huang et al (2008) does not at refute Huang et al (1997) it just moves the LIA, MWP, and HM down by about a degree. Keigwin may have refuted Monckton, but sadly Abraham did not tell us enough to know for sure. With Scheingruber, I just don’t know if Frank was a suitable choice as it is not clear if Frank is continuing Scheingruber’s work or not.

    Paul UK, once again, thank you for this opportunity to restate my case, and I hope I cleared up some points.

  88. #88 Paul UK
    June 9, 2010

    Tim can you delete the last post of ‘passing wind’ @275?

    The comments are attributed to me but are not my text at all.

  89. #89 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    jakerman,

    >Windy will you admit the hypocrisy of pushing Huang 2008 to support Monckton:

    No. But I admitted my error about the MWP compared to the 1961-1990 reference level regarding Huang et al (2008) already.
    See [post 161](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570192)

    I misstated the bet offer. What I wanted to say, was what chance is their that Huang is using the equivalent of Mike’s Nature trick by combining thermometer records with borehole reconstructions. Looks like I completely stuffed up that sentence doing the cut-n-paste rewrite shuffle.

    >We then invert this composite 2,000 meter temperature versus depth profile, synthesized from the instrumental record, the century-long temperature trends of HPS00, and the integrated heat flux versus depth data from HPS97, to yield a reconstruction of the surface temperature history over the past 20,000 years (Huang et al, 2008 p3).

    Looks like that is exactly Huang did. Used the findings from HPS97, modified them to fit with HPS00, and worked in the temperature record to boot. I am not criticizing this approach.

  90. #90 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    Paul UK wrote:
    >Tim can you delete the last post of ‘passing wind’ @275?
    The comments are attributed to me but are not my text at all.

    What rubbish. Not one comment is attributed to you as you claim, but I do address your [@266 post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575283). Please feel free to point to one quote I attribute to you in my [@275 post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575701)

  91. #91 Paul UK
    June 9, 2010

    Passing wind.

    You have successfully mis-referenced one of my comments.
    Are you sure you are not related to Monckton?

  92. #92 truth machine
    June 9, 2010

    Not one comment is attributed to you as you claim, but I do address your @266 post.

    Your link at the top of #275 is to Paul’s #268, not his #266, fool. And the form of your link is idiotic and confusing, making it appear that your text was posted by Paul.

  93. #93 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    To be clear Windy has [just confirmed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575815) he thinks [this Monckton styled selection criteria](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2575482) for evidence is fine:

    >Windy will you admit the hypocrisy of pushing Huang 2008 [to support Monckton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570167):

    >Monckton was also claiming that the IPCC had disappeared the MWP, and Huang [2008] et al does clearly state that the MWP was real and maybe as warm as today, and that there was the mid-Holocene warm period 1-2 deg warmer than today – much to Abbott’s pleasure.

    And here is the twist, then Windy immediately discards the paper [and the comparison](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570197) when he [realized](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570192) the paper had a result he didn’t like:

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

    Can you see what this reveals Windy?

  94. #94 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    Posted by: truth machine

    Your link at the top of #275 is to Paul’s #268, not his #266, fool. And the form of your link is idiotic and confusing, making it appear that your text was posted by Paul.

    How so, author attribution is always the last item in a post, not the first. Not so confusing is it?

    Paul’s @266 post has been removed. Here’s Paul UK’s post in full.

    >Passing wind @92

    >> He attempts to debunk this by looking at some of Monckton’s citations, Esper and Schweingruber (2004), Keigwin (1996), Noon et al (2003), and Huang et al (1998) He tries to do this without actually reading the papers.

    >You don’t actually know that he hasn’t read them.

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

    >Yes I have, from beginning to end. I have also revisited it a few times. Don’t you think it is a bit unwise to say “would not get a passing grade for a first year paper” of Abraham whilst at the same time defending Monckton.

    >That strikes me as being cynical. It also contradicts your later postings here that seem to suggest science isn’t being discussed.

    >If you really want to discuss science, then I suggest you have a go at Monckton as well for his obvious flaws.

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

    >Incorrect. He actually says he is retired, that he was out of touch with the current science and that David Frank was upto date with the latest research. That sounds like a reasonable comment to make as a professional and responsible person who wants to give good advice. But if you are looking for a conspiracy…

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

    >Erm, by any standards that in itself makes an assumption about Keigans response. Keigan writes ‘You are absolutely right…’ Keigan also states that an area the size of Australia needs to be reforest.

    >> Next attempts to show Monckton’s use of Huang et al (1998) graph is wrong, not by reference to that paper, but to a paper by Huang in 2008. Never mind that in 1998, Huang et al stated

    >Erm, you are reversing the issue. The issue is why did Monckton apparently use out of date material that supported his view, when he should have been using more recent material? Monckton is a politician, he is a member of a political party and gets involved in politics. That should be a good enough clue.

  95. #95 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons’s sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false [See slide 115](http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/) [CM 23] for a problematic example. Where; . (Nice word salad attempt at bluster thought by Windy).

    BTW Windy, why do you cite Huang 1997 instead of 1998 like Monckton does?

    Scheingruber having retired refers to Frank who clear says that “**data indicates that temperatures now, are indeed much warmer than during Medievil times”.**

    It is disingenuous to claim:

    >*There is no context as to what Keigwin is referring to or exactly what Abram asked him.*

    When approched about his paper, to side with either Monckton’s or Abraham’s interpretaion, Keigwin clearly says that **”[Abraham is] absolutely right”** and goes on to ridicule Monckton for having **no background in science**.

    Windy’s sophistry with Huang’s work is obvious and indefensible. Huang’s early paper made no comparison with current temperatures. And Huang’s subsequent studies (that did not meet Monckton’s highly biased selection criteria) did make the comparison and moreover it showed that current temperatures are warmer than at MWP. Is that selection methodology an example of truth seeking practice Windy?

    Out of interest, do you really judge that Monckton makes a credible case for the MWP being warmer than today?

  96. #96 truth machine
    June 9, 2010
  97. #97 Passing Wind
    June 9, 2010

    jakerman,

    >Windy has taken to repeating bogus claims, such claiming Mocktons’s sources are adequately referenced. This is demonstrably false See slide 115 [CM 23] for a problematic example. Where; . (Nice word salad attempt at bluster thought by Windy).

    jakerman, I have never claimed Monckton’s sources were adequately resourced other than the graphs Monckton displays are in the cited papers, a point Abraham does not comment on. Nor does Abraham suggest that the graphs were used out of context – which may have been a valid point with regard to HPS97 stating data did not include the 20th century.

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

    jakerman, you are guilty of using a classic strawman argument. From my very first post in this thread, I have clearly stated my review was limited to slides 25 – 32 because Abraham made the MWP central part of the argument when he said

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

    and as I most delicately put it @ 158:
    >If we are in a natural warm period, who gives a $hit about the rest of the presentation

    that’s why it is central.

    @ 92 Passing Wind wrote:
    > Abraham’s slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton’s claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today.

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

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

    @ 142 Passing Wind wrote:
    >Abraham’s slides from 25 to 32 attempt to debunk Monckton’s claim that 700 scientists believed the MWP to be warmer than today.

    @152 Passing Wind wrote:
    >More the pity that Abraham made the question of the MWP being warmer than today central to his argument.

    @158 Passing Wind wrote:
    >I haven’t watched, or dissected all of Abraham’s presentation – as I have made clear on many occasions. I also made it clear that I chose this part of Abraham’s presentation because Abraham states

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

    Other than commenting on Abraham scolding Monckton’s used of the Hardvard in-text Reference System (see slide 8), I make no comment about any other section of Abraham’s presentation, as I have made abundantly clear many times above.

    Feel free to point out any other part of Abraham’s discussion I have written about.

  98. #98 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2010

    > What rubbish. Not one comment is attributed to you as you claim, …

    So, when you began your post in the following fashion (my emphasis):

    > Posted by: **Paul UK** | June 9, 2010 5:21 AM

    > Thank you **Paul**, at least someone is prepared to examine my points and discuss them, even if you don’t agree.

    > If I may, I’d like to answer some of **your** points.

    …you were **intentionally** addressing someone other than Paul’s points whilst writing such that the **only** reasonable interpretation was that you were attributing the points to Paul?

    And after it was pointed out to you, you doubled down with “What rubbish. …”?

    Are you **sure** you’re not Monckton? Because you’re poor on logic and constitutionally incapable of admitting plainly visible error.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    June 9, 2010

    > …at least someone is prepared to examine my points and discuss them.

    What a load of rot!

    If you want to adopt a martyr complex to garner sympathy or imply bias and error or deflect attention from the paucity of your argument, it certainly [helps](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570025) … [to](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570032) … [ignore](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570130) … [countervailing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570201) … [evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570210) … and I’m only up to post #166 – readers can assay the rest for themselves).

    It also helps especially to ignore [highly pertinent questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570013):

    > did Monckton misrepresent the current beliefs of scientists or the overall state of the science?

    …and to [make questionable assumptions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2570019):

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

    …in favour of quibbling.

  100. #100 jakerman
    June 9, 2010

    Windy writes:

    Regarding [Windy's claims that Abraham] “would not get a passing grade for a first year paper”, that was made in regard to Abraham claims Chris Monckton “fails to give the full reference again and again”, because Monckton is using Harvard style (author – date) in-text notation – perfectly valid. [...].

    Then when I provided and examle [demostrating Windy's claim was wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/monckton_is_wrong.php#comment-2577245), Windy switched the story, writing:

    >*I have never claimed Monckton’s sources were adequately resourced other than the graphs Monckton displays are in the cited papers, a point Abraham does not comment on.*

    And windy has the gaul to accuse me of attacking a strawman:

    >*jakerman, you are guilty of using a classic strawman argument. From my very first post in this thread, I have clearly stated my review was limited to slides 25 – 32 because Abraham made the MWP central part of the argument.*

    How can you calim Abraham is off target in his critique by excluding parts of the presentation which substantiate Abrahams critique? Obviously your latest excuse shows you were ill informed to make the judgement you made about Moncktons citations.

    Again, congratulations on the handwaying attempt to distract from the issue and flaws in Monckton’s work.

Current ye@r *